UC Nuclear Free - Learn More - Frequently Asked Questions

Learn More :: Frequently Asked Questions

In the 1930's, advancements by a global network of nuclear physicists led to the awareness that atomic energy could be transformed into a weapon of inconceivable destruction. Even at this early stage, the University of California was known for its exceptional faculty, facilities and achievements in nuclear physics. During World War II, the fear that Hitler was crafting such a 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, most notably the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 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, 3 main sites were selected: Oak Ridge , Tennessee ; Hanford , Washington ; and Los Alamos , New Mexico . The $2 billion top-secret project combined the efforts of more than 175,000 of the nation's best scientific minds. 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 2 cities. However, few debate the central role that the University of California played not only in the development and production of the first 2 atomic bombs, but also in the thousands that followed in the decades throughout the Cold War. UC's role as default defense contractor has been challenged only within the last year when the Department of Energy announced that the implementation of a competitive bidding process for the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract.

2. What is the relationship between the University of California and the Department of Energy? | Top

The University of California manages 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), which carries out the nuclear responsibilities (including researching, developing, and maintaining nuclear weapons) of the DoE. 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 totals near $4 billion. $1.3 billion is allotted for weapons research at Los Alamos , and $1.2 billion for Lawrence Livermore, meaning a total of $2.5 billion (63% of the total lab budget) for nuclear weapons research. The University receives an administrative fee for their managerial services.

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 the many veteran activists who conducted decades of individual and community organizing efforts toward a world at peace. 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 .

Our goals are to raise awareness among students within the University of California system about their university's role in producing nuclear weapons by providing historical information, current events analysis, and suggested actions; nurture leadership qualities and skills among prospective and current UC students as well as younger UC alumni; (re)introduce the nuclear debate within the larger peace and social justice movement while strengthening this movement through heightened attention to multicultural, intergenerational, and class diversity concerns; and support individuals, organizations, and activities highlighting alternative visions and action plans for creating a more just and compassionate global society.

The main campaign activities include grassroots education (workshops, teach-ins, tabling, materials development, websites, etc.), leadership development (public speaking, editorial feedback, mentoring, etc.), and coalition-building (UC-wide, University of Texas , National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, etc.). Regularly, we discuss coalition strategy via conference calls and speak during the public comment session of UC Regents' meetings.

6. Is UC a better choice for managing weapons labs than a defense contractor? | Top

Common characterizations of universities claim transparency and accountability levels higher than corporations as well as less profit motive and lobbying activities. However, UC is not better than a defense contractor. As an institution that provides weapons developers with the smokescreen of academic integrity and the cheap labor of thousands of students, UC is a defense contractor bound by terms that the Department of Energy sets. These terms would be the same for any institution performing the work. Furthermore, one proposal being considered involves a partnership between the university and a defense company within which UC would focus on the scientific and research aspects of the national laboratories and the corporate entity which manage the finances and security. Such an arrangement would further blur the lines between UC and corporate contractors.

For the first time in history, later this year a bidding competition will begin for the contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory. 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" rational that the UC Regents use to justify theirsupport of 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.

A mission of a great 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, but only if students join with faculty and alumni in becoming vocal and active participants in the bidding competition.

UC has appointed a Vice President of Laboratory Management, explored the creation of an advisory committee made up of experts from the defense industry, and initiated conversations with defense corporations regarding a possible joint bid. Early within his term as UC president, Robert Dynes stated, “It is premature for the University to make a decision on whether it will compete or not; it will depend on the Department of Energy and the request for proposals—what the conditions are. If the conditions are consistent with the mission of the University of California , then I believe we should go forward. That having been said, I believe at the moment we should continue to prepare as if we will be competing.”

The University of Texas (UT) has allocated $500,000 to bid for Los Alamos National Laboratory. Estimates indicate that the entire bidding process could cost $6 million. UT is a massive institution with a $7 billion annual operating budget; 170,000 students and 105,000 faculty and staff. UT's political clout extends to the White House.

Primarily an engineering-construction company, Bechtel became more of a household name when the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded them the $34.6 million contract to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led attack. Its 47,000 employees span 60 countries.

Self-described as an “advanced technology company,” Lockheed Martin is one of the major defense contractors for the U.S. government. Although their focus is largely on aviation, Lockheed Martin manages Sandia NationalLaboratories in Texas , which has the core responsibility of maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.

University of New Mexico and New Mexico State , as institutions of Los Alamos ' home state, are also likely candidates to bid.

Battelle Lab—The manager and co-manager of several industry and government labs, Battelle is based in Columbus , Ohio with a staff of 16,000.

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 mini-nukes and an earth penetrating weapon, 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. Whereas during the Cold War the United States manufactured nuclear weapons as deterrents in the US-USSR arms race, the current U.S. foreign policy establishment seems to view nuclear weapons as merely another military having named specific targets including Iran , Syria , and North Korea . Our nuclear stockpile completely overshadows that of any other country, leaving us under no real threat of nuclear attack despite the government's excuses for pre-emption.

Although the UC thinks the research brings status and prestige, it is 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.

It is common for pro-lab advocates to cite the indisputable high caliber of UC faculty, staff, and students when arguing why UC should continue managing nuclear weapons laboratories. However when these same faculty, staff, and students oppose nuclear weapons development, the Regents largely ignore their sentiments. UC has 1.2 million alumni; 180,000 students; and 150,000 faculty and staff. UC received over $1 billion dollars per year, largely from alumni. Faculty, staff, students, alumni, and community members have power. Through better organizing and clearly expressing our power in creative, focused ways, we can make a difference.