Discussions in scientific nuclear diplomacy

Hecker replies: Irvin Lindemuth is correct in urging the Obama administration to redouble its efforts to rejuvenate US–Russia lab-to-lab nuclear cooperation. It is tragic that now, more than 15 years after Presidential Decision Directive PDD/NSC-47, we have fewer collaborations despite stockpile challenges after 20 years without nuclear testing and the need for deeper reductions of the nuclear arsenals on both sides.

Alexander DeVolpi rightly points out the essential contributions of US nongovernment organizations and individuals to nuclear scientific diplomacy with the Soviet Union. In addition to the ones he names, individuals from MIT, Harvard and Stanford Universities, and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control contributed, as did individuals from the Russian Academy of Sciences. Those organizations and individuals prepared the path for the Nunn–Lugar legislation. Early visits to the Russian nuclear weapons institutes by DeVolpi and some of my Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore colleagues should be similarly commended.

I find it unfortunate that DeVolpi appears to lay much of the blame for the cold war and the difficult post–cold war transition on the weapons labs. I was director at Los Alamos during the transition, and I believe we did a commendable job in meeting our primary responsibility of a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile while reaching out to our Russian counterparts as soon as we felt the cold war’s thaw. The collaborations allowed scientists such as Lindemuth from Los Alamos and their Russian counterparts to work hand in hand to generate first-rate science, develop respect and trust, and contribute to a safer world.

Ken LaGattuta laments the change in contracting of the US nuclear weapons physics design labs to for-profit entities. I fully concur. However, I take strong exception to his insinuation that my work on the North Korean nuclear problem is meant to create fear of North Korean nuclear aggression and generate political pressure for more US weapons R&D. That’s nonsense. My aim is to provide as accurate a picture as possible of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities to assist a diplomatic resolution. His critique of my having signed a letter expressing concerns about some specific language in the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is similarly off the mark.

Great detective work by Denes Marton. Thanks for pointing out the unmistakable style of French caricaturist Jean Effel in the stockpile stewardship depiction presented by Rady Ilkaev. One of the Russian institute’s artists clearly borrowed from Effel’s characters to bring them into the world of nuclear weapons.