Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Lawrence Livermore Lab On The Chopping Block? 394

Posted by chrisd
from the he-threated-me-in-the-real-world dept.
guttentag writes "According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush's Homeland Security plan calls for transferring $1.2 billion of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's $1.5 billion budget to a new Department of Homeland Security under Tom Ridge. However, the plan transfers only 4 percent of the lab's employees. Ridge's explanation of the numbers: "I cannot give you the kind of explanation you need to deal with that imbalance." LLNL funded and houses the ASCI White supercomputer, among other cool projects." While Livermore has an impressive research record, we would miss most the laser lab from Tron.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawrence Livermore Lab On The Chopping Block?

Comments Filter:
  • Misprint (Score:5, Informative)

    by Henry V .009 (518000) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:33PM (#3682103) Journal
    Cancel the flames. Tom Ridge says it is probably a misprint.
  • Wont die (Score:4, Informative)

    by NovaX (37364) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:46PM (#3682184)
    The title makes it sound like LLNL will be shut down. I know numerous people who work there, most of which on a massive project called NIF. Tron was shot in SHEVA, which was replaced by NOVA (deriving my nick), which is being replaced by NIF. NIF is the largest fusion laser, based on ICF principles, and is under full swing of construction. It will be brought up later this year. In fact, France has a smaller 8-laser version that just came up this last week and LLNL employees flown there in order to observe any difficulties. This project is a multi-billion dollar one which I severely doubt the government will allow to be scrapped due to budget cuts like this.

    So, the most I can see if LLNL being streamlined. I doubt Congress will even give 10% of what they're requesting out of LLNL's budget. LLNL does valuable research in weapon, energy, materials, etc. The government labs are run under the DOE, but do most of their expensive work for the DOD, such as NIF and ASCII being mostly for nuclear research. When the lab scare with China occured it was suggested that the DOD take over the labs, but instead they finally got their act together. Since this is most of the budget, I could only guess they are really trying to transfer the lab to this new department or the Bush administration going to screw everything up.
  • Don't worry. Yet. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow (508) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:49PM (#3682195) Homepage
    The article I read indicates that this is probably a misprint or other simple error.

    More newsworthy: The Bush Administration is holding three US citizens in military custody, with no rights to legal representation or due process.

    Jesus Christ, am I the only one who this terrifies? Am I going to someday have to explain to my kids why, on old episodes of Law & Order, the suspects weren't simply turned over to the military when they asked for a lawyer?

    • Time to watch The Siege [thesiege.com] again.
    • I'd be more terrified of 3 terrorists wandering around this country detonating dirty bombs. As far as the Law&Order thing, we aren't talking about 3 kids who were caught swiping gumdrops from the corner store. We are talking about people who want to come into this country and kill as many people as they can.
      • Re:Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Skyshadow (508) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @05:02PM (#3682268) Homepage
        Some people hold the flag sacred. I, on the other hand, hold the ideas embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the same esteem.

        It frightens and dismays me that you're willing to rip up our most basic civil rights by yelling "terrorist!", "smallpox!" and "dirty bomb!" at the top of your lungs.

        And these aren't people who "come into this country", they're citizens of the US. Every American should be outraged that Bush and company are so willing to disregard the rights he's sworn to defend.
        • by cpeterso (19082)

          And these aren't people who "come into this country", they're citizens of the US. Every American should be outraged that Bush and company are so willing to disregard the rights he's sworn to defend.


          Why does John Walker Lindh get a trial before running home to his mommy and daddy while Jose Padilla is held using secret evidence but without trial or a lawyer? John Walker was captured on the battlefield fighting with the Taliban, while Jose Padilla is guilty of maybe having met with al-Quaida and maybe having thought about planning to build a bomb.

          Is there a double standard? They are both US citizens, but John Walker is white and Jose Padilla is not. Has that affected their treatment?

          • My guess is money has more to do with it than race in this situation; Lindh has not only his white skin but his rich parents who have hired good lawyers to defend his rights. Also Lindh had no priors and was widely regarded as a good kid; Padilla is a former gang member with weapons charges and widely regarded as a thug.

            Either way it is ridiculous to consider either a threat to the fabric of the nation; the symbolic significance these people have been granted by the Bush administration's treatment of them as devil incarnates is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. Incidentally, it's pretty much the mirror image of the Manichaean worldview held by the type of people who join al Qaeda.

            So let's not piss on the Constitution in our morbid fear of a few thousand fanatics who want to light their shoes on fire. Find these bastards, try them, and destroy their ability to threaten us, of course, but let's not pretend the threat they pose is part of a cosmic battle between good and evil. That gives them way more power than they deserve. And if we're willing to trash our most precious liberties to run away from them, then perhaps we really are as weak as they say we are.
      • Maybe you should spend a little time reflecting on why it is that the U.S. is such a great country.

        I'll even get you started with a very enlightened quote from one of your own founding fathers:

        "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security."
        -Benjamin Franklin

      • > We are talking about people who want to come into this country and kill as many people as they can.

        You left out the subtle but oh-so-critical "are accused of".

    • You're either bitching about inadequate security, or you're bitching about vigorously enforcement of security.

      You have an armed body claiming they have the right to kill four million Americans, who have demonstrated a high degree of lethality to date. Why don't you drop out of your naive fantasy land for a while to hazard some concern for the true physical safety of your children rather than your own patrician sensibilities.

      • by bashibazouk (582054) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @05:48PM (#3682547) Journal
        Don't talk to me about "a high degree of lethality" or "concern for the true physical safety of your children" until the threat comes close to the yearly death rate of automobile accidents. 9/11 is down to what? 2850 or so for the twin towers and 800+ for the Pentagon. That pales compaired to the 40 to 50 thousand that die by auto every year in this country. If you really care about your kids, you should fear the car far more than al Qaueda.
    • Re:Don't worry. Yet. (Score:3, Informative)

      by TWR (16835)
      1. It's two citizens. One of whom hasn't lived here since he was a small child (child of Saudi nationals who happened to be born while parents were in the US. Yes, he's a citizen, but I bet he never thought of himself as an American until he found out that he could use that detail to get himself out of the pokey). The other sounds like he meets even an idiot's definition of traitor.

      2. Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even.

      -jon

      • by Skyshadow (508) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @05:14PM (#3682332) Homepage
        Precedent? Oh, you mean internment camps, right?

        Look, I don't care if these guys get arrested, tried and locked up in SuperMax for the rest of time. It's the whole lack of the middle part (you know, trial?) that worries me. Civil rights are what makes America something special, and I'm not so scared of terrorists that I'm willing to flush 'em down the toilet.

        You should agree with me. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that we can trust the government to always behave reponsibly and do the right thing. Jesus, why do you think we have a court system?

        • No, I don't mean internment camps, you uneducated troll. I'm talking about the Supreme Court decision in 1942 that allowed the US Government during WW II to execute US citizens after a military tribunal found them guilty of helping Nazis.

          As for the rest of your paranoid rantings, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," as Justice Arthur Goldberg once said. Lincoln was the president who suspended the most civil liberties. Last time I checked, the US survived, and quite possibly did so because he played so fast and loose with civil liberties.

          I trust the government to do the right thing because in the US, the people are the government. If the awful day arrives where that is no longer the case, then we can hope that the gun "nuts" are still well armed...because they're our only hope.

          -jon


      • > Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even.

        And the government is infallible, right?

        And what does the political gender of the president at that time have to do with it? "Democrats have set aside the constitution in the past, so Republicans can do it now", kind of thing?

        (Not to imply that I think a hypothetical Gore administration would be doing anything different right now.)

        • Of course the government isn't infallible. Infallibility doesn't enter into it. Shall we get rid of all police because they sometimes arrest the wrong man?

          Political gender has everything to do with the nitwits who seem to think that the Bush (or any Republican) administration is the reincarnation of the Third Reich. Just because you don't think so doesn't invalidate the point.

          -jon

      • Though completely off topic (with regard to the initial thread), I'll waste my karma for this one.

        " 1. It's two citizens. One of whom hasn't lived here since he was a small child (child of Saudi nationals who happened to be born while parents were in the US. Yes, he's a citizen, but I bet he never thought of himself as an American until he found out that he could use that detail to get himself out of the pokey). The other sounds like he meets even an idiot's definition of traitor.

        2. Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II. Democratic president, even."


        1. You nor I nor the President to decide how much of a citizen someone is. You are citizen or you are not a citizen. End of story.

        2. I'll be sure to remind you of that should they have "good reason" to think you are a "bad guy" and arrest you when you come back from your vacation in Egypt.

        Doesn't anyone think its odd that the moment someone questions loudly about what the govt knew before 9/11 we get an army of "terror warnings" and just as soon as the FOIA forces the FBI to own up to investigating and smearing Berkly students and teachers in the 70's with Reagans help we hear about some felon being arrested after coming back from Pakistan, when they had him in custody for a month before hand?

        Protecting freedoms does NOT require suspension of due process. The sky isn't falling, we aren't being invaded. We don't need to go back to the days of an FBI/CIA that overstepped their powers (Nixon, anyone?).
        • You are right; he is a citizen. However, I bet he was pretty darned surprised to find out that he was one; most countries don't have automatic citizenship just because you were born there. Kuwait gave the world a good example of this last week. When the US revealed the name of the person who the government thinks masterminded 9/11 and said he was Kuwaiti, the Kuwaiti government said that just because he was born and raised in Kuwait doesn't make him Kuwaiti. To Americans, this is head-scratching. To most of the world, it's common sense.

          And do you really think the government is arresting people because they went to Egypt on vacation? Are you a troll or paranoid?

          The sky isn't falling, we aren't being invaded.

          Tell that to the families of the 3,000 people killed in New York. When they kick your ass, I'll be smiling.

          -jon

      • by smiff (578693) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @08:56PM (#3683431)
        Precedent was established in 1942 during WW II.

        The USA-PATRIOT act specifically requires the Attorney General or President to declare someone an enemy combatant. One of the restrictions is that the person must not be a US citizen.

        The 1942 case [findlaw.com] involved persons who worked for an enemy that congress had declared war on. Congress has not declared war on Al Queda.

        To deny the civil rights of a certain class of people amounts to a Bill of Attainder [techlawjournal.com]. The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder.

        All the protections in the constitution are worthless if they can be eroded with a simple accusation. Even if one supports military tribunals for enemies of the state, the state should be required to prove, in open court, that the defendent is indeed an enemy of the state. In the 1942 case, the defendents did not dispute that they took orders from the German High Command.

        Should you lose your right to a public jury trial if a member of Al Queda claims that you work for them? What burdon should the state have to meet before taking away someone's right to a public jury trial?

    • by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @05:17PM (#3682343) Homepage
      The part that scares me is the fact that this new guy was in the "discussion stages" of building a dirty bomb. No Uranium, no bomb...just discussion. Keep an eye on him? Yeah. Haul him into custody, tell him that he is being watched and advise him against proceeding? Yeah. Military custody with no representation? That's the stuff we get all huffy about when other countries do it.

      The last time I checked, the only crime you could get in trouble for discussing was killing the president.
      • That's the stuff we get all huffy about when other countries do it.

        George W. Pinochet. Wait, I'm getting confused.

      • The part that scares me is the fact that this new guy was in the "discussion stages" of building a dirty bomb. No Uranium, no bomb...just discussion

        Drop the inane, idiotic extensions of your patrician banter. It would be absolutely, astoundingly idiotic not to pursue and capture these people in the planning stages.

        Or maybe we should wait until they have followed through with their plans so we can absolutely be sure of their guilt? Your city first!

        Why do I bother, you don't even believe your own bullshit.


        • > Drop the inane, idiotic extensions of your patrician banter. It would be absolutely, astoundingly idiotic not to pursue and capture these people in the planning stages.

          Yes, that's exactly what law enforcement does in the USA.

          But then they take the accused felon to a judge and file charges, and the judge sets or denies bail, and the accused felon's lawyer gets involved, etc.

          The administration is leaving out a very important part of the procedings.

          BTW, People interested in this topic might want to check out the links that neocon posted [slashdot.org] in a different thread, and which provide a bit more information about this than most of the media have been offering.

      • A certain T. Clancy has been found with notes on how to use stolen weapons grade Pu into a thermonuclear weapon. He claims he is an author and had used this as the basis for a book?

        Do we believe him? Is he really an author?

        Sorry, many of us here have also been discussing the plausibility of nuclear weapon manufacture and other possible forms of terrorism. When will we get the knock on the door? Conspiracy charges are alway very dangerous and should be the most difficult to prove in court.


    • > Jesus Christ, am I the only one who this terrifies?

      It terrifies me as well. However, one slashdotter claims [slashdot.org] that the one that hit the news yesterday has had legal counsel and declined to contest his transfer to military custody (though said slashdotter hasn't actually come up with a reference on it yet).

      • This CNN article [cnn.com] states that he is represented by court-appointed attorney Donna Newman. She filed a petition for a writ of habeus corpus this morning in a federal court in New York. She is subject to a gag order that limits the extent to which she can discuss the case with the press.

        I am also terrified by these developments. Furthermore, I believe that this incident justifies the impeachment of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft. They have trampled upon the Constitution, and it's time for a grassroots effort to remove these would-be dictators from office.

        • and it's time for a grassroots effort to remove these would-be dictators from office.

          To that end, I just registered impeachGWB.com and impeachJohnAshcroft.com. Expect some content there in a couple of days...

    • FBI Priorities

      1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack
      2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
      3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
      4. Combat public corruption at all levels
      5. Protect civil rights
      6. etc...

      OK - so it's:
      stop the crackers,
      then catch the guys on the take,
      THEN uphold the constitution.
      Got it.

      Don't the underpants gnomes have a similar plan?

    • The San Jose Mercury News has a story [bayarea.com] on this, and it is scary.

      There's a real issue here. The case the administration cites, ex parte Quirin [findlaw.com], has quite different facts. In Quirin, the people held in military detention, who were U.S. citizens, did not deny being German agents. (They were landed in Florida from a German submarine, wearing caps of the German Marine Infantry and with explosives, which they then buried. They were later captured in New York or Chicago. The prisoners did not dispute this.) The question before the Court was whether they were entitled to be tried in U.S. courts (for treason and espionage), or by a military tribunal under the Articles of War, or to be treated as prisoners of war. Imprisonment without trial wasn't even considered.

      The Supreme Court ruled that a military tribunal, conducted under the rules of a military court-marshal, was proper due process for unlawful combatants. That's the same due process a U.S. soldier got if accused of a serious offense. The process is simpler than a civillian trial, and the judges are military officers from the Judge Advocate General's office, but there are witnesses, evidence, and public access.

      Bush's and Ashcroft's current actions go beyond even what a former Judge Advocate General officer [crimesofwar.org] considered proper. Detention without trial is flat wrong. Unlawful combatants can be tried, imprisoned, and even executed, but not held for long periods without trial.

  • Conspiracy theory. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blair1q (305137) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:50PM (#3682200) Journal
    Is anyone surprised that the oil interests holding the White House are trying to cut funding for a lab that researches alternative energy sources such as nuclear fusion? And being very weird about it?

    --Blair
    "I'm not."
  • by sterno (16320) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:52PM (#3682211) Homepage
    Many people seem to be assuming that this office is an inebitibilty because of the need for us to reorganize to fight the war on terrorism. While I'm willing to believe that something called the "Office for Homeland Security" will be formed, the nature of that beast is likely to be a complete mess.

    First of all you've got some people looking at this as an opportunity to trim what they perceive as pork (LLNL for example). It's also an opportunity for people to add programs (like Hillary Clinton's request to add a department to deal with helping children). You can expect a torrent of these things in the coming weeks, months, and maybe even years.

    You can expect that when all is said and done, this agency will be a huge bureaucratic behemoth that does not do its job any more effectively than all these seperate agencies have done in the past. The only difference is that it will sound cool.

    In the end this will all just be yet another government shuffling of the deck chairs while real problems continue to happen. People will believe they must be doing something because there's a new office forming, but in the end it's going to be the same as it ever was.

    Cynical? Perhaps. Please proove me wrong.
  • Damn, another of my friends is going to get downsized again. He *just* got a gig there working as a physicist.

    WFT does the the Office of Homeland security need with Lawrence Livermore anyway? More to the point, WTF do we need with an Office of Homeland Security. This just sounds like an American equivalent of the KGB.

    • WTF do we need with an Office of Homeland Security. This just sounds like an American equivalent of the KGB.

      I'd just like to point out that KGB stood for "Ministry for State Security".

      <PARANOID-CONSPIRACY-THEORY>
      Hmm.... that sounds an awful lot like... "Office of Homeland Security"
      </PARANOID-CONSPIRACY-THEORY>
    • WTF does the the Office of Homeland security need with Lawrence Livermore anyway?

      How fast do you suppose ASCI White could parse a database? Suppose it could be use to maintain and mine for 'dangerous' criminal activity in the national ID registry? Hell, maybe their just looking for a networked solitaire server..

  • Perspective (Score:3, Informative)

    by GigsVT (208848) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:57PM (#3682241) Journal
    1 Billion Dollars is a huge amount of money. It could buy you:

    176 Petabytes of hard disk space (176,000,000 GB)

    or

    6.6 Petabytes of RAM (6,600,000)

    or

    A fully loaded computer system for every resident of Idaho (1.3 Million)

    The interest on 1 Billion dollars at 5% would allow 1400 people to retire comfortably, without ever touching the principal.

    My question is, what the hell is the Office of Homeland Security going to do with that much money? Aren't they just supposed to be a "coordinating organization" that helps other government organizations plan for disaster? How many people can that take?
  • Who works for who? (Score:3, Informative)

    by JerMarHill (470274) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @04:57PM (#3682248)
    LLNL is run by the University of California as a contractor for the Department of Energy. Most people on-site are therefore UC employees. There are also a large number of contractors working for the DOE but not for UC. Then there are DOD personnel attached to programs, who are neither DOE or UC. There are UC employees who are not LLNL, but Berkeley or Davis or whatever who are on site. Add FBI (DOJ), CIA, the people who serve lunches for Aramark or whoever runs the cafeteria, the guys who supply bathroom soap, blah blah, it's a mess. (I'm not even making guesses about our cooperative ventures with the RCMP, GCHQ, and whatever other foreign-national acronym you can think of).

    When they talk about 'federal' employees moving around, I don't even know who they are referring to. Everyone I know is UC, I think... It's all about where the money flows, and I can't keep that straight as it is now!

    -AlphaGeek (Poor, Abused Graduate Student and Livermore Laboratory employee)
  • Can someone explain for a non-USAian, the semantic intricacies that makes "Department of Homeland Security" mean something else than "National Security Agency"?

    Is there a large difference between a department and an agency?
    • I agree that the semantics behind the names are quite similar. In reality, the NSA is tasked with electronic signal gathering, such as taps on trunk lines, satelite (sic) intelligence, radio intercepts, cryptographic signal analysis, etc. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in theory is supposed to be a collection of various US departments and agencies (such as FBI, Coast Guard, Immigration, etc) that have an influence over internal US security grouped together under a unified command.

      In reality, I suspect (my opinion to follow) that the DHS will either get mired in the some political infighting that the NSA and CIA have been stuck in for decades, or worse, the DHS will be used as an excuse for all sorts of fascist activities (think 1984 and the Ministry of Truth).

    • > Can someone explain for a non-USAian, the semantic intricacies that makes "Department of Homeland Security" mean something else than "National Security Agency"?

      Sorry I can't remember where I saw it, but one cynical pundit said it was Bush's strategy to get the Congress off his back by tying them up in committee turf battles for the next few years.

      I cite the pundit for humor's sake, but it's almost certain the the primary motivation is to send the public a signal that "we're doing something!" At this point it hardly matters what they do, so long as they can point to something. (Surely, this is what drove the "dirty bomb plot preempted" announcement yesterday. Expect more fluff announcements over the next week or two.)

    • The difference (Score:2, Informative)

      by El_Che (161286)
      Is there a large difference between a department and an agency?

      There is. Departments refer to Cabinet Level organizations (Defense, Justice, State, Health and Human Services, Commerce, etc). They were formed by Acts of Congress, thus they are often called 'statutory.' (The key distinction is whether or not an agency is statutory or not.) Departments make their own budgets (which Congress enacts into law with or without changes -- the President's budget is more or less a wish list; Congress alone has power of the purse). Departments are subject to direct congressional oversight ('he who pays the piper calls the tune').

      Agencies usually fall under departments, so, for example, the NSA is part of the Department of Defense, but there are a variety of agencies that stand on their own. These Independent Agencies are statutory (created by a legislative act of congress) and are subject to Congressional oversight (e.g, the CIA, the TVA, the FTC, and many many more!).

      Finally, the White House also has several Executives Offices: Office of Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, etc, Office of Homeland Security, the National Security Council, to name a few. These offices are not subject to direct Congressional oversight (which is why Tom Ridge, head of the Office of Homeland Security, has been able to resist appearing before Congress and explaining himself).

      Anyhow. You can get a snout-full of US Gov Org info here [firstgov.gov], and here [lsu.edu] is a long long list of links to Federal Departments and Agencies, arranged hierarchically. Have fun!

    • Well since Bush won't tell you - secrets are important! - there is a link HERE [subintsoc.net] to the flowchart showing hot it works.

      In all seriousness here is the link to the real page [whitehouse.gov].

      Actually it's scary how partisan the real whithouse.gov page has become. At least the only thing partisan about whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com] is the cheeks.

  • by tkrotchko (124118) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @05:37PM (#3682457) Homepage
    If they close Lawrence Livermore than the terrorist have already won.
  • Can i have a side of coleslaw with that?
  • EBay (Score:3, Funny)

    by DeadBugs (546475) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @07:11PM (#3682996) Homepage
    I can't wait until some of their equipment starts showing up on EBay.
  • by SeanAhern (25764) on Tuesday June 11, 2002 @07:15PM (#3683021) Journal
    Believe it or not, but most of LLNL's employees aren't employeed by the Department of Energy. We're actually employees of the University of California, who manages the Lab through a contract. So, if LLNL moves from the DoE to the DHS (Department of Homeland Security), only those few employees who are employeed by the Feds would presumably change their job affilation.
  • I live in Tracy, a community of around 60,000 just over the hill from the lab. My boss used to work there. Many of my friends' parents still do. I seriously doubt they are going to disband such an important research facility, no matter what the article topic might suggest. Even with the "massive reorganization" of the federal government going on, Bush, Ridge, and friends can't help but miss some of the lab's important contributions. ASCI White does, after all, help them stay inside the terms of that Nuclear Test Ban Treaty thingamajigger. Besides, as others have said, most of the employees technically work for the UC system, which is not under the direct jurisdiction of the Feds. $1.2 billion out of a $1.5 billion budget is, IMO (and I'm sure most of you will agree with me), too much to give to a government organization which was founded almost out of nowhere and whose definition and purpose is still nebulous at best. However, I can never bring myself to underestimate the stupidity of politicians, be they Republican or Democrat. If the lab's operations are cut back severely, don't think it'll go unnoticed. It won't be just my little area of Northern California, although it will be the hardest-hit. If this goes through as written, I'll be among the first to join a (literal) million-geek march on Washington. Those bastards had better not take away my used-equipment consignment sales (or make them any larger than they already are, for that matter)...
    • Bush, Ridge, and friends can't help but miss some of the lab's important contributions. ASCI White does, after all, help them stay inside the terms of that Nuclear Test Ban Treaty thingamajigger.

      Do you think bush cares about that? Spreading radiation and breaking treaties is all part of his strategery.
  • ...to develop new innovative ways to ignore civil liberties and pretend to be looking for a way to detect poison/microorganisms/... in sealed capsules as it was necessary to develop nuclear weapons.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...