The labs are here to stay

New Mexico Business Journal, Nov, 1996 by Larry Spohn

And there's still talk about eliminating some of those national labs, like New Mexico's nuclear weapon research centers, as part of the save-the-country, reduce-the-deficit mentality. To be sure, Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories each has a billion-dollar-a year-budget.

But like Mark Twain's reported demise, the death of the national labs is greatly exaggerated for one simple reason: the nation and the world are not ready to give up the awesome power, defensive and offensive, of nuclear weapons. Why? Because there still are plenty of threats around the globe in which nuclear deterrence will play a role, and perhaps a scenario or two in which the use of a warhead might be the lesser of two evils.

Sure, the geopolitical world has changed and for now, the United States has no superpower counterpart anywhere. But we also have gun control measures in this country. That doesn't mean its a good idea to wander a lot of urban streets after dark without protection.

And that's the way America's political leaders and probably a majority of the people who elect them, still figure it. When it comes to warheads, better maintain the nuclear priesthood that has designed, built and tested them. The fundamental missions of both Sandia and Los Alamos are safe for the near future, and despite the posturing in Washington, so, by and large are their budgets. The evidence of this is consistent and recurring over the last half decade. For most of the Cold War, places like Sandia and Los Alamos were taken for granted. For most Americans, the labs have been like the warheads they produced: out of sight, out of mind.

During the 1988 election, when the "Star Wars" space program was on the ropes and it looked like Sandia and Los Alamos budgets might suffer severely, people asked who would be better for New Mexico, a President Dukakis or President Bush. Remember those posed photographs at military bases and in tanks as the candidates tried to outdo each other as the picture of a commander in chief?

The consensus among New Mexico political experts, economists and lab watchers back then was that it really did not matter much from our perspective which candidate won. The Soviet menace meant either would maintain the nuclear infrastructure and perhaps strengthen it.

Even as the Soviet empire collapsed and the world began to look a lot less dangerous, nobody with any real clout gave slashing the labs or DOE a second thought. During the last election, both Bush and Clinton beat a path to New Mexico, vowing their commitment to the labs as defenders of democracy.

And President Clinton has returned as the first sitting president since Kennedy to actually visit Los Alamos and proclaim it integral to the nation's security. The recent campaign was hardly any different. Barely out of the convention starting gate, Bob Dole came to Sandia, insisting that all that talk back in Washington about punching DOE's ticket didn't mean a hoot for the much-valued national labs in New Mexico. He guaranteed that for as long as he would be president. Clinton had done as much on numerous visits earlier, paying homage to those who helped win the Cold War and who continue to work to safeguard the nation.

Did it matter to New Mexico's defense economy, whether Dole or Clinton prevailed? Not fundamentally, although Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have been very supportive about expanding these labs' missions to include technology transfer, which figures to enhance the nation's global economic competitiveness.

In other words, the administration supports the idea advanced by former Sandia President Al Narath that economic security is fundamental to national security and that makes it part of the mission of the national laboratories.

So in addition to keeping watch over the stockpile, developing technology that helps keep warheads and nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists and finding ways to better clean up the nuclear legacy, look for New Mexico's national labs to figure prominently in your high-tech future. They will continue to help unravel the human genetic blueprint, develop wonder materials that can make a host of products more durable and find new ways to make energy less expensive and more abundant.

In this country, we love to put our politicians down. But when it comes to national security and the labs that boost New Mexico's economy, they aren't dumb. And neither are the voters who continue to elect them.

Says retiring Los Alamos Laboratory Director Sig Hecker, Los Alamos' "nuclear-stewardship role will be there as long as this country thinks it needs nuclear weapons."

And chances are that they will not be under military authority, but will continue to be managed by a civilian agency directly responsible to the president, such as the Department of Energy. That's the way its been for 50 years, 10 presidents and 13 elections.

Larry Spohn covers science and technology for the Albuquerque Tribune and the New Mexico Business Journal.