Saturday, April 12, 2014

The US nuclear weapons complex needs a new role

Logo of the United States National Nuclear Sec...
Logo of the United States National Nuclear Security Administration. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The US nuclear weapons complex needs a new role | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The US nuclear weapons complex is in disarray, disrepair, and perhaps dissolution. In 2000, Washington created the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to better manage the facilities that make up the complex, which include the national laboratories at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Livermore, California, as well as sites that maintain, dismantle, and produce components for nuclear weapons. But as a Congressional commission led by former Under Secretary of the Army Norman Augustine and retired Adm. Richard Mies recently concluded, the NNSA has failed in its mission. In their testimony of March 24, 2014, Augustine and Mies cite two major reasons.
First, thanks to a lack of leadership, the nuclear weapons laboratories have been left without a clear mission. Set up in the middle of the last century to research and design nuclear weapons, their old mission doesn’t make much sense nearly 25 years after the end of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Arsenals comprised of thousands of nuclear weapons are no longer needed, but neither the United States nor Russia has devised a national security policy that moves beyond the flawed assumptions of nuclear deterrence. That leaves them with weapons that have little purpose, but are so dangerous that they must be maintained so they don’t accidentally go off.
Second, the privatization of the nuclear weapons laboratories has had a major impact. Augustine and Mies write that privatization has resulted in a “flawed … governance model” at the NNSA; a lack of “sound management practices;” a “dysfunctional management and operations relationship,” and “uneven collaboration with customers”—the “customers” being the NNSA and the Energy Department, which oversees it.
Casual observers may wonder why nuclear weapons research and maintenance was turned over to the private sector in the first place. It followed a bout of high-level panic over phantom security breaches in the late 1990s. After Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at Los Alamos, was thought to have shared information with the Chinese government (which in fact he never did), US policymakers created the NNSA. The new agency turned to private contractors, including Booz Allen Hamilton, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox, and Honeywell, to take over everyday management of the labs. However, as Tyler Przybylek, former general counsel for the NNSA, remarked at the Sixth Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in February, “profits and nuclear weapons don’t mix.” At the same meeting, acting NNSA director Bruce Held went even further, saying that the high fees the government pays the private contractors running the labs weren’t producing scientific breakthroughs to meet new threats to national security. He proposed that NNSA sites be managed in the “public interest.”
“I don’t think we need national laboratories to aspire to be the low-cost producer of widgets. I don’t think that’s why national laboratories exist,” he said. “The low-cost producer role belongs to the American private sector. The American private sector knows how to do that very well. What we need national laboratories for is to take on really hard technical challenges that are facing our nation and our national policymakers—take on high-risk, hard problems that involve too much risk for the private sector to honestly support.”
This outsourcing makes for the strangest of role reversals. Private firms began running government laboratories that produce nuclear weapon designs in order to meet national security goals, inverting the customary relationship of government to private business. In wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans have gotten used to the idea of private firms supplying logistical support and even private security services to military troops. But placing nuclear weapons design and maintenance—the US nuclear deterrent—in the hands of private business takes the outsourcing of government services to a new extreme.
To be fair, private firms have expressed their own frustrations in trying to manage the national labs, even as government scientists have voiced dissatisfaction with these private managers. The executives at Bechtel, Honeywell, and Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Group, among others, have puzzled at the government’s expectations. They have found that government-supported projects are generally undercapitalized at the outset and that even multi-year projects are funded from year to year through the Congressional budget process, which is fraught with uncertainty these days. In addition, private firms are required to use existing facilities at the labs for new projects, rather than building new plants with up-to-date technologies to produce new prototypes and components. In other words, normal government practices are simply outside the experience of these private businesses. Public agencies generally make do with the communications and information technology at hand, rarely have adequate funding for infrastructure upgrades, and, unlike private companies, cannot simply abandon old facilities in order to take on new projects.
It didn’t help that policy makers placed government laboratories in the hands of private sector managers at a time when these institutions essential to the Cold War no longer had a war to fight. But it’s the lack of a new mission, more than privatization, that is the great failing.
After initial US and Russian moves to reduce arsenals, dismantle weapons, secure fissile material, and downblend enriched uranium for civilian use, the heroic steps initiated by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War have been followed with only timid efforts to rethink the purpose of nuclear weapons in US national security policy. The most robust public discussion seems to focus on the high financial cost of these weapons of mass destruction, with critics hoping that downward pressure on the federal budget will require cuts to the nuclear weapons program. The result of this timidity is confusion about both the purpose of the nuclear weapons laboratories and the role of nuclear weapons in US national security—a confusion made more acute by US President Barack Obama’s calls for a world free of nuclear weapons.
Confusion and the resulting indecision on these two points is resulting in institutional decay and leaving government programs teetering on the edge of collapse. There may be sufficient funds to keep scientists on the payroll, but without consensus about purpose and an assured financial future, laboratories will crumble, morale will flag, and security may well be compromised. Already the president of B&W Pantex, which operates a nuclear weapons dismantling facility in Texas, has warned that critical safety systems are at risk because workers are cannibalizing existing systems when replacement parts are no longer available. More mundane problems, like broken plumbing, undermine workers’ morale.
The greatest irony is that US leaders turned over management of the nuclear weapons complex to the private sector at the very moment that there should have been an open debate about the public purposes of the laboratories and facilities. As Held put it, “. . . if we use a metrics approach to drive performance at national laboratories, we will be driving the national laboratories toward lower and lower risks; we will be driving them to produce widgets.” He added: “We don’t need them to produce those. We need them to really think big and take on big challenges.”
Already we’ve seen hints of a possible future role for the laboratories. Despite an overall lack of direction, the scientists at the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia national laboratories are using their knowledge for new medical applications, for environmental remediation, and to develop new energy sources, among otherinnovations. These may be just the projects that many citizens would favor, and that the world needs to meet the challenges of disease and climate change. But only with open public and political support will the nuclear weapons laboratories be reinvented as the national security laboratories—the name they already prefer.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 10, 2014

US to put 50 nuclear missiles in STORAGE to comply with Russian arms treaty | Mail Online

US to put 50 nuclear missiles in STORAGE to comply with Russian arms treaty | Mail Online

US to put 50 of its nuclear missiles in STORAGE to comply with controversial arms treaty with Russia

  • Pentagon says it will keep 450 land-based missiles but put 50 in storage
  • The launch silos will be kept 'warm' however, ready to return to service
  • Removal will help U.S .comply with the controversial New START treaty
  • US-Russia agreement was signed in 2011, aiming to reduce nuclear arms


The US has announced plans to place 50 nuclear missiles in storage as part of a controversial arms treaty with Russia.
The Pentagon said it would be keeping its current force of 450 land-based missiles, but has agreed to remove 50 of them from launch silos - although it added these silos would be maintained so they could return to active use in future.
The removal is part of a plan to bring the US into compliance with an 2011 arms control treaty with Russia known as New START - which has the subject of intense debate between U.S. politicians and weapons experts when plans were announced ahead of the 2010 mid-term elections.
Defence: A Minuteman III rocket is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The test base is one of the sites that will not be hit with missile reductions
Defence: A Minuteman III rocket is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The test base is one of the sites that will not be hit with missile reductions
Aim: U.S. President Barack Obama shake hands with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev, after signing the controversial New START treaty in 2011
Aim: U.S. President Barack Obama shake hands with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev, after signing the controversial New START treaty in 2011
Once the 50 nuclear missiles are placed in storage, the launch-ready total of 400 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles would be the lowest the US has had since 1962
The decision to keep the silos in 'warm' status - empty of missiles but capable of returning to active use - comes after members of Congress from the states that host missile bases - North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana - warned they must not be dismantled.
Senator John Tester, a Montana Democrat, called the Pentagon's announcement 'a big win for our nation's security and for Malmstrom Air Force Base,' home of the 341st Missile Wing with 150 Minuteman 3 missiles.
'ICBMs are the most cost-effective nuclear deterrent, and keeping silos warm is a smart decision and the kind of common sense Montanans expect from their leaders,' he added.
The decision to put 50 missiles in storage but not eliminate any of their launch silos is a departure from the practice followed throughout the 50-plus year history of intercontinental ballistic missiles. 
A senior defense official who briefed reporters on the plan and its rationale said the Pentagon had never before structured its ICBM force with a substantial number of missiles in standby status. 
The official spoke under Pentagon ground rules that did not permit her name to be used.
In the air: U.S. Air Force strategic bombers will be trimmed from the current deployed total of 93 to 60 - including 19 B-2 stealth bombers (pictured) - with an additional six bombers available in a non-deployed status
In the air: U.S. Air Force strategic bombers will be trimmed from the current deployed total of 93 to 60 - including 19 B-2 stealth bombers (pictured) - with an additional six bombers available in a non-deployed status

HOW US NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPARE WITH THOSE IN RUSSIA

Despite the 2011 New START deal, both Russia and the US have an extensive nuclear weapons arsenal.
In US hands there are approximately 5,114 nuclear warheads, including tactical, strategic, and non-deployed weapons.
According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States deploys 1,654 strategic nuclear warheads on 792 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers.
The Federation of American Scientists estimates the United States' non-deployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads, with a tactical nuclear arsenal numbering 500 warheads.
An unconfirmed number of additional US warheads are awaiting dismantlement.
Russia, meanwhile, is estimated to have approximately 1,480 deployed strategic warheads, with another 1,022 in non-deployed status.
It is thought Russia may have several thousand additional warheads awaiting dismantlement.
The decision was not met with universal praise however.
Hans Kristensen, an arms control expert at the Federation of American Scientists, called the administration's announcement disappointing and a shift away from nuclear weapon reductions.
'This decision appears to have more to do with the administration surrendering to the ICBM caucus [in Congress] than with strategic considerations about national security, he said.
The Pentagon said it will cost $19.3million over five years to keep the 50 launch silos and missiles in standby status. 
The missiles themselves will be stored at the base or, in some cases, sent to a depot for repairs or maintenance.
Keeping all 450 silos meant the Pentagon had to make steeper reductions in the Navy's sea-based nuclear force in order to comply with the New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, by 2018.
The US Navy will reduce the number of deployed and non-deployed submarine-launched ballistic nuclear missiles to 280 from the current 336.
Decrease: Russia is already is well below the 700-deployed weapon limit and, at the most recent reporting period last October, had only 473 compared to 809 in U.S. hands. Pictured are Russian Topol ICBMs missiles
Decrease: Russia is already is well below the 700-deployed weapon limit and, at the most recent reporting period last October, had only 473 compared to 809 in U.S. hands. Pictured are Russian Topol ICBMs missiles
The Navy has 14 Ohio-class submarines armed with missiles but only 12 will count as deployed because two will be undergoing long-term maintenance at a given time during the 10-year life of the New START treaty. 
The Navy is embarking on a multibillion-dollar program to build a replacement for the current fleet.
The other 'leg' of the US nuclear force, the Air Force strategic bombers, will be trimmed from the current deployed total of 93 to 60, with an additional six available in a non-deployed status. 
The 60 will comprise 19 B-2 stealth bombers and 41 B-52H Stratofortress heavy bombers.
The reductions ensure the US remains within the New START limit of 700 deployed strategic nuclear weapons with 400 ICBMs, 240 sub-launched missiles and 60 bombers.
Russia is already is well below the 700-deployed weapon limit and, at the most recent reporting period last October, had only 473 compared to 809 in US hands.
The value of the US keeping the missiles in storage has been questioned, especially after the Pentagon announced the total cost of the New START changes is estimated at £300million by 2018.
In addition to the 450 ICBM silos currently in use, the US Air Force has four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California that are only used for test launches. 
These test silos will remain in place.

WHY THE NEW START TREATY WAS CONTROVERSIAL FROM THE OFF

The 2011 New START Treaty is an agreement between Russia and the US to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals.
It replaced the expiring Treaty of Moscow and required both countries to halve its number of nuclear weapons over the 10 years to 2021.
A clause in the agreement means each country must also have a maximum of 700 deployed missiles and bombers, 1,550 deployed warheads and 800 deployed or non-deployed missile launchers by 2018.
The New START Treaty replaced the expiring Treaty of Moscow and required both countries to halve the number of nuclear weapons over the 10 years to 2021
The New START Treaty replaced the expiring Treaty of Moscow and required both countries to halve the number of nuclear weapons over the 10 years to 2021
The agreement was controversial from the start, prompting intense public debate during the 2010 US mid-term elections.
While arms control experts widely praised the idea of continued nuclear reduction, others accused Russia of 'cheating' on similar past agreements, adding that a further reduction would leave the US vulnerable to attack.
2012 U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was among those against the Treaty.
The allegations of 'cheating' - which were made the Republican Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe during the Senatorial debate - caused outrage in the Russian media.
The debate died down somewhat in 2012 when an official Pentagon report into the Treaty was published.
The report found that found that even if Russia did 'cheat' on the agreement and attack the US, the Treaty would have 'little to no effect' on US nuclear retaliatory capabilities.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599932/US-cut-deployed-nuke-missile-force-50.html#ixzz2ySPoEvnO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Enhanced by Zemanta

Seabees execute CBR exercises

DVIDS - News - Seabees execute CBR exercises

Courtesy Story
Seabees execute CBR exercisesCourtesy Photo
Naval Mobile Construction Battalion (NMCB) 4 personnel team wash down a simulated contaminated vehicle during an operational decontamination exercise onboard Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, Calif. NMCB 4 is finishing up its homeport training schedule in preparation of its field training exercise in April of this year. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of NMCB 4)
By Lt. j.g. Joseph DeMarzo

PORT HUENEME, Calif. – Seabees assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 4 recently completed an operational decontamination exercise on board Naval Base Ventura County March 19.

The daylong exercise was carried out by 40 battalion personnel under the watchful eyes of the battalion’s leadership and Naval Construction Training Center evaluators.

The training evolution exercised the battalion’s ability to respond and recover from a chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) attack. Specifically, it challenged the battalion to properly decontaminate personnel and equipment to quickly return to the mission. Seabee units are unique in this capacity as they are expected to continue the mission with limited delay or loss of capability when faced with a CBR attack. They are trained to stay in the fight and this “Can Do” attitude sets them apart from other fighting forces.

The exercise kicked off with a convoy of three vehicles that were notionally hit and contaminated by a chemical attack. The attack quickly forced the CBR team into action and they donned their full chemical suits, commonly referred to as Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) gear, to allow them to safely operate in the deadly environment.

After donning their gear and selecting an adequate site for decontamination operations, two survey teams were sent to the area to ensure it was clear of any agents. Once an “all clear” was determined, the remaining personnel were able to move into the area and begin the site lay down. A decontamination site is made up of multiple stations for equipment and personnel to move through.

The stations include an entry control point to control vehicle and personnel flow, a vehicle wash down station to remove vehicle contamination, a MOPP gear exchange for personnel to receive new MOPP suits, and an assembly area for personnel to rendezvous and continue their mission. Although it consists of a limited number of stations, establishing the proper layout of the site is a difficult task that requires rapid planning and decision making.

The stations must be spaced at pre-determined distances and the orientation is highly dependent upon wind direction and terrain that can change at a moment’s notice. These key factors were taken into careful consideration by the team as they developed their site and moved in their equipment.

Upon site establishment, the decontamination portion began when the contaminated vehicles arrived at the ECP. Under the close guard of ECP security personnel, the contaminated passengers inside the vehicles disembarked and were led to the MOPP gear exchange station to receive new MOPP suits while the vehicles continued to the vehicle wash down station. Each station, led by a first class petty officer as the station supervisor, had to coordinate their movements to ensure a common effort and a safe working environment. After all the vehicles and personnel were deemed clean, they were able to regroup at the assembly station and continue on with their convoy.

The exercise participants were a part of the battalion’s CBR Team, a specialized unit of 102 personnel trained to detect, respond, and recover from a CBR attack. The team members are pulled from each company throughout the battalion and receive high quality instruction from NCTC’s Disaster Recovery Schoolhouse and through unit driven training during homeport. The instruction and training ensures they meet their required capabilities to include detecting CBR attacks, marking contaminated areas, and decontaminating units in an expedient manner.

The team’s performance throughout the exercise was flawless which quickly lead to passing marks for the evolution. Through teamwork and communication, the participants demonstrated the required technical skills, command and control to execute operational decontamination in a timely manner. It is a mission set the Seabees hope to never have to use but can be counted on to perform in worst case scenarios.

With the completion of this exercise, the battalion and CBR team now focus their efforts on their upcoming Field Training Exercise this April and Pacific deployment later this year.


Read more:http://www.dvidshub.net/news/125005/seabees-execute-cbr-exercises#.U0YnqvldXhU#ixzz2ySPQJyph

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Archivist Monuments Man: Lester K. Born - The Monument Men

The Text Message » Archivist Monuments Man: Lester K. Born

The movie,The Monuments Men, has focused great attention on the Monuments Men (and women) and their work during and after World War II.  Of course the movie cannot tell the story of the over 300 individuals involved in Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives (MFA&A) work, so it focuses on three: George Stout, James Rorimer, and Rose Valland, played by George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Cate Blanchett respectively.  Beginning in December 2013, Dr. Greg Bradsher and Dr. Sylvia Naylor thought it would be illustrative to discuss some of the lesser known individuals, and thus started a series of blog posts. This blog post on Lester K. Born is the thirteenth in this series.
In 1950, Lester Kruger Born wrote about the first day he went to work as a Monuments Man in 1945:
The rain was pouring down. The hour was 0630. The day was Monday, 12 June 1945. The place was Hoechst, Germany, headquarters of the US Group Control Council. A lone figure, bundled up in hooded officers’ fieldcoat, with musette bag slung over should, and with pistol and extra clip of ammunition fastened at the waist sloshed down the street. This was the only Archivist then on the regular Table of Organization (T/O) of US Gp CC. At the appointed rendezvous bedraggled figures appeared. Trucks arrived. The Archivist and other officers climbed up beside drivers of 2 ½ ton trucks, and the little convoy started up the Autobahn from Frankfurt to Kassel. This was the Advance Party sent to open the Ministerial Collecting Center….
The story of Born joining the Monuments Men began during the fall of 1944 when there were several attempts to get Army Captain Born, then serving with the First Army in Belgium, assigned to work with the Monuments Men.  At the end of October, Fred W. Shipman, Adviser to War Department on Archives, then in Europe, wrote Brig. Gen. Frank J. McSherry, Chief, Operations Branch, G-5, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF), recommending Born for a Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives (MFA&A) position.  Shipman pointed out that Born read, spoke, and understood French and German fluently.  Shipman added that he also read Dutch and Italian and understood the latter.  Born, he wrote, traveled widely in Europe before the war, including to England, France, Germany, Poland, Austria, and Italy.  He noted that Born was a special student of medieval Latin and medieval manuscripts and paleography and that his fields of interest professionally had been the history of political theory as well as the history of archival theory and practice.  Shipman added that Born had published a number of articles in professional journals and translated Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince [1516], with a scholarly introduction, and for several years published systematic abstracts of archival publications in Western Europe (France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany) quarterly in The American Archivist .  He noted that Born “is a thorough scholar, and an energetic and conscientious worker.”  Although he had never been on the staff of the National Archives, Shipman added, he had many contacts with staff members of the institution, and was highly recommended by all who know him well. Unfortunately, there was no vacancy that Born could fill.
Lester Kruger Born was born in Alameda, California on January 23, 1903.  He studied Classical Philology at the University of California, Berkeley, where he received his bachelor’s degree in 1925 and master’s degree in 1926.  In 1928 he received a master’s degree from Princeton University where he studied Classics and in 1929 received his Ph. D. from the University of Chicago.  From 1929 until 1938 Born taught at Ohio State University (Classical Languages), Western Reserve University (Classics), and George Washington University (Classical Languages ​​and Literature). In the latter years he became Assistant Archivist of the Works Progress Administration’s Historic Records Survey, a position he held until 1941 when he joined the Office of Price Administration.  In 1942 he entered the Army.  From 1928 to 1941 he authored articles in Political Science Quarterly, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Journal of Modern History, and, American Journal of Philology.  He also wrote “Baldassarre Bonifacio and his essay ‘De Archivis’ [1631],” in The American Archivist 4 (1941).  His most important work was the translation of Erasmus’ Education of a Christian Prince [1516], with a scholarly introduction on ancient and medieval political thought (1936).
On January 20, 1945, SHAEF MFA&A requested the services of Born (then with V Corps of First U.S. Army, as archivist at 12th Army Group area).  In making the request, Capt. Marvin C. Ross, United States Marine Corps Reserve, MFA&A, G-5 Operations Branch, indicated that Born was highly recommended for this work by the Archivist of the United States and by Fred Shipman, and that Born had worked in German archives and was fluent in German.  But SHAEF was not to be Born’s initial Monuments Men assignment.  On May 29, he joined the MFA&A Branch of U.S. Group Control Council (USGCC) (Germany), as Archivist Specialist Officer, joining civilian archivist Sergeant B. Child, who served as Adviser on Archives and Libraries.  Both Born and Child were soon assigned to temporary duty with SHAEF.  In mid-June Born began a new assignment, noted above.
On June 12 the advance party of six officers, including Born, and fifteen enlisted men arrived at Fuerstenhagen, some 12 miles southeast of Kassel, to get the Ministerial Collecting Center (MCC) going.  The actual site was in the area of the munitions factory known as Fabrik Hessisch Lichtenau.  The primary mission of the MCC was to accession and take archival control of German ministerial records.  It was Born’s job to get archival operations up and running at the MCC.  Born expected his assignment would last a week.  But he was still at the MCC on July 4, when the USGCC, placed staff supervision of operational activities at MCC in the Office of the Director of Intelligence.  The scope and activities of the MCC expanded, and so did the work and the necessity for having an archivist, i.e., Born, on site.
During the fall of 1945 the volume of documents was increased at Ministerial Collecting Center by the acquisition of the Foreign Office (FO) and other records. At the end of 1945 there were over 1,420 tons of records and 40 tons of film and equipment, with over 1,500 Germans (mainly former Ministry civil servants) working with the records and assisting the Military Government to ascertain the workings of the German ministries.   It would be a challenging assignment; and there was continual push to get records accessioned and processed, ready to move to Berlin by February 1, 1946.  Before the end of the year Born would be assigned to Berlin with the MFA&A Section of the Office of Military Government (US) for Germany [OMGUS], but he would continue to work at Kassel on temporary duty.
In mid-December, Monuments Man Seymour Pomrenze visited the MCC and Born.  After this visit he wrote Oliver W. Holmes at the National Archives that:
I was greatly impressed with the manner in which this place operates and the important position Born as archivist occupies on the operational and technical staff. Born himself is a person of unusual ability, a scholar, and one of the finest officers I have met in the last 40,000 miles of my travels. He is all work and lets nothing deter him from his objective. Having a background in classics and medieval history (he had written a book on Erasmus and many other articles) he appreciates the problems connected with gathering and storing properly documents and books. His addition the staff of The National Archives at some future date would be a most valuable gain for our institution.
By the end of December 1945 a rough screening of the essential part of documents was completed with the exception of those received in December.  Most of the ministerial records were moved during January 1946, to MCC Berlin. The MCC was officially closed on February 1, and the 6689th Berlin Document Center (BDC) became fully responsible for its operation.  The former MCC would be renamed the Ministerial Documents Branch of the Berlin Document Center.   Appreciative of Born’s work Colonel Henry C. Newton, Director, Ministerial Collecting Center, Berlin, on February 12, wrote General Lucius D. Clay, Deputy Military Governor (Office of Military Government, US), that through Born’s work at the MCC, that organization had been efficiently and smoothly operated.  He indicated that Born showed initiative, imagination and determination and should be promoted.  Born would be promoted to major.
During the 1946-1949 period Born played an important role in the reconstruction of German archival operations and in the restitution and return of archival materials.  After his return to the United States in 1950, Born coordinated the microfilming of important holdings of the Library of Congress.  He also authored two important works in 1950: “The Archives and Libraries of Postwar Germany,” American Historical Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (October 1950) and “The Ministerial Collecting Center near Kassel, Germany,” The American Archivist, Vol. 13, No. 3 (July 1950). Born served as a cultural affairs officer at the American Embassy in Manila from 1956 to 1959.  He returned to the United States in 1959 to head the manuscripts section of the Descriptive Cataloging Division of the Library of Congress.  In 1963 he became head of the European Exchange Section of the Library of Congress.  Lester Born died October 7, 1969 in Washington, D.C.
Information about Born’s activities in Germany from 1945 to 1949 can be found in numerous series of records within Records of the Office of Military Government (U.S.) OMGUS (RG 260), and within numerous documents contained in Material Accumulated for a Conference on Captured German and Related Records at the National Archives, 1968 (NAID 6922180), RG242. 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Naval Search Engine

Total Pageviews

Find-A-Grave Link

Search 62.2 million cemetery records at by entering a surname and clicking search:
Surname: