I think one thing is missing. Reliability, Surety, Knowledge etc is all here but really RRW is not and was never really driven by these things. These are shields used to try and get the program through Congress.

This is really about changing the US nuclear weapons complex to suit new conceptions of deterrence. By focusing on reliability and so on critics of RRW are in danger of missing the big picture.

This conclusion is implicit in the analysis. Those pushing this know that LEP is up to the job. If the stockpile is reliable and exhibits high surety and can remain so under LEP then there must be other reasons why RRW is being pushed.

How is that everybody ignores this point? The point of RRW analysis should be to discern these true underlying reasons. Just because Arms Control Today states that RRW is about reliability and not new notions of deterrence doesn’t make it so.

Remember when ACT told us that Clinton’s PDD60 didn’t cut against negative security assurances?

safety: If you drop the sucker on your toe or expose it to a fire or external chemical explosion you do not get a blast and the hazardous materials inside are well contained.

security: No unauthorized users are able to set off the nuclear explosion or safely disassemble the bomb and extract the good stuff for their own uses.

surety: When properly order to explode it does.