U.S. Releases Secret List of Nuclear Sites Accidentally

[Analog]

The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/sites.pdf, its pages marked ?highly confidential,? that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation?s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.

The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.

On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.

Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.

?These screw-ups happen,? said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ?It?s going further than I would have gone but doesn?t look like a serious breach.?

But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored ?can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.?

The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...e.html?ref=global-home

 

[K1052]

Looks like the vast majority of that info was already known and no military stuff was compromised.

There's uranium at Y-12? I'm shocked I tell you.

 

[IronWing]

Us rocket surgeons here at P&N, putting together our collective knowledge of America, could likely recreate the list in less than 24 hours w/o googling and w/o divulging classified info (since we ain't gots none).

 

[0marTheZealot]

Doesn't really matter, those sites are guarded so well, you'd need a highly trained military force to attack them. This is just fear-mongering by the government.

You could dilvuge the location of every US army base, weapons locker, nuclear weapons facility, etc etc, and it wouldn't change a thing for terrorists, there's simply no way for them to attack them. There's a reason why terrorists chose civilian targets like malls. Those sites tend to be poorly defended and carry much a bigger impact. I'm really not worried about 20 or so terrorists attacking a nuclear weapons facility. The most that might happen is that a US serviceman gets injured. That's assuming they even get in range before overwhelming force is brought down on them.

Now the Russians or Chinese, that's a different story. They actually have the capability of attacking those sites via ICBMs/strategic bombers.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Analog
The federal government mistakenly made public a 266-page report http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/sites.pdf, its pages marked ?highly confidential,? that gives detailed information about hundreds of the nation?s civilian nuclear sites and programs, including maps showing the precise locations of stockpiles of fuel for nuclear weapons.

The publication of the document was revealed Monday in an online newsletter devoted to issues of federal secrecy. That set off a debate among nuclear experts about what dangers, if any, the disclosures posed. It also prompted a flurry of investigations in Washington into why the document had been made public.

On Tuesday evening, after inquiries from The New York Times, the document was withdrawn from a Government Printing Office Web site.

Several nuclear experts argued that any dangers from the disclosure were minimal, given that the general outlines of the most sensitive information were already known publicly.

?These screw-ups happen,? said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ?It?s going further than I would have gone but doesn?t look like a serious breach.?

Sounds like Obama should look into firing a few Bush appointees,:thumbsup:.

But David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington that tracks nuclear proliferation, said information that shows where nuclear fuels are stored ?can provide thieves or terrorists inside information that can help them seize the material, which is why that kind of data is not given out.?

The information, considered confidential but not classified, was assembled for transmission later this year to the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of a process by which the United States is opening itself up to stricter inspections in hopes that foreign countries, especially Iran and others believed to be clandestinely developing nuclear arms, will do likewise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06...e.html?ref=global-home

 

[SagaLore]

OMG, the US has WMD material, someone tell the UN! :shocked:

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
OMG, the US has WMD material, someone tell the UN! :shocked:

That was the function of the document released. It was an inventory report for the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Doesn't really matter, those sites are guarded so well, you'd need a highly trained military force to attack them. This is just fear-mongering by the government.

Really? How many of these sites have you worked at? Don't fool yourself friend, the ability to infiltrate a nuclear facility on US soil with a relatively small force is very much a reality. High profile locations have much better security/defenses than the lesser known/more remote ones.

 

[vhx]

Everyone panic! They can get our nuclear weapons because the government is so incompetent! To fight off the threat we just made, we'll need more of your freedoms to find and combat them! Did I mention fear and panic?!

 

[NaughtyGeek]

LMAO, this list doesn't just give the location, it narrows it down to the building and room that the materials/projects are run in at the identified facilities.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Doesn't really matter, those sites are guarded so well, you'd need a highly trained military force to attack them. This is just fear-mongering by the government.

Really? How many of these sites have you worked at? Don't fool yourself friend, the ability to infiltrate a nuclear facility on US soil with a relatively small force is very much a reality. High profile locations have much better security/defenses than the lesser known/more remote ones.

How many have you worked at?

I point to the case of Russia. Russia underwent a massive collapse in the '90s and yet they have not lost a single nuclear weapon. Or how about Pakistan? They are even poorer and yet their nuclear weapons/materials are safe from attackers.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Doesn't really matter, those sites are guarded so well, you'd need a highly trained military force to attack them. This is just fear-mongering by the government.

Really? How many of these sites have you worked at? Don't fool yourself friend, the ability to infiltrate a nuclear facility on US soil with a relatively small force is very much a reality. High profile locations have much better security/defenses than the lesser known/more remote ones.

You've watched Iron Eagle too much.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealotI point to the case of Russia. Russia underwent a massive collapse in the '90s and yet they have not lost a single nuclear weapon. Or how about Pakistan? They are even poorer and yet their nuclear weapons/materials are safe from attackers.

W E___A L L___H O P E.

the US has misplaced numerous nuclear weapons, including bombs dumped during training sessions over the years.

i don't expect Russia to have a better record. some of the US incidents are search-able. the Russian ones, if they occurred, are not be so well documented.

 

[yllus]

Embarassing, but not a single foreign government or terrorist organization capable of actually doing something would not already have this information. At worst you can hope this leads to better security policy.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Doesn't really matter, those sites are guarded so well, you'd need a highly trained military force to attack them. This is just fear-mongering by the government.

Really? How many of these sites have you worked at? Don't fool yourself friend, the ability to infiltrate a nuclear facility on US soil with a relatively small force is very much a reality. High profile locations have much better security/defenses than the lesser known/more remote ones.

You've watched Iron Eagle too much.

Dude, any fool with a CIP device could take over the plant remotely. Don't you watch ANY tv?

 

[wwswimming]

how can it be such a big mistake if the file is still up a day later ? kind of
slow-moving taking it down.

"These screw-ups happen,? said John M. Deutch, a former director of central intelligence and deputy secretary of defense who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ?It?s going further than I would have gone but doesn?t look like a serious breach.?

It has addresses all over the place, South Africa, Idaho, etc.

These are excerpts, sorry if the formatting is messed up but it's a lot of text -

"THE LIST OF SITES, LOCATIONS, FACILITIES, AND
ACTIVITIES DECLARED TO THE INTERNATIONAL
ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

MESSAGE
FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSMITTING
A LIST OF THE SITES, LOCATIONS, FACILITIES, AND ACTIVITIES
IN THE UNITED STATES DECLARED TO THE INTERNATIONAL
ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA), UNDER THE PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
FOR THE APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, WITH ANNEXES, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION
271 OF PUBLIC LAW 109?401
MAY 6, 2009.?Message and accompanying papers referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed

To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith a list of the sites, locations, facilities, and activities
in the United States that I intend to declare to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under the Protocol Additional
to the Agreement between the United States of America and
the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of
Safeguards in the United States of America, with Annexes, signed
at Vienna on June 12, 1998 (the ??U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol??),
and constitutes a report thereon, as required by section 271 of Public
Law 109?401. In accordance with section 273 of Public Law
109?401, I hereby certify that:
(1) each site, location, facility, and activity included in the
list has been examined by each department and agency with
national security equities with respect to such site, location, facility,
or activity; and
(2) appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that information
of direct national security significance will not be
compromised at any such site, location, facility, or activity in
connection with an IAEA inspection.
(3) any site co-mingling pron with their nucular materials will be banned
for 3 days from AT forums."