Friday, December 28, 2012
Time to move nuclear weapons complex out of DOE
This article will carry a lot of weight in the on-going debate, since the WWII era concept to create a separate agency just for nuclear issues was a creation of the Manhattan project scientists. Look for special interest groups to oppose the move, then look at what they stand to loose when it happens. The salary, perks and unchecked controls are relics of bygone times.
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/who-should-manage-the-nuclear-weapons-complex
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
A skilled workforce retiring in droves has not helped the downsizing and modernization effort.
- Article
The loss of expertise under the demoralizing control of the construction company Bechtel has been staggering.
I can only hope our future solution is significantly more successful than the ERDA, DOE, and NNSA solutions. I began in the business during the AEC days when a mature level of trust existed among the AEC, Labs & Production Plant managers. Changing the oversight agency is only a first step,imo.
The article is scary in its lack of historical perspective. If your analysis doesn't include why the AEC was created separate from the DoD in the first place, it is flawed. One of the most egregious flaws is "For nearly 25 years, the government has tried to shrink the NNSA's footprint..." Huh?
Also, there is this: "But decades have passed since the end of the Cold War, and nuclear weapons no longer hold the high status they once did..." Really?? How about "danger" as a substitute for the incomprehensible "status"? Do the Iranians think nuclear weapons give "status"??
This article is intellectually and historically lacking, and is unworthy of the Bulletin. Do your own homework, and understand why the AEA refused control of nuclear weapons design, development and testing to the military. And why it's still a good idea.
The bias of the author is clear in the derogatory, judgmental descriptions. It would have been more persuasive had a strong editor replaced the bias with neutral adjectives. Neutrality would have allowed the considerable information in the essay the silent exposure to better touch the reader. Instead it demeans important considerations.
It emphasizes oversight by looky-loos like the Bulletin, without describing the overarching dysfunction hindering employee efforts, as well as the low morale brought about by the contract mandated employee compensation changes, and also the backbreaking overheads required to respond to the ongoing oversight and the paralysis that fear of the absurd punishments that occur when minor transgressions are discovered.
The labs accomplished the national mission much better under the AEC, when general guidance was given and the labs together and in competition created the nuclear weapons complex.
Much more effective leadership and efficient accomplishment of the missions. Much happier employees for a loooooot less money.
"The labs accomplished the national mission much better under the AEC, when general guidance was given and the labs together and in competition created the nuclear weapons complex."
hear him, hear him.
If the author wants an example of fair unbiased presentation for his listeners to critically evaluate, he should revisit a fine example.
Hume's "Dialogues", presents controversial points of view side-by-side (dialogic) in a fair insightful manner, carefully presenting all sides, and then, respectfully allowing the reader to decide.
Augustine used a similar even sympathetic approach to persuade pagan Rome that Christianity was by Roman standards of humanity, valor, and justice, a better choice for them.
A well informed audience will value an author that respects them.
A "well informed audience"... that would be refreshing - requiring respite from vulgar prejudice against what’s not easily known.
There is a big difference between what is not well known and what is being actively concealed or distorted.
Compared to the US or California governmental organizations, the labs work quite well. Well about average is satisfying core missions within resource envelopes over long periods of time. Not perfect, but mostly adequate, even if the average US citizen served by them is a pedantic, short-sided, lazy fool, ignorant of her shortcomings, but highly observant of others, all the while spending more than she earns and demanding others support her sorry ass.
Your comments would be taken more seriously if you didn't spell "lose" "loose".
Post a Comment