Last updated December 7, 2005.

1. What are the goals of the UC Nuclear Free campaign?
2. How did the University of California get involved in the development of nuclear weapons?
3. Is UC a better choice for managing weapons labs than a defense contractor?
4. What are the terms of the UC’s relationship with the Department of Energy?
5. When did the UC Nuclear Free campaign start?
6. What are the main campaign activities?
7. Why is this so important right now?
8. Who are the UC Regents?
9. How do the Regents explain UC's role in nuclear weapons research?
10. Do students have any power to make a difference on this issue?

1. What are the goals of the UC Nuclear Free campaign?

We are resolved, as part of the larger task of ending all nuclear weapons design, research, and production worldwide, to work through education and non-violent direct action to sever the University of California’s ties to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico.

Other, short-term goals include raising awareness among University of California students about their university's role in producing nuclear weapons; building a mass movement among UC students to demilitarize their university through grassroots education and outreach, with a mind to multicultural, intergenerational, and class diversity concerns; nurturing leadership qualities and skills among prospective and current UC students as well as younger UC alumni; and supporting individuals, organizations, and activities that strive for a just, compassionate, and sustainable global society.

2. How did the UC get involved in the development of nuclear weapons?

In the 1930s, advancements by a global network of nuclear physicists led to the awareness that atomic energy could be transformed into a weapon of inconceivable destruction. At the time, the University of California was widely recognized for its achievements in various fields of science, including nuclear physics. During World War II, the fear that Hitler was crafting a nuclear weapon caused extreme alarm throughout many highly influential academic and political circles. In a letter dated August 2, 1939, Albert Einstein warned President Roosevelt, "…A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory…" This warning combined with a series of other events such as Pearl Harbor, as well as a realization of the political advantages a nuclear weapons arsenal might bring, was enough to convince the US government to finance the construction of this new category of weapons.

What has come to be known as the Manhattan Project involved numerous well-known universities and corporations initially, e.g., University of Chicago, Columbia University, General Electric, and Chrysler. Eventually, three main sites were selected for work on the bomb: Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; and Los Alamos, New Mexico. While Brigadier General Leslie Groves supervised the overall project, Berkeley professor J. Robert Oppenheimer managed the day-to-day operations. Research and development continued even after the fear that Hitler's regime possessed atomic bombs proved to be unfounded. The project culminated in the New Mexican desert with the first successful atomic-bomb test on July 16, 1945. Weeks later, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan lay in ruin.

To this day, historians debate whether it was necessary to bomb these two cities. However, few debate the central role that the University of California played not only in the development and production of the first two atomic bombs, but also in the thousands that followed in the decades throughout the Cold War.

3. Is the UC a better choice for managing weapons labs than a defense contractor?

In short, no.  In fact, the UC’s primary function as "manager" has always been to provide a smokescreen of academic integrity to the research and development of nuclear weapons.  As a 1970 UC Academic Senate committee put it, the UC essentially serves as a “benevolent absentee landlord” with respect to LANL and LLNL: Its “management” of the facilities creates an illusion that the labs’ programs are being monitored, when, in reality, the UC has absolutely no influence over these programs.  This shield of false credibility has consistently prevented the programs at the labs from being scrutinized by the press, public and Congress during the past 60 years.

4. What are the terms of the UC’s relationship with the Department of Energy?

The University of California is a contractor for three laboratories owned by the Department of Energy: Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California (founded in 1931); Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico (founded in 1943); and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California (founded in 1952). The contracts for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore fall under the supervision of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a division of the DoE that carries out its nuclear responsibilities (including researching, developing, and maintaining nuclear weapons). Lawrence Berkeley, as a non-nuclear weapons lab, is under the direction of the Office of Science within the DoE.

The annual budget for these facilities is roughly $4 billion in any given year. Currently, $1.3 billion is allotted for weapons research at Los Alamos, and $1.2 billion for Lawrence Livermore, meaning the vast majority of research at each facility is weapons-related. The University receives a small administrative fee for their managerial services.

5. When did the UC Nuclear Free campaign start?

The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation launched the UC Nuclear Free Campaign in the spring of 2001. Within months, the campaign joined with pre-existing efforts, particularly Tri-Valley CAREs' Project Exodus and Fiat Pax's campus organizing efforts at UC Santa Cruz. UC Nuclear Free stands on the shoulders of a strong legacy of disarmament organizing in the UC system. While UC Nuclear Free serves as the name of an education- and action-oriented campaign, another name has emerged to represent the various organizations working on the campaign and related issues – the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California. This name acknowledges that nuclear weapons are just the tip of the iceberg and the grossest example of a larger trend being an increasing militarization of U.S. schools.

Additional Coalition founding members include Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland , California; Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe , New Mexico; the Nevada Desert Experience in Berkeley, California; Los Alamos Study Group in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and student groups on key UC campuses including Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, San Diego, and Davis.

6. What are the main campaign activities?

The main campaign activities are Grassroots Education (a student-led class on militarization of the UC system, workshops, teach-ins, tabling, materials development and distribution, this Web site, etc.), Reaching Out to Science Students, and Speaking Out at UC Regents Meetings (while, in turn, challenging the legitimacy of top-down administrations that bind their universities to the nuclear weapons complex).  We also engage in a number of coalition-building activities (UC-wide, University of Texas, NewNational Youth and Student Peace Coalition, etc.). Regularly, we discuss coalition strategy via conference calls and conferences.

7. Why is this so important right now?

For the first time in history, the contract to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory is up for bid. The UC is competing with a “consortium” comprised of the University of Texas, Lockheed Martin, two other corporations, and 33 other universities.  To take on this team, the UC has partnered with Bechtel Corporation, two other corporations, and New Mexico’s three research universities. 

In large part, this competition is a result of a series of recent management failures involving security lapses and employee fraud. This bidding competition unveils the political and profit-oriented elements of the nuclear weapons industry, undermining the "public service" rationale that the UC Regents use to justify their support of the UC's role in nuclear weapons development.

On a larger level, the Bush administration has taken steps toward the first production, development, and resumed testing of nuclear weapons of in two decades, since the midst of the Cold War. The recent measures relaxing the ban on research regarding small-scale nuclear weapons are not only a step backwards in the nonproliferation process, but also violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, these policy changes may lead to the development of an entirely new class of weapons that can mass destruct programmed targets. Tolerating this research will blur the line between conventional and nuclear arms as mini-nukes are marketed as less of a danger than existing nuclear weapons. Some experts claim that because they can be aimed at declared targets like Iran, Syria, and North Korea with greater precision than large-scale nuclear arms, it is more plausible that the U.S. would actually use mini-nukes.

The mission of an educational institution like the University of California should not include enabling and legitimizing state-sanctioned violence and weapons of mass destruction. We are at a turning point, as students have joined with faculty and alumni in becoming increasingly vocal and active participants during the midst of the bidding competition.

8. Who Are the UC Regents?

The Regents are a highly undemocratic and unaccountable group of mostly-wealthy individuals who, in a fairer world, would not actually be governing the UC.
They are essentially the Board of Directors of the UC system.  They have complete control over the UC, with its annual budget of nearly $16 billion, 208,000 students, 120,000 faculty and staff, and ten campuses.  They also currently manage (albeit in the fashion of an absentee landlord) the nation’s two primary nuclear weapons research and design labs, the Los Alamos (LLNL) and Lawrence Livermore (LLNL) labs.

Of the 26 members of the Board, eighteen are appointed by the governor for 12-year terms.  There is one student regent (selected by the other regents), along with seven “ex-officio” regents, including California’s governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the assembly, and superintendent of public instruction, and the president and vice president of the UC Alumni Association.

Because most Regents are appointed by the governor, they are invariably members of California’s economic elite.  Often, their appointments are largely political kickbacks for huge contributions to gubernatorial campaigns.  For example, Regent John C. Moores (net worth: $750 million) contributed $232,751 to the Grey Davis campaign between 1997 and 1999, prior to his appointment by Davis in the latter year.

9. How do the Regents explain UC's role in nuclear weapons research?

There are 4 common arguments that you'll hear from the UC president, public relations officers, Regents, lab directors, and others invested in weapons research: public service, national security, status and prestige, and historical momentum.

The UC Office of the President claims that management of nuclear labs is a “public service to the nation.” However, the research and development of more weapons of mass destruction serve to intensify the fear and insecurity that people and countries have in this precarious world. The most innovative work being conducted is not only the most destructive but also classified, negating the concept of the labs as anything “public.”

Furthermore, nuclear research does not fortify “national security” because nuclear weapons are not needed for security. The current nuclear arsenal of the United States consists of approximately 10,000 weapons. With the new research being permitted for a new generation of nuclear weapons under the guise of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, the actual development of new arms is possible. The current stockpile is sufficient to destroy the world numerous times over, so further production can hardly be considered a necessity.

Although the UC Regents claim the research brings status and prestige, they are actually losing much respect from the communities in which these labs are located. Lawrence Livermore is responsible for dumping 47,500 barrels of toxic waste from the coast of Farrellon Islands near San Francisco, the location of the west coast's largest fishery. Half of the estimated $60 million in state taxes Los Alamos would be accountable for would be put towards education, but because of its management with the University of California, the nuclear weapons research being conducted there is considered ‘nonprofit and educational.' Neither lab pays state taxes.

The UC Regents also claim historical momentum: Since their labs have been researching weapons of mass destruction for over sixty years, why stop now? Such pessimistic thinking seems to deny the fact that change is possible. Despite its historic ties with the nuclear weapons industry, the UC can rethink its morals and make a conscious choice to not support further proliferation.

10. Do students have any power to make a difference on this issue?

Students have been at the forefront of mass political movements for generations.  Student movements at the University of California have a particularly rich, successful history.  In the 1980s, for instance, thousands of UC students participated in a grassroots campaign to pressure the UC Regents to divest their stock holdings in companies doing business in South Africa during the Apartheid government era.  The movement worked; the Regents withdrew their $3 billion in investments that were helping uphold the Apartheid regime. Numerous other universities and institutions followed. Apartheid later collapsed under the outside economic pressure -- the collapse was directly attributable to the students' efforts.

While the movement has never achieved its ultimate goal, the campaign to sever the UC’s ties to the weapons labs has a long history based on a number of notable successes.

Faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community members have power.  The Regents are notoriously undemocratic and inattentive to student concerns.  However, if we build a mass UC-wide movement that is powerful, clever, focused, and mobilizes a large critical mass of students, it is possible to make the powers-that-be accountable in any top-down institution -- including the University of California.