Volume 23, Issue 2, Spring 2025 Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal Table of Contents Welcome Cover Art: “Where Else Is There” Seberiana Lopez i Meet the Editorial Board Kyla Schmitt, Ava Sechrist, Ethan Nguyen, Charlotte Olds, Keegan Tippetts ii–iii Art Feature: “Glacial” Chelsea Kropp iv Journal Editorial: “Phi Beta Kappa Induction Remarks” Christopher P. Long v–vi Art Feature: “Here Is Where I Lie” Seberiana Lopez vii Letter from the Editor Kyla Schmitt viii–ix Articles Eternal Hunger: A Qualitative Analysis of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and its Role as a Driver of the New Nuclear Arms Race Dominic Zupo 1–27 The Femme Fatale’s Power: Constructed Transgression Sam Pearson 28–33 Questioning the Ethics of Art Acquisition: The Case of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Holy Tabots Sarah Shewaye 34–46 The Bolivian Estimate: The CIA, Juan José Torres, and the Origins of Covert Action Story Arney 47–55 Sol Plaatje’s Mafeking Diary: Analyzing a Black Man’s View of a Seemingly White Man’s War Nikolay Morgun 56–65 Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 23.2 (2025) ISSN: 2160-617X (online) ourj.uoregon.edu *Seberiana Lopez (seberianavlopez@gmail.com) is a Chicana artist from California majoring in Art and Technology with two minors in Art History and Entrepreneurship at the University of Oregon. Her career goals and artist’s work are driven by her passions of wanting to create opportunity and success for people of BIPOC backgrounds. Seberiana has explored these goals in the practice of her art, work experience, and community building. Her work explores digital mediums in the forms of illustrations, videography, animations, branding content, and more. Cover Art: “Where Else Is There” Seberiana Lopez* DOI: 10.5399/UO/OURJ/23.2.1 “Fight the Power” by Public Enemy is a song that was created in collaboration with the movie “Do the Right Thing,” directed by Spike Lee, to narrate the social injustices of the African American community. Following the prompt of my Advanced Digital Drawing class to listen to “Fight the Power” by Public Enemy to create a drawing, I was inspired to focus on the social injustices of gentrification in my illustration. This artwork is a visual representation of how marginalized communities continuously face injustices by disruption and separation from their communities and culture through acts of greed. Activists continuously work to research such serious topics to demonstrate the significant need for equality among BIPOC communities. Medium: Digital illustration, Adobe Photoshop, iPad Pro Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal ii Meet the Editorial Board Kyla Schmitt, Editor-in-Chief Kyla Schmitt graduated magna cum laude from the Clark Honors College in June 2025, earning dual degrees in Environmental Science (Bachelor of Science) and Humanities (Bachelor of Arts) with minors in Biology, English, and Economics. Kyla’s academic interests include wildlife ecology, contemporary history and politics, and scientific and rhetorical writing. Her latest publication sought to characterize the native signal crayfish population in Tryon Creek, Oregon, and her recent honors thesis examined fungal diversity on Oregon white oak savannas. Beyond academia, Kyla coaches speech and debate, serves as a technical editor for Fall Creek, and spends plenty of time hiking and exploring the outdoors. She will continue her career in research this summer as a field technician studying the effects of climate change on the scarlet monkeyflower throughout its range. Ava Sechrist, Senior Editor Ava Sechrist is a third-year Clark Honors College student majoring in Psychology and English. She has further interests in Creative Writing. She has previously been involved in child development research at UO. Her independent research has explored the impacts of social media on weight-based bias and the effect of trauma on emotional granularity. In her free time, Ava enjoys reading, listening to podcasts, and going on adventures with friends. Ethan Nguyen, Editor Ethan is a junior student in the Clark Honors College majoring in Biochemistry. He is interested in performing research with a lot of potential in applied usage, especially for biomedical applications. Ethan is currently working in an organic synthesis research lab aiming to create novel molecules with potential applications in materials science and bioimaging. Outside academics, Ethan is involved in a lot of volunteering at places such as Food for Lane County and Hospice. His hobbies include jiu-jitsu and chess. Charlotte Olds, Editor Charlotte is currently a third-year Clark Honors College student majoring in neuroscience and psychology. She conducts research in a cognitive neuroscience lab, focusing on how experiences are organized into memories and the mechanisms that underlie the tendency to forget. Outside of the UO, Charlotte volunteers with HIV Alliance to help expand access to health services. In her spare time, she enjoys hiking, running, playing the piano, and snowboarding. Meet the Editorial Board Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal iii Keegan Tippetts, Editor Keegan Tippetts is a second-year student at the University of Oregon majoring in English with minors in Creative Writing and Political Science. He has a focused interest in storytelling in any medium, writing/directing film, theatre, prose, occasionally poetry, and maybe someday video games. He is fascinated with the way that art intersects with the human experience. A major point of inquiry for him is how perception is and can be altered by the art that people experience. He likes editing writing of all kinds and is always looking forward to something new to learn or do. Outside of academics, he spends most of his time writing or working on film projects, but also enjoys video games, hiking, obsessively listening to movie OST, cooking, and getting together with friends. Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 23.2 (2025) ISSN: 2160-617X (online) ourj.uoregon.edu *Chelsea Kropp (chelseakropp29@gmail.com) graduated in June 2025 from the University of Oregon’s Product Design program with a passion for turning creative ideas into purposeful, marketable products. With a love for all forms of art, she’s drawn to Product Design for the way it channels her instincts into tangible outcomes. Outside of school, she enjoys reading, exploring the outdoors, music, and of course art. Her work is driven by curiosity, imagination, and a desire to create things that resonate. Art Feature: “Glacial” Chelsea Kropp* DOI: 10.5399/UO/OURJ/23.2.2 I interviewed 32 ice climbers. They want a bag that is simple, lightweight, and narrow, with a separate crampon carry and a wide belt for support. I designed a bag with a zip-over top that creates room for a helmet, a mesh base that allows wet items to drip, a mid zip that provides quick access for cold fingers, a wide belt for support, and a removable bottom section that adds storage while hiking and can be left at camp while climbing. “Glacial” captures these features and reveals the research that underlies the product design process. Medium: Mixed medium. Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 23.2 (2025) ISSN: 2160-617X (online) ourj.uoregon.edu *Christopher P. Long (provost@uoregon.edu) is the provost and senior vice president at the University of Oregon. He identifies integrity, trust, equity, collaboration, and excellence as the core values that inform his leadership as the chief academic officer at the University of Oregon. Provost Long has more than $7 million of funded research projects, including the Mellon funded Less Commonly Taught and Indigenous Languages Partnership with the Big 10 Academic Alliance, the Public Philosophy Journal, and HuMetricsHSS. An expert in both ancient Greek and contemporary continental philosophy, Provost Long’s extensive publication record includes four books: The Ethics of Ontology (SUNY 2004), Aristotle On the Nature of Truth (Cambridge 2010), Socratic and Platonic Political Philosophy: Practicing a Politics of Reading (Cambridge 2014), and Reiner Schürmann and the Poetics of Politics (Punctum 2018). Journal Editorial: “Phi Beta Kappa Induction Remarks” Christopher P. Long* DOI: 10.5399/UO/OURJ/23.2.3 This journal editorial is an abridged version of the Provost’s remarks at the University of Oregon Phi Beta Kappa induction ceremony on June 14, 2025, which the Provost’s Office has graciously offered for inclusion in this issue of the Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal. Since its founding in 1776, Phi Beta Kappa has celebrated excellence in the liberal arts and sciences and championed freedom of thought. As America’s most prestigious academic honor society, it is uniquely equipped to advocate for the value and benefits of liberal arts and sciences education; the University’s Alpha of Oregon chapter recently celebrated its centennial anniversary. Today, as we induct a new generation into the nation’s oldest academic honor society, we do more than confer a distinction, we affirm a commitment: a commitment to curiosity, to intellectual rigor, and to the hard-won joy of understanding. We mark not only personal achievement, but a shared faith in the university as a sacred place of transformation and of truth-seeking. In a time when these ideals are under siege, such faith is no small thing. Phi Beta Kappa has always stood for the life of the mind, for the belief that the liberal arts and sciences are not luxuries but necessities; that freedom of thought is not an abstraction, but the condition of our collective flourishing; that ideas, tested and challenged in open exchange, are the very engines of a vibrant democracy. Today, we celebrate students who have excelled within that tradition. And we also acknowledge the mounting pressures it now faces. The threats are no longer veiled. In recent years, and with escalating force under the current federal administration, we have seen policies that seek to narrow, censor, and constrict the mission of higher education. Federal funding for basic and applied research—the fuel of human progress—has been haphazardly cut or reallocated to serve partisan aims. Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have been vilified and dismantled, ignoring that diversity of backgrounds, diversity of thought, and diversity of experiences are what make research and teaching excellence possible. International students and faculty—whose ideas and presence have enriched our campuses and communities for generations—now face unjust restrictions on visas, work permits, and legal status. These are not isolated skirmishes. They are symptoms of a deeper, organized effort to redefine what education should be and who it should serve, to discredit expertise, to replace complexity with control, and to transform the university from a place of inquiry into a place of indoctrination. Yet, I believe—as did the founders of Phi Beta Kappa, as did the leaders of this nation throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries—that public universities serve the public good through research and education, by exploring and generating new ideas, and by teaching future citizens to discern how to live meaningful lives. Journal Editorial Long Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal vi As the 1965 legislation that created the National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities so succinctly puts it: “Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.” 1 To make good on this demand of democracy itself, we must support, sustain, and defend the public research university as a sacred space of inquiry and learning. To call the university a “sacred” space is not to infuse it with a holiness founded upon religious dogma, but to recall the connotations of the Latin sacrare, which means “to set apart” and “to dedicate.” The university is set apart as a space dedicated to the search for truth and the cultivation of the habits of dialogue and thinking that awaken us to the world and deepen our relationships with one another. The university is a sacred space for thinking in its most active voice. The activity of thinking is rooted in what Hannah Arendt calls the human condition of natality, the capacity to bring something new into the world. Thinking thus acts in unpredictable ways. This is one reason ideologues and demagogues find universities so dangerous and seek to control them. The university, however, can only be a catalyst for new and unexpected ideas if it is protected and sustained. Despite the very real threats of the current moment, I want to conclude today on a note of hope and possibility. This is not the first time our university has weathered mighty storms. And it will not be the last. Higher education has endured wars, recessions, cultural upheaval, swings in public opinion, and political backlash before. And it has survived—not through complacency, but through principled resistance, the relentless belief that truth is a value worth defending, and the enduring commitment to imagine a more just and beautiful future. We do well today to remember the words of poet Audre Lorde, who wrote: “Within each one of us there is some piece of humanness that knows we are not being served by the machine which orchestrates crisis after crisis and is grinding all our futures into dust.” 2 The university is not immune to change; it is the crucible through which we deepen our understanding of the world and one another so we might create together a future worth wanting. As Audre Lorde reminds us: “What we must do is commit ourselves to some future that can include each other and to work toward that future with the particular strength of our individual identities. And in order to do this, we must allow each other our differences at the same time as we recognize our sameness.” 3 And as long as there are students willing to question, to wonder, to speak truth even when it is hard or unpopular, the university will remain the beating heart of a free society and a catalyst for a more just future. To our new Phi Beta Kappa inductees: you inherit this legacy and commitment. You carry forward the work of keeping inquiry free, of ensuring that knowledge serves not power, but that piece of humanness that makes a better world possible. You have distinguished yourselves not only through achievement, but through the questions you have dared to ask. Higher education, like democracy itself, is not static. It breathes through us. It survives when we defend it. And it thrives when we create and sustain it together. 1 National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act,” Pub. L. No. 89–209, 951 20 U.S.C. 845 (1965), sec. 3, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg845.pdf. 2 Lorde, Audre, and Cheryl Clarke. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Reprint edition. Berkeley, Calif: Crossing Press, 2007, 139. 3 Ibid., 142. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-79/pdf/STATUTE-79-Pg845.pdf Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 23.2 (2025) ISSN: 2160-617X (online) ourj.uoregon.edu Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal vii Art Feature: “Here Is Where I Lie” Seberiana Lopez DOI: 10.5399/UO/OURJ/23.2.4 The body and mind often feel at war. They say our minds work to comprehend while our hearts are driven by temptation. However, our bodies are one and both influence our expressions and identity. By suppressing one or the other, we lose a part of ourselves. The starvation that we put our hearts and minds in influenced this work of art. It illustrates the despair it leaves our soul and the longing to fill that void. To understand our bodies, we further research our needs and mechanisms to develop a more fulfilled life that caters to the needs of ourselves as whole. Medium: Digital illustration, Adobe Photoshop, iPad Pro. Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 23.2 (2025) ISSN: 2160-617X (online) ourj.uoregon.edu Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal viii Letter from the Editor Kyla Schmitt DOI: 10.5399/UO/OURJ/23.2.5 Dear Reader, As I write this letter—a freshly minted alumni of the University of Oregon, and an environmental scientist in search of work and higher education, during a time when it is particularly hard to find both of those things—I find myself reflecting on my time as an undergraduate researcher here at the UO. Throughout my four years here, I was lucky to conduct ecological research under the guidance of eight different faculty members (Dr. Bitty Roy, Dr. Haley Burrill, Dr. Peg Boulay, Dr. Eleanor Wakefield, Dr. Addison Koneval, Dr. Jeff Diez, Dr. Dave Sutherland, and Dr. Ellen Fitzpatrick) and, for my term papers, to find incredible research support and assistance with so many more. I was also fortunate enough to receive eight different funding packages in support or in honor of my research (the First-Year Research Experience Award, Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship, College of Arts and Sciences Hands-On Learning Scholarship, Owens Writing Award, Mentored Research Program Scholarship, O'Day Fellowship in Biological Sciences, Research Revealed Photo Contest prize, and Three-Minute Thesis Competition prize), alongside numerous other scholarships to support my academic endeavors more broadly. Significantly, it was also during my time here that UO Libraries decided to grant permanent funding to support the operations and publications of the Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal, which has allowed me to participate in disseminating other students’ incredible research projects through these issues for three years and counting. For those of you who are current undergraduates at the UO, I cannot understate to you the importance of taking advantage of the incredible resources offered to you as a member of an R1-university community. I remain stunned by the institutional support I have received since joining the University of Oregon community, and I strongly believe that this support is why I find myself continuing to pursue a future as a researcher today. Simultaneously, I find myself increasingly worried that classes of students after me will not be afforded all the same opportunities I was. We now live in a time where fascism—and yes, alongside leading historians, 1 I think now is the time to invoke that term—underpins the decisions made by our federal government, not only in its undermining of scientific truth and dramatic slashing of funding for scholarly research, 2 but also in its tearing away of valued members of our academic communities. 3 So, now is the time not only to take advantage of dwindling—but extant—opportunities and resources to advance important research, but to speak up and take action to protect the research, the education, and the very people that make the UO such an incredible place to be. Through these trying times, I hope that the UO will continue to value and prioritize truth, discovery, and community wellbeing. I hope that all of 1 Elisabeth Zerofsky, “Is It Fascism? A Leading Historian Changes His Mind,” New York Times, October 23, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html. 2 Higher Ed Dive, Tracker: Tracking the Trump Administration’s Moves to Cap Indirect Research Funding, published June 19, 2025, https://www.highereddive.com/news/tracking-the-trump-administrations-moves-to-cap-indirect-research-funding/751123/. 3 Tarek Anthony, Ysabella Sosa, and Jasmine Saboorian, “Three Additional UO International Students Face Deportation,” Daily Emerald, April 8, 2025, https://dailyemerald.com/163668/campus/three-additional-uo-international-students-face-deportation/. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html https://www.highereddive.com/news/tracking-the-trump-administrations-moves-to-cap-indirect-research-funding/751123/ https://dailyemerald.com/163668/campus/three-additional-uo-international-students-face-deportation/ Letter from the Editor Schmitt Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal ix you will do your part by advocating through contacting your leaders and representatives, donating to organizations (see, for instance, the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity) that seek to defend these values, and asking the challenging questions and seeking their nuanced solutions— the process we as academics often refer to as research. Going forward, I will remain committed to supporting inquiry and advocacy on the UO campus, even as I gather up my diploma and chart toward my own uncertain future. And OURJ, for its part, will remain committed to the accessible and free publication of this cutting-edge student research. Here, the pages that follow contain some of the best of our Oregon undergraduates’ recent research. Sincerely, Kyla Schmitt, Editor-in-Chief Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 23.2 (2025) ISSN: 2160-617X (online) ourj.uoregon.edu *Dominic Zupo (dzupo@uoregon.edu) graduated from the University of Oregon in 2024 with a degree in political science. With this research project, he was a 2024 winner of the UO Libraries’ Awards for Research Excellence. His project, as he puts it, “was made possible through daily use of the library’s online resources, the physical space, and resources it provides, and insights and direction from library faculty as well as outside resources and support.” Eternal Hunger: A Qualitative Analysis of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and its Role as a Driver of the New Nuclear Arms Race Dominic Zupo* DOI: 10.5399/UO/OURJ/23.2.6 Abstract The emergence of a new Cold War and the arms race it brings has captured the attention of the globe. To understand the drivers of the new global tension, the current discourse has overwhelmingly looked to great power politics for explanations. A dominant narrative has emerged that frames the United States as a superpower in decline and facing increasingly aggressive challenges from China. This thesis directly challenges that narrative by investigating the role of nuclear weapons laboratories as the possible key driver of this new era of nuclear arms racing and proliferation. Specifically, this thesis uses process tracing and organization theory to explain how Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories developed an organizational ethos that sought to master its resource dependence by pursuing influence over the policy that controls the distribution of the resources it seeks. This thesis argues that, in doing so, Lawrence Livermore acts as a driver of arms racing and the new Cold War. 1. Introduction Today, the United States and China continue to participate in growing economic competition, political tensions, and evermore divergent international goals. Though still deeply interconnected through the international system, the two nations are constantly jostling for power through industry, technology, and the cultivation of new strategic partnerships and influence. Harking back to the shifting competition between the Soviet Union and the United States, this deterioration of relations and divergence of 1 Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, "The Return of Nuclear Escalation." Foreign Affairs, October 24, 2023. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-nuclear- escalation. 1.On changing International rules see Shivshankar Menon, “Nobody Wants the Current World Order,” Foreign Affairs, July 13, 2023, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/nobody-wants-current- world-order. 2 For the return of nuclear escalation and arms racing see, Keir interests has repeatedly been characterized as a New Cold War. Following in the footsteps of its predecessor, this New Cold War includes a new era of nuclear arms racing. Though the actions of both states are undeniable contributors, the root cause of this New Cold War is being hotly debated in international relations. 1, 2, 3 This study investigates the role of United States nuclear labs in causing current global tensions. More specifically, this thesis asks: How does Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory function as a driver of arms racing, and, in turn, does it act as a causal force in the New Cold War? A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, "The Return of Nuclear Escalation." Foreign Affairs, October 24, 2023. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-nuclear- escalation 3 Rose Gottemoeller, “How to Stop a New Nuclear Arms Race,” Foreign Affairs, February 27, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-03- 09/how-stop-new-nuclear-arms-race. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-nuclear-escalation https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-nuclear-escalation https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/nobody-wants-current-world-order https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/nobody-wants-current-world-order https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-nuclear-escalation https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-nuclear-escalation https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-03-09/how-stop-new-nuclear-arms-race https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2022-03-09/how-stop-new-nuclear-arms-race Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 2 To explain the shifting global order, most scholars have focused on the actions of China and Russia, arguing that the United States is responding to the actions of these nations. 4 These scholars view China as a new superpower challenging the existing hegemonic system, while Russia is an unsatisfied former superpower. The actions of both China and Russia have largely been interpreted as zero-sum threats to the United States. 5 This analysis has strengthened the United States’ internalized identity as a superpower being challenged while losing influence abroad, thereby leading to a widespread acceptance of the need to re-arm, including abandoning arms control in order to pursue nuclear stockpile expansion in a major reversal from long-term strategic stability. Instead of continuing to mutually disarm nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, a new arms race is emerging. 6 This study specifically focuses on one key actor, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The basis for this thesis’s focus on Livermore is threefold. The laboratory system has largely been stripped of agency and left out of the academic analysis of the military-industrial complex. Moreover, Livermore is often overshadowed by Los Alamos in popular media and academic analysis. Within the context of the present-day nuclear discourse, Livermore is unique as it was home to actors who influenced and continue to influence nuclear policy and nuclear myths. Lastly, in recognition of the nature and constraints of this thesis, focusing on a significant player in close proximity to where this research took place provided logistical benefits and relevancy. 4 There are different approaches, theories and responsibilities; given and applied to the situation however these three nations have been framed as key actors. See, Hal Brands and John Lewis Gaddis, "The New Cold War." Foreign Affairs, October 19, 2021. 2024.https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis- upheaval-russia-iran-north-korea-taylor-fontaine. 1. Tong Zhao, “The Real Motives for China’s Nuclear Expansion,” Foreign Affairs, May 3, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/real-motives-chinas- nuclear-expansion. 5 The majority of focus has been on the growth and relationships of Iran, North Korea, China and Russia. The This thesis will use organization theory, in particular resource dependency theory, and the framework of the Iron Triangle to explain the mission, identity, drive, and broader structures that developed the goals, power, and influence of Lawrence Livermore. This analysis will be done by first establishing a chronological history of the organization’s mission development. This specific mission of manufacturing nuclear weapons is centered around resource dependency. The end of the Cold War threatened the organizational characteristics of Lawrence Livermore, forcing it to either change or to double down and strengthen its influence to continue gaining resources. Lawrence Livermore chose to become more aggressive in its collection of resources. Further, the broader theoretical framework is useful to analyze the case study of how the need for ratification of the last arms control treaty, the New START, forced a bargain that paradoxically continued to limit nuclear arms and began the process of rebuilding the full Cold War arsenal in a modernized way that has directly led to the New Cold War. New START offers one of the most clear and explicit demonstrations of how Livermore and the other laboratories politically maneuver and exude influence over policy. Process tracing New START will demonstrate how this bargain for full rearmament was spearheaded by Lawrence Livermore’s resource dependency. 2. Methods and Theories This thesis will utilize process tracing to analyze Lawrence Livermore and determine if its autocratic nature of all these nations and conflict with the United States is a major driver of the high threat evaluation. See Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Richard Fontaine, "The Axis of Upheaval." Foreign Affairs, April 23, 2024. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis-upheaval-russia- iran-north-korea-taylor-fontaine. Thomas G. Mahnken, "Could America Win a New World War?." Foreign Affairs, October 27, 2022. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/could- america-win-new-world-war. 6 Waltz, K. N. (Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of international politics (1st ed.). Random House. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis-upheaval-russia-iran-north-korea-taylor-fontaine https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis-upheaval-russia-iran-north-korea-taylor-fontaine https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis-upheaval-russia-iran-north-korea-taylor-fontaine https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/axis-upheaval-russia-iran-north-korea-taylor-fontaine https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/could-america-win-new-world-war https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/could-america-win-new-world-war Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 3 organizational ethos and mission play a causal role in influencing arms racing and the New Cold War. Process tracing is a qualitative method of analysis used to explain and test theories and explanations of causality. This process will be done by establishing a timeline of events hypothesized to show a causal role of Livermore’s influence on creating the current arms racing. Process tracing as a method offers a structure and multiple tests that can be done to determine causality. For the purpose of this thesis, an adaptation of process tracing will be used. By identifying the creation of an organization ethos and tracing the development of an organizational mission and its adaptation through the end of the Cold War and privatization, this thesis uses process tracing to demonstrate means, motive, and opportunity. The more rigorous examination for causality will culminate with a casual graph and case study of Livermore and the other laboratories’ role in the ratification of the New START. This thesis will use a modified version of process tracing in the organization and structure of the thesis and the analysis of the New START ratification process. The importance of including this modified process tracing stems from its ability to better frame and analyze competing explanations of events and actions. Due to the constraints and scope of this thesis, traditional process tracing and the tests for causality that accompany the process were not a realistic addition. The theories detailed in this section will be used to explain how and why the selected events shape Livermore’s organizational mission and act as drivers of the New Cold War. 7 Parsons, Talcott. “On the Concept of Influence.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 27, no. 1 (1963): 37–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747290. Also Aplin, John C., and W. Harvey Hegarty. “Political Influence: Strategies Employed by Organizations to Impact Legislation in Business and Economic Matters.” The Academy of Management Journal 23, no. 3 (1980): 438–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/255510. 8 Arts, Bas, and Piet Verschuren. “Assessing Political Influence in Complex Decision-Making: An Instrument Based on 2.1. Organization Theory: How to Demonstrate Influence The literature on measuring the effect of political influence is a subject that contains substantial contributions. 7 This work will rely on the distinction of political power and the general understanding of influence provided by Arts and Verschuren. 8 Here, power is understood as the resources and political capital that an organization possesses. While power can be used to promote influence, the use or lack of use of influence is not a requisite for power. Although materially tangled with power, influence is commonly understood as “...the modification of one actor's behavior by that of another.” 9 In order to answer the question that this project poses, a more case-specific understanding is needed. The restrictions applied have to do with goals and outcomes. The influencer must have a goal, intervene with another actor to achieve that goal, and be successful in doing so. There are many other ways and counterfactuals that can be understood as successful and unsuccessful influences. However, for the purpose of this thesis, these requirements are the most useful. 2.2. Creation of an Organizational Mission: A Brief History Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory officially opened on September 2, 1952, originally named the University of California Radiation Laboratory, Livermore branch. The creation of the lab and its history are well documented internally and externally; however, the available literature is overwhelmingly surface-level, focusing on a chronology of success and key moments of Triangulation.” International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique 20, no. 4 (1999): 411–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601404. 9 Ewing, A. F. “The Anatomy of Influence: Decision Making in International Organizations by Robert W. Cox, Harold K. Jacobson et al. New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1973. Pp. Xiii+ 497. £6.50.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 14, no. 2 (1976): 345–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X00053349. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747290 Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 4 discovery. 10 Understanding the founding is necessary to fill the gap in the literature surrounding the inception and the existence of an organizational mission and to determine if it has a lasting impact on the organization and if that mission drives nuclear escalation today. One of the most important gaps in the literature that this thesis seeks to address is the recognition of Livermore and, more generally, the laboratory system as organizations that possess agency. A brief history of the laboratory’s founding will demonstrate that an the initial organizational imprint shapedwas shaped through a dependency on successful weapons development and scientific estrangement. Political maneuvering and outside support were a requisite for the laboratory’s creation and success , and will additionally be shown to shape the organization. 2.3. Organizational Imprinting Organizational imprinting is a popular theoretical framework for explaining the differences in directions and outcomes that organizations experience. This framework asserts that organizations are shaped by the constraints of the time of their inception. These constraints are an amalgamation of the political, economic, and societal realities of the time. 11 This framework is a coalition of two actions: the initial imprint of the constraints and actions of the founding actors and the process of imprinting that creates the persistence of the values that shaped the organization. 12 10 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Our History,” LLNL, accessed May 12, 2024, https://www.llnl.gov/purpose/history. Also, American Institute of Physics, “Physics History Network,” Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, accessed May 12, 2024, https://history.aip.org/phn/21612012.html. Tarter, C. B. (2018). The American Lab An Insider’s History of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1st ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. 11 Simsek, Z., Fox, B. C., & Heavey, C. (2015). What’s Past Is Prologue: A Framework, Review, and Future Directions for 2.4. Organization Theory and Resource Dependence Tied to the Manufacture of New Nuclear Weapons Organization Theory is a multifaced discipline that seeks to understand how organizations form, grow, and respond to the outside environment and why they make certain decisions. Out of Organization Theory comes the idea of resource dependency. The focus of resource dependency lies in analyzing the effect that the acquisition of resources has on the behavior of an organization. Resources are fundamental to the survival and success of an organization; however, organizations do not always have control over the resources they need. When this occurs, they must implement strategies to maintain access to the resources needed for the organization’s survival. 13 Throughout Livermore’s history, the laboratory needed resources and found it could acquire the most resources through the production and modernization of nuclear weapons. The laboratory sees resources and weapons as inextricably tied. Consequently, when the production or modernization of nuclear weapons is threatened, it represents an existential threat to the resources the laboratory needs. Following this logic, the laboratory sees weapons development as survival and must devise methods to ensure their continued production. 2.5. Iron Triangle Model The Iron Triangle refers to the connection and influence web that ties government institutions, special interest groups, and Congress. The Iron Triangle framework has historically been most Organizational Research on Imprinting. Journal of Management, 41(1), 288–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314553276 12 Johnson, V. (2007). What is organizational imprinting? Cultural entrepreneurship in the founding of the Paris Opera. The American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 97–127. https://doi.org/10.1086/517899 13 Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations : a resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row. https://www.llnl.gov/purpose/history https://history.aip.org/phn/21612012.html Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 5 effective as a form of analysis for the United States military-industrial complex. 14 Despite being deeply intertwined with the traditional private benefactors of the Iron Triangle, the U.S. nuclear industrial complex has largely escaped the scrutiny that the conventional military-industrial complex receives. The laboratories have historically existed in a gray area within the Iron Triangle, camouflaged by the academic image that terms such as “research” and “development” conjure. The new model under privatization of being government-owned but privately contracted further blurred the lines surrounding the laboratories’ position in the Iron Triangle. Sandia National Laboratories is a useful and possibly more familiar example of the problematic and abstruse nature of the nuclear weapons complex. The federally funded research and development center was operated by Sandia Corporation from 1993 to 2017; Sandia corporation was a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. In 2017, Sandia was taken over by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International. Livermore is currently operated by its own consortium of private interests and has a unique position in the Iron Triangle. The use of the Sandia example was an attempt to provide context to the scale and pervasiveness of competing private interests in the United States nuclear weapons complex. In the Livermore case, it is important to recognize how the structural model of the Iron Triangle interacts and is reinforced by traditional resource dependency and privatization. The nuclear laboratory complex and the military- industrial complex both engage in monopolistic behaviors with the United States government as 14 Franklin C Spinney, “National Security Iron Triangle,” Tipping Point North South, March 17, 2014, https://tippingpointnorthsouth.org/2014/03/17/national- security-iron-triangle/. Iron Triangle diagram. 15 Tinoco, Janet K. "Organizational power and dependence: contradictions and implications for industry control." International Journal of Management and Innovation, vol. 2, no. 2, July 2010, pp. 54+. Gale Academic OneFile, the only customer. 15 The structure of the U.S. government, with multiple ways to lobby for resources, allows many opportunities for laboratories like Lawrence Livermore to pursue and acquire resources. 3. Founding of Lawrence Livermore Although founded in 1952, the groundwork laid for Livermore was years in the making. To properly identify and analyze the creation of an organizational mission and ethos, it is necessary to fully review and comprehend the organization’s earliest influences and the rationale for its creation. The organizational imprinting process begins with the constraints, motivations, and actions of the founders. The founders of Livermore were a part of the atomic community before it became an organization. Therefore, their disagreements, qualms, and individual ideologies within that community must be recognized as possible forces of organizational imprinting. Prior to the creation of Livermore, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, opened in 1943, designed all of the United States’ nuclear weapons. The end of World War II brought uncertainty and division to the atomic community. As relations cooled between the United States and the Soviet Union, those who had opposed the use of nuclear weapons in the war along, with many of those who saw the destruction they caused, began to aggressively lobby for arms control. After the detonation of the U.S.S.R’s first atomic bomb in 1949, the arms control camp had lost the lobbying war, and the Truman administration decided to pursue a hydrogen bomb. 16 Edward Teller had been campaigning for a second laboratory and preaching the promise of link.gale.com/apps/doc/A270375485/AONE?u=oregon_oweb&s id=googleScholar&xid=120bd221. Accessed 19 May 2024. 16 Notable names in the arms control camp were Oppenheimer and Einstein. 1. “Einstein and the Nuclear Arms Race: AMNH,” American Museum of Natural History, accessed May 13, 2024, https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and- war/nuclear-arms-race. https://tippingpointnorthsouth.org/2014/03/17/national-security-iron-triangle/ https://tippingpointnorthsouth.org/2014/03/17/national-security-iron-triangle/ https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-race https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-race Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 6 the hydrogen bomb since his first days on the Manhattan Project: the United States’ development of the first atomic bomb. A fervent anti-communist and scientific romantic, Teller was, and remains to this day, the subject of division in the atomic community and beyond. 17 As Teller’s relationships within the atomic community deteriorated due to his hawkish anti- arms control positions as well as his desire to pursue a hydrogen bomb, these same positions and desires would create new similarly hawkish allies outside of the atomic community. Teller garnered the support of Air Force officers, members of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and David Griggs, one of the founders of the RAND Corporation, a research and development institute, policy think tank, and consulting firm. These parties had already turned their focus to the coming Cold War and saw a second laboratory focused on developing a hydrogen bomb as a necessity. With the support of those outside of the academic atomic community, the debate was already moving in Teller’s favor for the creation of a second laboratory when Ernest Lawrence offered to run the new lab out of his existing radiation laboratory at UC Berkeley. Lawrence, a veteran of the first atomic bomb project, had already acquired the retired Livermore Air Force base as a site for a model accelerator project that could produce plutonium. Instead, Lawrence had gone to a subsidiary of Standard Oil to purchase and fund the site under the name Livermore Laboratories (Figure 1). Lawrence’s support strengthened the bid for a new laboratory. After the first successful test of a hydrogen bomb that came out of Teller’s work at the Livermore Labs, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the regents of the University of California decided that the Livermore site would become the second laboratory. Although it was agreed that Lawrence would stay at Berkeley, his influence was 17 Gusterson, H. (1996). Nuclear rites: a weapons laboratory at the end of the Cold War. University of California Press. memorialized through the new lab’s name. Herbert York, a student and friend of Lawrence, was the first director of the lab. Although Teller and Lawrence shared many of the same ideals, they had competing ideas of what the new laboratory would look like. Teller wanted a large lab devoted to weapons production and the hydrogen bomb—one with all the resources available. Lawrence, on the other hand, envisioned a smaller, more diverse laboratory. At one point, seeing that the AEC charter did not include work on the hydrogen bomb, Teller threatened to pull his support. Although both were crucial in the creation of the laboratory and its success, Teller’s media, political, and military clout would consistently prove to be one of the most effective ways to garner resources for the laboratory and a trump card in personal disputes. Figure 1. Map of Livermore and Site 300. With a first-year budget of only $600,000, Livermore Laboratory was initially destined to play a secondary support role for Los Alamos. However, that would soon change. In the first years, Livermore Lab conducted a series of unsuccessful weapons tests. Despite these failures, a high-explosive testing center was opened in 1955, and that same year, Livermore garnered its first weapons design project. Site 300 was acquired in June of 1955 by the AEC for Livermore Laboratories. 18 The 11 square miles of 18 Site 100 being Berkely and Site 200 Livermore itself. Livermore Laboratories being the name at that time Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 7 Site 300 would be key in Livermore’s growth. It is home to the world’s largest indoor testing facility, the Contained Firing Facility (CFF). Many of the half dozen annual CFF tests and 40 to 50 explosive detonations that are done at Site 300 are created and assembled there. 19 One of the first large projects Livermore undertook was to design a warhead for the Regulus II missile. Although the Navy eventually pulled the plug on the Regulus II missile, the warhead designed for the Regulus II that came out of Livermore was successful. The warhead would eventually be used and built upon for other missiles. From 1958 to 1961, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a moratorium on nuclear testing. This came at a time when Livermore Labs was working on the Polaris warhead for the Navy, a nuclear-armed, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). Seemingly unaffected by the moratorium, the US Navy successfully deployed the first batch of Polaris warheads in 1960. The success and momentum of this project would give Livermore a near monopoly on all strategic Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) warheads from the 1960s until the mid-1970s. During this moratorium, Livermore branched out into supercomputer modeling. While the lab had been using computers since 1953 to design thermonuclear weapons, the moratorium forced Livermore to focus its efforts on modeling nuclear reactions with the use of supercomputers. This computer modeling would expand to Site 300 and become key in non-nuclear warhead research. In 1971, 19 Map of Livermore’s sites- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Woodward, R K, Lamarre, A L, Green-Horner, L, Madrid, V M, Oberderdorfer, J A, and Taffett, M J. Natural Attenuation of Tritium in Vadose Zone Moisture and Groundwater at a Lawrence Livermore Site in Northern California, USA. Washington, D.C, Oak Ridge, Tenn.: United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs ; Distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1999. http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/8839-KHgvjZ/. 20 Simsek, Z., Fox, B. C., & Heavey, C. (2015). What’s Past Is following community and university backlash, the university and the lab split. Although still under management by the University of California Regents, the lab was no longer a part of UC Berkeley. 3.1. Polaris The events that led up to Polaris and its eventual success were definitive moments of organizational imprinting. The success of Polaris demonstrates how the resources reaped from Teller’s off-the- cuff promises, the impact of policy connections, and isolation acted as the catalyst for the lab’s approach to resource dependence as well as the lab’s political influence today. The process of imprinting involves the integration of the imprinting pressures into the organizational structure. The literature on the actual imprinting process is plagued with inconsistencies and mechanisms specific to each case. There is, however, consensus regarding the factors that create the proper environment for the imprinting process to take hold. Entry into new markets, as well as during or succeeding periods of poor performance or crisis, are known as sensitive periods. 20 During these times, organizations can internalize the environmental constraints and reflect them in the structure, norms, and mission. Livermore began its history with three unsuccessful weapons tests, resulting in calls from across the government and the atomic community for the closure of the young lab. 21 In 1956, the Navy Prologue: A Framework, Review, and Future Directions for Organizational Research on Imprinting. Journal of Management, 41(1), 288–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314553276 21 Jeff Garberson, “Study Recounts Early, Difficult Years of Lawrence Livermore National Lab,” The Independent, August 23, 2013, https://www.independentnews.com/news/study- recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national- lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html. Also Goodwin, Bruce T. “Spotlight on National Labs: Lawrence Livermore National Lab.” American Nuclear Society Young Members Group Webinar. Lecture presented at the American Nuclear Society Young Members Group Webinar, July 16, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314553276 https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 8 invited staff from Los Alamos and Livermore to discuss an anti-submarine warfare study called Nobska. The focus of the study was to put nuclear warheads on submarines. Teller promised he could make a 30-fold improvement in weight to yield of the nuclear warhead. More damage in a smaller delivery system was extremely enticing to the Navy. His proposition for a small one megaton warhead captured the attention of the Navy and Livermore received funding for the project. There was much skepticism that his project could be completed. In response to an Air Force request for a factual and unbiased opinion of Polaris, the RAND Corporation released a 1958 memorandum expressing its necessary role in the United States’ deterrent force. 22 At this time, the Air Force was in an organizational battle for resources with the Navy and Army. Each wanted a deterrence strategy with their own organization at the center. This played a huge factor in the Navy’s choice to pursue Polaris and the Air Force’s opposition. 23 Despite the fact that only one element of the system had been tested before the 1958 testing moratorium took effect, Livermore’s budget and staff grew, and the first batch of Polaris warheads were successfully deployed in 1960. The success of this project would give Livermore a near monopoly on all strategic Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) warheads until the mid- 1970s. 3.2. RAND Corporation: Livermore’s Introduction to the Power of Policy Due to the nature of how these organizations interact, it is impossible to quantify the effect that the RAND Corporation’s 1958 memorandum had on the implementation of Polaris. However, the effect of the reciprocal influence between the RAND Corporation and Livermore is well 22 E.P. Oliver, Polaris Weapon System, 28 October 1958, RAND Memorandum RM-2311, Secret, excised copy 23 John T Correll, “The Ups and Downs of Counterforce,” Air & Space Forces Magazine, May 15, 2024, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1005counterforce/ #:~:text=McNamara%2C%20was%20 likewise%20 repelled%20 documented. As previously noted, Teller’s bid for a second laboratory was supported by David Griggs, one of the architects of RAND. Adding to the connection, Griggs had met Lawrence at the MIT radiation laboratory after the end of World War II. RAND began as a Research and Development arm of the Douglas Aircraft Company, an aerospace and defense company based out of Southern California. In 1958, the Air Force approved a split between Douglas and Project RAND, leading to the creation of the RAND Corporation as a non-profit. RAND is often considered the first think tank and has played a major role in researching and promoting policy during the Cold War. RAND is responsible for much of early game theory, the growth of War Games, and different deterrence strategies, and it played a prominent role in the conflicts in both Vietnam and Korea. Prior to Polaris and shortly after Livermore’s founding, then Director of Physics for the RAND project David Griggs directed his political analysts to engross themselves in the work taking place at the new lab. Tom Ramos, author of From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War and member of the Livermore team behind Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, wrote about the analysts who went to Livermore, many of whom would become major influencers in the field of nuclear policy. Included in the group were names like Bernard Boddie, William Kaufmann, Andy Marshall, Albert Wohlstetter, and Herman Kahn. Ramos hints at the intimacy of this relationship by describing how Kahn spent so much time at the laboratory that he had his own office. 24 The analysts who immersed themselves at Livermore saw the weight and size of the current by,targeting%20 doctrine%20in%20 February%201961 24 Tom Ramos, “The Importance of Professional Nuclear Policy Analysis,” Nipp, October 3, 2022, https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the- importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535- october-3-2022/. https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 9 warheads as a vulnerability. Heavier warheads called for stronger delivery systems, limiting options available for a possible second strike. Ramos tracks how that information was conveyed to the staff at Livermore. Livermore’s focus was directed at creating smaller weapons; after the initial failures, they had successfully designed and tested the smallest hydrogen bomb yet. 25 It was this allegiance between RAND and Livermore that enabled the lab to pursue Polaris and for RAND to endorse it. This partnership made the theory of counterforce and limited nuclear war that Herman Kahn and others at RAND had been pushing a possible reality. 26 When discussing the success of Polaris and the relationship between RAND and Livermore, Ramos writes, “This wasn’t an accident, and it doesn’t mean that Los Alamos was incapable of achieving a similar feat. It does show, however, how potent it is to have nuclear policy analysts as integral contributors to the design process.” 27 Coming from an employee of the laboratory for over 40 years, Ramos’s thesis is unsurprising: key actors at Livermore like Lawrence and Teller, in tandem with RAND analysts, saved the United States from nuclear war by creating weapons that lead to an effective deterrence strategy. Although Ramos saw the fusion of policies and research and development as a great achievement and his writing reflects that bias, his work offers evidence of historical connections between Livermore and policy creation implementation. Before his book was published in 2022, he was tasked with the creation of an internal classified chronology of Livermore’s early weapons development in order 25 Tom Ramos, From Berkeley to Berlin: How the Rad Lab Helped Avert Nuclear War (Naval Institute Press, 2022). 26 William  A Stewart, publication, Counterforce, Damage-Limiting, and Deterrence (The RAND Corporation, 1967). 27 Tom Ramos, “The Importance of Professional Nuclear Policy Analysis,” Nipp, October 3, 2022, https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the- importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535- october-3-2022/. 28 Jeff Garberson, “Study Recounts Early, Difficult Years of Lawrence Livermore National Lab,” The Independent, August to give lectures to the directorate. Much of this history remains classified. 28 The publishing of his book that contains the non-classified history offers new information and sources that might be unavailable to a laboratory outsider. Ramos’s work shows the formation of a laboratory that is intimately connected with the creation and implementation of the policy concerning weapons they are creating. The chronicles of Livermore’s organizational relationship with RAND and other political organizations illustrates a sensitive period where organizational imprinting could take place, as well as the formation of Livermore’s position in the Iron Triangle of government institutions, special interest groups, and Congress. 29 Ramos goes further than just framing this relationship in a favorable light. In a 2022 article, he uses his research to critique an article from the nonprofit journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The article by Alan Kaptanoglu and Stewart Prager was itself a critique of the fact that most of the framing and discourse around deterrence and nuclear weapons is being done by actors who have vested interests in the proliferation of nuclear arms. 30 Once again, the heart of this issue is agency. Ramos wants to only ascribe positive agency to Livermore. Ramos openly stated that Livermore benefited from and shared influence with policy-making organizations. However, at the same time, he rejected the possibility that this unregulated interconnectivity could lead to self- interested decision making. Kaptanoglu and Prager’s message was a call to democratize the discourse and honestly discuss the risks of 23, 2013, https://www.independentnews.com/news/study- recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national- lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html. 29 Franklin C Spinney, “National Security Iron Triangle,” Tipping Point North South, March 17, 2014, https://tippingpointnorthsouth.org/2014/03/17/national- security-iron-triangle/. 30 Susan D’Agostino, “US Defense to Its Workforce: Nuclear War Can Be Won,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 2, 2022, https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/us-defense-to-its- workforce-nuclear-war-can-be-won/. https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://tippingpointnorthsouth.org/2014/03/17/national-security-iron-triangle/ https://tippingpointnorthsouth.org/2014/03/17/national-security-iron-triangle/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/us-defense-to-its-workforce-nuclear-war-can-be-won/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/us-defense-to-its-workforce-nuclear-war-can-be-won/ Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 10 escalation. In response, actors from the defense silos and inside the nuclear industrial complex that were the subject of the article replied with varying levels of combativeness. One political scientist at the Army Management Staff College, Adam Lowther, editor of the guide that the article critiqued, responded by calling the authors “arm- chair generals” and reminded them that the work they were critiquing was created by “real generals.” 31 Ramos joined this conversation with an article titled “The Importance of Professional Nuclear Policy Analysis.” Instead of addressing the thesis of the article that focused on the democratization of the discussion and recognition and connection of vested influence on policy, he focused on arguing that this monopoly on the discourse was necessary. Ramos concluded his essay by asking, ....could “amateur” nuclear policy analysts have come out of their silos to provide Kennedy with a nuclear policy strategy as good as the RAND analysts’ Counterforce Strategy turned out to be? I doubt it. That nuclear strategy took years of study to develop, and it needed intense collaboration with other members of the defense establishment, including the physicists of Livermore. Their achievement strikes one as being the product of professionals. 32 31 François Diaz-Maurin, “Rebuttal: Current Nuclear Weapons Policy Not Safe or Sane,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 24, 2022, https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/rebuttal-current- nuclear-weapons-policy-not-safe-or-sane/. 32 Tom Ramos, “The Importance of Professional Nuclear Policy Analysis,” Nipp, October 3, 2022, https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the- importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535- october-3-2022/. 33 “Our Mission Our Vision Our Commitments Our Values,” Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory , accessed May 17, 2024, https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/2022-09/Mission- Poster_V04.pdf. Also 1. “Management and Sponsors,” LLNL, accessed May 16, 2024, https://www.llnl.gov/purpose/management-sponsors. 34 Staff, “A Nuclear Family Rivalry,” Slate Magazine, July 13, 2005, https://www.slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2005 Livermore identifies as a force of global peace and beneficial scientific development: an organization that can use federal funds to attract “talented staff,” work with private contractors, and simultaneously remain independent. 33 What is Livermore independent from? Much of the lab’s early history was not shaped by independence but rather by isolation. 3.3. Livermore versus Los Alamos The rivalry between Livermore and Los Alamos that began even before Livermore’s official opening has been well documented. 34 A major argument for the lab’s inception was to spur creation through competition. 35 When Teller and Lawrence were traveling the country campaigning for its formation and collecting allies in the government, military, and private sector, the prospective lab was already attracting opposition. Alongside Oppenheimer and the Atomic Energy Council, they also faced resistance from Norris Bradbury, the director of Los Alamos at the time, who saw the creation of the laboratory as a potential threat to the resources under his control. When Livermore came into being, it had fewer resources and lacked connections with the Air Force, the chief recipient of nuclear weapons. Whoever had a good relationship with the Air Force would receive more and better contracts and support. The rivalry was contentious from the start. 36 Livermore’s first test, Ruth, was so /a_nuclear_family_vacation/a_nuclear_family_rivalry.html. Also, Walter Pincus, “2 Labs Battle to Be No. 1 - The Washington Post,” The Washington Post, December 11, 1978, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/12/ 2-labs-battle-to-be-no-1/20a1a894-4867-4f9d-97d0- 183c6c6d844e/. 35 JAKE BARTMAN, “Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Discover Los Alamos National Laboratory,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, April 27, 2023, https://discover.lanl.gov/publications/national-security- science/2023-spring/lawrence-livermore-national- laboratory/#:~:text=%2C%20though%2C%20the%20arts%20 race%20 between,physics%20and%20design%20 at%20 Livermore. 36 Jeff Garberson, “Study Recounts Early, Difficult Years of Lawrence Livermore National Lab,” The Independent, August https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/rebuttal-current-nuclear-weapons-policy-not-safe-or-sane/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/05/rebuttal-current-nuclear-weapons-policy-not-safe-or-sane/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://nipp.org/information_series/tom-ramos-the-importance-of-professional-nuclear-policy-analysis-no-535-october-3-2022/ https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/2022-09/Mission-Poster_V04.pdf https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/2022-09/Mission-Poster_V04.pdf https://www.llnl.gov/purpose/management-sponsors https://www.slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2005/a_nuclear_family_vacation/a_nuclear_family_rivalry.html https://www.slate.com/articles/life/welltraveled/features/2005/a_nuclear_family_vacation/a_nuclear_family_rivalry.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/12/2-labs-battle-to-be-no-1/20a1a894-4867-4f9d-97d0-183c6c6d844e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/12/2-labs-battle-to-be-no-1/20a1a894-4867-4f9d-97d0-183c6c6d844e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/12/2-labs-battle-to-be-no-1/20a1a894-4867-4f9d-97d0-183c6c6d844e/ Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 11 unsuccessful that it failed to even bring down the 300-foot tower that it was placed on. A picture of the still-standing tower (Figure 2) was framed and sent to Livermore with a note that asked the laboratory to leave the towers for subsequent tests fully intact so that Los Alamos could reuse them in the future. 37 Figure 1. Photograph of the Ruth tower. Without the market of the Air Force and influenced by RAND political analysis, the laboratory had no choice but to go small. The laboratories took sides in the battle between the Air Force and the Navy on who would shoulder the future of U.S. deterrence; the Polaris success crowned Livermore the victor and gave them a monopoly on ICBMs until the 1970s. Having gone through the humiliation of failures and playing second fiddle to Los Alamos, Livermore clung to the rewards of Polaris. Teller’s method of promise first, develop later had paid off in a big way. The rivalry between the two laboratories is best demonstrated through the words of those who experienced it: “Remember: The Soviets are the competition. Los Alamos is the enemy (Attributed to Livermore weapons designer).” 38The 23, 2013, https://www.independentnews.com/news/study- recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national- lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html. 37 Jeff Garberson, “Study Recounts Early, Difficult Years of Lawrence Livermore National Lab,” The Independent, August 23, 2013, https://www.independentnews.com/news/study- recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national- lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html. Photograph of the Ruth tower taken by Los Alamos Observer. 1. LLNL, “Our History - 1950s,” LLNL, accessed May 16, 2024, https://www.llnl.gov/purpose/history/1950s#event-the-ruth- event. relationship has consistently been characterized by heads of laboratories and members of defense communities as a healthy rivalry. However, even advocates of the competition model unintentionally touch on the negative elements that have been imprinted on the labs through this rivalry. Sybil Francis, director of the policy research group Center for the Future of Arizona, wrote her dissertation at MIT on competition in weapons development and is now researching how the competition between Livermore and Los Alamos can be implemented elsewhere in the government to spur innovation. In discussing the results of the pressures that Livermore faced, she explained that the environment at Livermore “…led to a culture of entrepreneurialism at Livermore, a less conservative approach to weapons design and riskier endeavors.” 39 Although she and others might see increased risk and entrepreneurship as positive characteristics of a Nuclear Weapons facility, scientists of the labs and outside observers have come to different conclusions regarding the value and success of the rivalry. A 1978 Washington Post article focused on the growing intensity of the rivalry in the face of a possible test ban contained interviews with scientists from both labs and from those outside of the rivalry. One scientist who was familiar with both laboratories expressed concern that the rivalry was unhealthy and destructive to the needs of the country. The scientist explicitly stated that “the labs are trying to influence weapons decisions by ‘overselling’ the nuclear effects of their designs ‘in the struggle to be No. 1.’” 40 A scientist from Los 38 Jeffery Lewis, “RRW: Los Alamos vs. Livermore,” Arms Control Wonk, September 29, 2005, https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/200807/rrw-los- alamos-v-livermore/. 39 John Markoff, “Laid-Back in the Lab, Maybe, but They Spurred the Weapons Race,” The New York Times, July 4, 2011, https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/science/05bomb.html. 40 Walter Pincus, “2 Labs Battle to Be No. 1 - The Washington Post,” washingtonpost.com, December 11, 1978, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/12/ 2-labs-battle-to-be-no-1/20a1a894-4867-4f9d-97d0- 183c6c6d844e/. https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html https://www.independentnews.com/news/study-recounts-early-difficult-years-of-lawrence-livermore-national-lab/article_44e876e2-0aad-11e3-a35f-001a4bcf887a.html Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 12 Alamos shared that the commonly accepted difference between the labs was that while Los Alamos built weapons at the direction of the nations security interest, Livermore “believes it’s God’s work to build bigger and better warheads.” 41 The rivalry that began with Livermore in a position of little resources and no connections has continued to this day, shaping the organization. Proponents of the competition recognize the organizational effect that it had on the laboratory and see the risk-taking and ambition that resulted from it as a benefit. However, the scarcity of resources and political influences from RAND cornered Livermore, so they became dependent on the creation of smaller counterforce weapons. At first, it was just to survive and escape the humiliation of early failures. However, by building off this established period of imprinting, it will be demonstrated that risk-taking and the resource dependency that formed in the early years of the lab continue to shape the lab today in its role as a driver of arms racing. 3.4. Teller: Solitaire Separation and Star Wars Teller, along with early Livermore supporter and resident RAND analyst Herman Kahn, was the inspiration for the fictional scientist in Stanley Kubrick’s political satire film Dr. Strangelove. 42 The Hungarian-born United States physicist is consistently characterized as an overly ambitious man whose back-of-the-envelope calculations needed extensive review and grounding by his peers. 43 The creation of Livermore, his testimony against Oppenheimer, and his pursuit of missile defense deeply imprinted on Lawrence Livermore’s organizational ethos. As a founder, 41 Walter Pincus, “2 Labs Battle to Be No. 1 - The Washington Post,” washingtonpost.com, December 11, 1978, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/12/12/ 2-labs-battle-to-be-no-1/20a1a894-4867-4f9d-97d0- 183c6c6d844e/. 42 Peter Goodchild , “Meet the Real Dr Strangelove,” The Guardian, April 1, 2004, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/apr/01/science.re Teller sent the laboratory on a path of risk-taking, isolation from the larger scientific community, and political maneuvering. Teller responded to the scientific isolation by embracing military support and influence, leading the laboratory to become more integrated into the early military- industrial complex and internalizing the hawkish organizational ethos of military organizations into Livermore’s own ethos. Teller, who had been preaching and exploring the idea of a hydrogen bomb since his time at the Manhattan Project, would finally find success in what would be known as the Teller-Ulam design. The importance of Stanisław Ulam, a Polish Jewish physicist, in the development of the hydrogen bomb has been debated. The controversy stems from Teller’s self-promotion and historical campaigning for the hydrogen bomb. Today, it is widely accepted that Teller, “the father of the hydrogen bomb,” would not have been successful without Ulam. Teller constantly dismissed and denied Ulam’s impact; this self-aggrandizing would be the first step down a road of isolation from the scientific community. 44 Despite the controversy, the hydrogen bomb skyrocketed Teller’s political capital and made him a hero of the nuclear age. His propensity to fully immerse himself in an idea and leave the hard calculations for later was key to landing Polaris and greatly influenced Livermore organizational ethos. In reviewing Livermore insider and author Bruce Tarter’s history of Livermore, Benjamin Sims writes, Livermore continued to display greater willingness than Los Alamos to engage in political and technical maneuvering to push new and risky projects, even where search1. 43 Broad, W. J. (1992). Teller’s war : the top-secret story behind the Star Wars deception. Simon & Schuster. 44 Schweber, S. S. (Silvan S. ). (2000). In the shadow of the bomb : Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the moral responsibility of the scientist (Core Textbook). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400849499 https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400849499 Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 13 technical feasibility had not quite been established. Although this strategy enabled the laboratory to grow, in some cases it led to technical and administrative difficulties. It also contributed to the laboratory’s reputation for actively pushing a militaristic, ‘hardline, anticommunist point of view’ that led to public criticism—particularly in relation to missile defense. 45 It is well-documented that much of the scientific community opposed the creation of Lawrence Livermore. The formation of the laboratory, the military, and the RAND Corporation may have further isolated Teller and Lawrence, reflected in their leadership and staff choices. The staff consisted of young scientists who had grown under Lawrence and Teller and shared their anti- communist fervor. Already cut off from the larger community and embroiled in an intense rivalry with Los Alamos, Teller and Livermore were further segregated from the scientific community after his testimony at the 1954 AEC hearing. Teller was the only scientist to testify that Oppenheimer should not receive security clearance. Notably, Ernest Lawrence did not attend the hearing due to battling colitis. However, Teller’s equally hawkish Livermore Lab partner later said that Oppenheimer should never again be in the position to influence policy. 46 Despite his hardline anticommunist views, Teller’s main concern during the trial was Oppenheimer’s opposition to the H-bomb. Isidor Isaac Rabi, a Nobel prize- winning physicist, had been a critic of the militarization of science since the Manhattan Project. When asked about the outcome of Teller’s testimony, he plainly stated that “The scientific 45 Sims, Benjamin. Review of The American Lab: An Insider's History of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, by C. Bruce Tarter. Technology and Culture 61, no. 4 (2020): 1238-1240. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2020.0136. 46 Staff, “Lawrence and the Cyclotron,” Niels Bohr Library & Archives, accessed April 15, 2024, https://history.aip.org/exhibits/lawrence/lcw.htm#:~:text=A% community was thoroughly behind Oppenheimer. Teller disgraced himself, and he was more or less ostracized. But there was no rift.” 47 When Teller segregated himself from the scientific community, he found the lucrative embrace of the military and sought their support and political maneuvering to continue to pursue his passions. 3.5. Plowshare The possibility of a test ban and the creation of the Plowshare program demonstrates how Livermore learned to respond to threats to its ability to acquire resources. By framing nuclear weapons as the key to untapped civilian benefits, Livermore learned to disguise its pursuit of resources through weapons development as purely scientific projects. The possibility of a test ban represented a threat to Livermore’s ability to acquire new resources. Fears of a nuclear winter were one of the major motivations for a test ban. In response, Teller used his image as the Father of the Hydrogen bomb and his new political connections to argue that Livermore was on the brink of creating a clean bomb that could be used for civilian use. He lobbied Congress and appeared on TV to oppose the test ban treaty, arguing that tests were needed for the creation of a clean bomb. Teller proposed that clean bombs could be used for mining, extraction of oil, and projects such as the Panama Canal. Simultaneously, he worked to prove that the test ban treaty would be ineffective: “Under Teller’s direction, his colleagues at Livermore devised ever wilder schemes to prove that nuclear testing could be hidden and, therefore, a test ban was not possible. These included exploding weapons in deep caves, 20out%20of%20 colitis%20 prevented,convince%20the%20AEC%20to%20 withdraw. 47 “War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Weapon of Choice, The; Interview with Isidor Isaac Rabi, 1986,” 03/13/1986, GBH Archives, accessed May 16, 2024, http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_7E62DED261394CEDBB3 A79E9260DB791. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2020.0136 Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 14 building a gargantuan shield to hide x-rays from earthbound observers, and planning nuclear tests on the far side of the moon.” 48 This effort to retain the resources collected from weapons testing eventually manifested itself as the Plowshare program, an exploration into safe civilian uses for nuclear bombs. President Eisenhower and his Atoms for Peace initiative were excited by the possibilities that the Plowshare program and a clean bomb advertised. With presidential support, Project Chariot was born: a project aimed at creating a deep seaport in Alaska with clean nukes. Following protests by the indigenous people of Alaska and many in the scientific community, Project Chariot was scrapped. Although the plowshare program survived the 1963 test moratorium and remained until 1977, boasting 27 nuclear tests during its life, no major breakthroughs in civilian use came from it. Today, Livermore describes the creation of Plowshare as a response to Atoms for Peace, with the express goal of safe civilians; the reality is that Teller’s promise of a clean bomb never existed and does not exist today. In his book Edward Teller: The Real Dr. Strangelove, long-time BBC television producer Peter Goodchild rejects that narrative, determining that Plowshare’s goal in Alaska was not really civilian use. Goodchild writes, “Chariot was intended as a cover for military activities.” 49 Plowshare and Polaris demonstrate how Teller and Livermore have pursued resources through untested and nonexistent promises of technology. Nuclear weapons creation and testing were the goals of the laboratory; non-weapons projects were created as a means to ensure that the resources from testing and creation remained. The isolation of Livermore and the condemnation of Oppenheimer brought Teller and Livermore 48 Lawrence Wittner, “Edward Teller: The Real Dr. Strangelove- A Book Review,” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, July 1, 2013, https://www.wagingpeace.org/edward-teller-the-real-dr- strangelove-a-book-review/. 49 Goodchild, P. (2004). Edward Teller : the real Dr. Strangelove. Harvard University Press further into the arms of the military and political clout and maneuvering to acquire resources. 3.6. STAR WARS When asked about the creation of the hydrogen bomb and Teller’s tendency to pursue projects before having the science to support them, Isidor Isaac Rabi said, “...he pursued it very passionately, and at the time of this discussion, the General Advisory Committee, what he was advocating couldn’t work...that reminds me very much of what we have now 36 years later with Edward Teller in the same position advocating something which would not work. Advocating it with enormous passion and eloquence. As I say, history doesn’t repeat itself, but in this case, it does.” 50 In this quote, Rabbi refers to Reagan’s STAR WARS program. The failures of The Strategic Defense Initiative and President Bush’s Brilliant Pebbles Rabbi refer to missile defense and, more specifically, Reagan’s STAR WARS program. The failures of The Strategic Defense Initiative and President Bush’s Brilliant Pebbles missile defense systems are well documented. The science to create an effective shield was never there. The idea threatened numerous treaties, and the idea of mutually assured destruction opened the door for limited nuclear war. Because of the numerous and well-documented critiques of the Strategic Defense Initiative, this thesis offers only brief documentation of its foundation in relation to Teller and Livermore to further demonstrate the effectiveness of the resource-collecting methods Teller and Livermore have historically engaged in. After a short stint as the director of Livermore, Teller’s imagination and anti- communism drove him to find a new passion. Teller’s 1962 book The Legacy of Hiroshima unveiled his new mission: missile defense. In his book, 50 “War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Weapon of Choice, The; Interview with Isidor Isaac Rabi, 1986,” 03/13/1986, GBH Archives, accessed May 16, 2024, http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_7E62DED261394CEDBB3 A79E9260DB791. Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 15 Teller argues missile defense is a way to defend America and break free from mutually assured destruction. Following the thinking of RAND analysts, he critiqued mutual deterrence and argued that X-ray-backed missile defense would enable the United States to engage in localized limited nuclear war in response to Soviet aggression. 51 Teller’s new passion was hampered by the 1963 test ban. However, throughout the Plowshare program and underground testing, he continued to work on testing warheads for missile defense. Livermore would test larger and larger warheads underground in the name of missile defense, but that too came under threat with the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty. With Nixon’s resignation due to Watergate, Teller saw new President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller as a welcome opportunity to promote missile defense and lobby against test bans. Teller and Rockefeller had been friends since the 50s and the Vice President saw Teller as a one-of-a-kind genius. The scientific community at large found many issues in the feasibility of Teller’s idea. Their skepticism and the Threshold Test Ban taking effect in 1976 caused the conversation around missile defense to die down. The 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor that would come to be known as the disaster at Three Mile Island would invoke fear in the nation and continue to stifle support for Teller’s ideas. Although missile defense was not on the public’s mind, Teller continued to work and focus on his passion project. The election of Ronald Reagan gave Teller the opportunity he had been waiting for. Teller pitched the idea to Reagan at a tour of Livermore when he was first elected governor. Teller and Reagan were both staunch anti- communists and saw military might as the correct way to deal with the Soviet Union. Teller would become a frequent visitor to the White House, dazzling the president and his staff with his promises of missile defense and the progress in X- 51 Broad, W. J. (1992). Teller’s war : the top-secret story behind the Star Wars deception. Simon & Schuster. rays taking place. Teller would continue the tradition, stoking fears of a Soviet attack and making promises of soon-to-come breakthroughs, and Reagan bought all of it. Reagan would sign NSDD 12, The Strategic Forces Modernization Program, funneling a massive number of resources into the weapons laboratories and specifically to Teller’s work on missile defense. With Teller in attendance, Reagan would make the 1983 STAR WARs speech, calling on the scientists who brought the United States the hydrogen bomb to once again protect the nation. Much of Livermore’s work in supercomputing and lasers was made possible by the resources given under President Reagan. Teller would continue to lobby for missile defense, oppose treaties, and make new promises. He was the champion of Brilliant Pebbles under George H.W. Bush and was a champion of congressional Republicans under Clinton. In the last years of his life, his lifelong passion for missile defense would earn him a Presidential Medal of Freedom and help destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. For 30 years, the ABM Treaty supported deterrence and prevented arms racing between the United States and the Soviet Union. Teller is still a hugely influential and polarizing character, celebrated for his scientific achievement and condemned for his hawkish ideas. His imprint is still evident in the laboratory he founded and United States Nuclear policy. Most important is his imprint on Livermore in regard to acquiring resources. Out of isolation, he welcomed military-political support and saw that being deeply influential in the creation and dissemination of policy was a way to ensure continual resources. 4. End of The Cold War The end of the Cold War offered the possibility of real change for the weapons laboratories. The Department of Energy and Congress had plans for Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 16 centers of innovation and drivers of growth. The possibility of cleanup and accountability was tangible. However, as demonstrated by today’s modernization, those lofty goals failed to materialize. Understanding how the laboratory and its mission survived the end of the Cold War is crucial to understanding its influence today. In 1991, only 36% of Livermore’s budget was dedicated to research and development of nuclear weapons, while their 2024 budget request devotes 84.3% to nuclear weapons activities. 52 This happened because the organizational mission never really changed. By examining the creation of the National Ignition Facility and the creation of both the Center for Global Security Research and the International Security Research Facility, it will be made clear that although threatened, the organizational mission and imprinted processes of resource capture continued to drive the laboratory. 4.1. Possibility for Change The signing of the INF and the first two START treaties was the culmination of successful arms control negotiations to end the arms race, shifting the focus from fighting nuclear war to enshrining mutual deterrence. This meant the U.S. would no longer need new high-tech nuclear weapons. The fall of the Berlin Wall and, shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union signaled the end of the Cold War and a bipolar world. Institutions like Livermore, which were designed for coordinated weapons research, development, and supremacy during the Cold War, suddenly found themselves without a mission, network, or the national support they had grown accustomed to. Starting in 1989, Livermore’s X-ray and laser faced budget cuts, leading to the complete closure of the X-ray laser division in 1990. Under President Bush, the last weapons system that Livermore had 52 Marshall, Eliot. "Weapons labs: after the Cold War." Science 254, no. 5035 (1991): 1100+. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine (accessed May 19, 2024). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A11630748/HRCA?u=oregon_o web&sid=googleScholar&xid=0d566925. been commissioned to design, the SRAM II, was canceled. Across the defense industry, budgets were slashed and discussions about closing one of the research and design laboratories spread throughout the government. Many believed that Livermore should be closed or repurposed. In 1995, the Stockpile Stewardship Program came into full effect, Livermore’s focus was now the extremely inexpensive Stewardship and Life Extension Programs. It takes a small number of people to safely store and maintain the existing weapons. Life Extension Programs work by replacing pieces of a weapon system with an exact copy when necessary, which is understood as maintaining the stockpile and not modernizing. During this time Livermore was forced to branch out with developments in the human genome project and climate modeling. Supercomputing continued to serve as a way to monitor and test the stockpile safely and offered other areas for research. Despite the possibility for change, Livermore’s historic organizational mission and ethos were still evident during the early post-war years. 4.2. The NIF Livermore’s creation of the National Ignition Facility was advertised as a way to ensure the safety and stewardship of the stockpile and explore fusion ignition in the name of science. The $3.5 billion facility was explicitly stated not to be used for modernization. However, on page 703 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year 1994, three purposes for contained ignition facilities and the National Ignition facility are given. The first purpose was to play a crucial role in exploring physics regimes related to nuclear weapon design and to provide relevant data, especially concerning the design of secondary weapons. 53 The second purpose was to 53 Energy and Water Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1994: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, on H.R. 2445. United States: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 17 offer a simulation capability for nuclear weapon effects on strategic, tactical, and space assets, including sensors and command and control. 54 The third and final reason was to generate ignition for civilian power The NIF was paid for by funds from defense programs earmarked for nuclear weapons. Continuing the tradition perfected by Teller with projects like Plowshare, the NIF was greenwashed by Livermore and sold as research for civilian benefit, as well as a critical element to keeping the labs successful in their mission of stockpile stewardship. Through the development of the NIF, the cost continuously rose while progress slowed. In addressing these issues, Livermore continued to come up with a new rationale for the necessity of such a facility. One argument put forward was that without weapons work, the best and brightest scientists would leave. 55 4.3. The September 11th Attacks The attacks on 9/11 shook the United States to its core. In response, defense spending skyrocketed, doubling in the decade after the attacks. Since 9/11, around half of the $14 trillion spent on defense has gone to private contractors, making Washington, D.C. the largest regional economy from 2001 to 2011. 56 The laboratory gained funding for chemical weapons research, contracts for truck armor creation, and short-lived research into new tactical nuclear Bunker Busters. The laboratory pursued the Reliable Replacement Warhead program from 2004 to 2009. The program 54 Energy and Water Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1994: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, on H.R. 2445. United States: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. 55 National Ignition Facility: Management and Oversight Failures Caused Major Cost Overruns and Schedule Delays: Report to the Committee on Science, House of Representatives. United States: General Accounting Office, 2000. 56 Knickmeyer, Ellen. “Study Says Nearly Half of Defense Spending for 9/11 Wars Went to Private Contractors.” PBS, September 13, 2021. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/study-says-nearly- was a return to modernization disguised to look like Life Extension as usual. 4.4. Center for Global Security Research Livermore founded the Center for Global Security Research in 1996, followed by the construction of the International Security Research Facility in 2002. Its mission is to bridge the scientific and policy communities. It has grown tremendously in influence since its creation and opened new avenues for Livermore to exert power. The center now attracts former government employees, private interests, academics, and the military. Its creation set the stage for the laboratory’s influence today and was an important step in creating a future where the laboratory would not face the resource shortages and organizational threats it faced in the years following the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War posed existential threats to Livermore’s organizational mission and offered a real opportunity for restructuring and change. The lab continued to use its historical forms of resource acquisition through projects such as the NIF. However, this thesis sees 9/11 as the deciding factor that enabled the laboratory to hold on to its organizational ethos. It was only 10 years between the end of the Cold War and the September 11th attacks. Both shocked the country and its defense industry in different ways. Under the George W. Bush administration, the laboratory would continue to escape the post-Cold War decade and begin its transformation into the laboratory of today. half-of-defense-spending-for-9-11-wars-went-to-private- contractors. Knickmeyer, Ellen. “Study Says Nearly Half of Defense Spending for 9/11 Wars Went to Private Contractors.” PBS, September 13, 2021. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/study-says-nearly- half-of-defense-spending-for-9-11-wars-went-to-private- contractors. MorningBrew. “For the Defense Industry, 9/11 Changed Everything.” Morning Brew, September 5, 2021. https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2021/09/05/defe nse-industry-911-changed-everything. Eternal Hunger Zupo Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal 18 5. Privatization In 2003, after frustration with lab management and concerns about security, then-Secretary of Energy Spencer Abrams decided not to renew the Department of Energy (DOE) contract with the University of California, which had run the laboratory since its inception. 57 Citing security concerns at both Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, Abrams gave a public statement where he bluntly stated that the university “bears the responsibility for the systemic management failures that came to light in 2002.” 58 The new path forward under the Bush administration would be one of privatization. The University