Publications

Abstract not provided.

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.

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.

For nearly fifty years the US held a dominant position in research and development in the free world. The situation has changed dramatically in the last decade. Countries around the world realize that to foster sustainable economic growth, they must build and maintain a foundation in science and technology. The time in which a country could base its gross national product solely on extraction of raw materials or on people-intensive manufacturing is drawing to a close. The funding for research and development has been growing in the rest of the world, while US expenditures have not kept pace. In 1961, the United States funded 71 `?40 of the world's R&D. It is estimated that the US contribution to research and development fimding today has reached the 3 3o/0 level, and will drop to 26o/0 of the world's total by 2003.1 In 1981 US government spending per capita on non-defense research and development was nearly fifty percent above our major competitors; by 2002 it is projected to be f@ percent below them.2 This trend has a profound impact on how research and development institutions in the United States plan for their future technical growth. Sandia National Laboratories, as one of the largest US-government tided research establishments, has been watching this trend for some time. %ndi~ focusing on the Laboratories' missions in nuclear weapons and related defense systems, energy security, environmental integrity, and emerging national challenges, is committed to bringing the best in world-class technology to bear on the nation's problems. We realize maintaining our state-of-the-art technolo=~ base requires we look not only to domestic sources in universities, industries and other laboratories, but also to sources overseas. The realization that we must be "worldwide gatherers of technology" has led Sandia National Laboratories to consider the question of international partnering in some detaiI. As a national laboratory with a national security mission we are well aware of the issues that we face in pursuing international collaborations. In order to make the proper decisions, we are interested in understanding the history of such partnerships, when they are appropriate, why we expect them to be important, the risks they present and what we can do to mitigate those risks.