Publications

Eagan, Robert J.; Eagan, Robert J.

Abstract not provided.

Baker, Arnold B.; Woodall, Tommy D.; Hines, W.C.; Hutchinson, Robert L.; Eagan, Robert J.; Moonka, Ajoy K.; Falcone, Patricia K.; Swinson, Mark S.; Harris, Joe M.; Webb, Erik K.; Herrera, Gilbert V.

Critical infrastructures underpin the domestic security, health, safety and economic well being of the United States. They are large, widely dispersed, mostly privately owned systems operated under a mixture of federal, state and local government departments, laws and regulations. While there currently are enormous pressures to secure all aspects of all critical infrastructures immediately, budget realities limit available options. The purpose of this study is to provide a clear framework for systematically analyzing and prioritizing resources to most effectively secure US critical infrastructures from terrorist threats. It is a scalable framework (based on the interplay of consequences, threats and vulnerabilities) that can be applied at the highest national level, the component level of an individual infrastructure, or anywhere in between. This study also provides a set of key findings and a recommended approach for framework application. In addition, this study develops three laptop computer-based tools to assist with framework implementation-a Risk Assessment Credibility Tool, a Notional Risk Prioritization Tool, and a County Prioritization tool. This study's tools and insights are based on Sandia National Laboratories' many years of experience in risk, consequence, threat and vulnerability assessments, both in defense- and critical infrastructure-related areas.

Blejwas, Thomas E.; Sanders, Thomas L.; Eagan, Robert J.; Baker, Arnold B.

Nuclear power is an important and, the authors believe, essential component of a secure nuclear future. Although nuclear fuel cycles create materials that have some potential for use in nuclear weapons, with appropriate fuel cycles, nuclear power could reduce rather than increase real proliferation risk worldwide. Future fuel cycles could be designed to avoid plutonium production, generate minimal amounts of plutonium in proliferation-resistant amounts or configurations, and/or transparently and efficiently consume plutonium already created. Furthermore, a strong and viable US nuclear infrastructure, of which nuclear power is a large element, is essential if the US is to maintain a leadership or even participatory role in defining the global nuclear infrastructure and controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. By focusing on new fuel cycles and new reactor technologies, it is possible to advantageously burn and reduce nuclear materials that could be used for nuclear weapons rather than increase and/or dispose of these materials. Thus, the authors suggest that planners for a secure nuclear future use technology to design an ideal future. In this future, nuclear power creates large amounts of virtually atmospherically clean energy while significantly lowering the threat of proliferation through the thoughtful use, physical security, and agreed-upon transparency of nuclear materials. The authors must develop options for policy makers that bring them as close as practical to this ideal. Just as Atoms for Peace became the ideal for the first nuclear century, they see a potential nuclear future that contributes significantly to power for peace and prosperity.