BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency to Delay Work on Interoperable Warhead

Global Security Newswire
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency to Delay Work on Interoperable Warhead
By Global Security Newswire Staff

February 18, 2014


The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration is opting to postpone work on a controversial interoperable warhead, Nuclear Weapons and Materials Monitor reports.

Don Cook, who leads the Energy Department agency's weapons program, told the publication on Wednesday that recent assessments of the two weapons the project was intended to replace -- the W-78 warhead used on land-based strategic ballistic missiles and the W-88 warhead fitted to submarine-launched Trident missiles -- revealed they could remain in active use for roughly another 15 years.

"We certainly have enough surveillance data ... to determine that we have confidence in those two systems, that we'll have confidence for a bit of a longer period of time," Cook said on the sidelines of last week's Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Arlington, Va.

The initiative to build a nuclear warhead-modernization package that could be used by both the Air Force and Navy faced considerable opposition on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers voiced concerns that it would cost more money to design the interoperable warhead than to revamp the two weapons it was intended to replace.


Meanwhile, the hefty contracts that private companies are able to command for managing the National Nuclear Security Administration's nuclear arms facilities could be done away with in the future, the agency's acting head, Bruce Held, said on Wednesday during the summit.

Held described the "creeping privatization" of U.S. nuclear weapon laboratories as "unwise" and hinted that the semiautonomous Energy Department branch could return to a "public interest model" for managing the facilities, according to Exchange Monitor Publications' "Weapons Complex Morning Briefing."

"The laboratories exist to serve the public interest and not to make profit," Held was quoted as saying. "That will affect our structure of the contracting mechanisms."

Held also addressed a recent security incident at the Y-12 nuclear-weapons complex in Tennessee, involving two small containers of highly enriched uranium that briefly went missing.

The acting NNSA administrator said he could not go into specifics on the matter as it is still being investigated but he said the sensitive material was "improperly stored."

The 20 grams of weapon-sensitive material is thought to have remained behind in the protective garments worn by a laboratory researcher that were then taken off and destined to be cleaned. Security personnel found the vials before they could be taken offsite.

This article was published in Global Security Newswire, which is produced independently by National Journal Group under contract with the Nuclear Threat Initiative. NTI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group working to reduce global threats from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

149 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Held described the "creeping privatization" of U.S. nuclear weapon laboratories as "unwise" and hinted that the semiautonomous Energy Department branch could return to a "public interest model" for managing the facilities, according to Exchange Monitor Publications' "Weapons Complex Morning Briefing."

"The laboratories exist to serve the public interest and not to make profit," Held was quoted as saying. "That will affect our structure of the contracting mechanisms.""

Wow they really are getting it. The privatization was a huge mistake. I am also hearing from other sources that Washington has been getting the message as well. At least this is some good news for a change. Of course the highly paid bloated management at the lab does not want to hear this. They are paid big bucks to keep the profit going all to the determent of the workforce and the United States. The truth is the workforce is the lab and the moral at the labs has never been lower for the non management side of the lab.

Anonymous said...

Good words, but Congress won't be onboard. It was Congress that forced the creeping privatization through, and changing directions now would require them to basically admit they were wrong.

Anonymous said...

The truth is the workforce is the lab and the moral at the labs has never been lower for the non management side of the lab.

February 19, 2014 at 9:36 PM

Well, I can tell you from personal experience and from direct communications with colleagues and peers that management (at least lower and middle, at both LANL and LLNL) morale has also never been lower. No one I know at those levels can stand the upper-level Bechtel jerks who are trying to pretend they know something about how the labs work or about how to run them. It is a real cluster, and the loss of the last remaining real talent in the workforce is a real possibility very soon. There is a capability "cliff" coming within a year or two that could leave the US without **ANY** significant nuclear weapon design and testing experience or expertise. Yes, it is that serious. So hurry up, Held, your time to save the US nuclear weapons program is very limited. This is not a test.

Anonymous said...

It's largely too late. Many great people have left, retired or moved elsewhere, and fewer and less-great people have come in to partly replace them. You can solve any problem with enough money, I suppose, but turning that back around would cost far more than what NNSA spends on the labs now.

Anonymous said...

" Good words, but Congress won't be onboard. It was Congress that forced the creeping privatization through, and changing directions now would require them to basically admit they were wrong.

February 19, 2014 at 10:13 PM"

I keep hearing that they realize that the contract change was a colossal mistake. By 2017 it will be long enough that they can admit the mistake of the old congress and claim the wisdom of the new one. The plan I think they are pushing as that they will no longer give extra years for the contract and let the current one expire.

There is also some talk that the management, at least at LANL, know this and are not happy. It could also be dangerous since if Bechtel knows that its time is coming to end they will try an leverage every last cent out of the place.
2017-2018 is not that far away but we have lost a huge amount of talent and the places are getting really bad reputations as places to work. That will take years to repair if it can be repaired.

Anonymous said...

The contracts can be rebid at any time. If DOE/NNSA has come to the conclusion that privatization was a mistake, then the only thing preventing them from fixing their problem is cowardice.

Anonymous said...

Rebid to a nonprofit. Would that be some University? What about liability?

Anonymous said...

Give them a liability waiver, or set up a university limited liability company.

Anonymous said...

"The laboratories exist to serve the public interest and not to make profit,"


Why on earth did the put the laboratories up for bid the first place? Everyone said it was going to be a disaster and guess what.

I remember them saying that under the new corporate model that we would save huge amounts of money and overhead rates would go down, WFO would be made much easier, and bureaucracy would be cut. Now are overhead rated are through the roof, huge amounts of money are lost to the fee and the bureaucracy is out of control. The number of pointless managers skyrocketed, the leadership has a complete lack of vision. We now have high level managers paid astronomical salaries but they have no engagement with the workforce. We saved so much money that we had to go through a RIF and several retirement incentives. In indeed has been a complete cluster as an earlier poster pointed out. Besides a few people getting really rich out this the labs and hence national security have suffered immensely. A true disgrace.

Anonymous said...

Remember the top post? Nuclear weapons? Not a viable subject for a nuclear weapons laboratory blog?

Anonymous said...

If NNSA does anything, it will do it wrong.

Anonymous said...

When NNSA changes back from the stupid private model to a "novel" "public interest" model, they will blame you, LLNL employee, for the high cost of doing business and will F**K YOU SIX WAYS TO SUNDAY, doubling down your losses by taking away substantially more of the already substantially reduced compensation and blaming you the employee for all shortcomings...

You are despised in DC, where jealosy and envy prevail. They are all Tyler pryzbylek clones, because that is the only kind of person who can survive the Forrestal cess pool.

Change will come, and you and the retirees will be screwed again.

Anonymous said...

All accrued benefits for contact employees will be lost as the contractor is changed, sick leave, seniority, non-vested retirement.

That"s how the costs get lower. It was done as part of the 2007 debacle, operating efficiecies...

Anonymous said...

And they will compare your total compensation to the national market (not the local market) and they will bring it back to average.

So you will lose you 401k match and all retirees will lose their medical coverage.

And they will lie to you that "trust us" "the fine print hasn't been completed' "we'll have to read it to see what's in it" and the best "thank you for your comments".

Anonymous said...

And to achieve operating efficiencies like "private industy", we'll need to fire another 1700 FTEs...

Just history repeating itself.

Anonymous said...

So. The answer is?

Anonymous said...

In 2007, if total compensation and working conditions were specified in a long-term employment contracts in 2007, NNSA could not change them arbitrarily by changing the operating contract and contractor. They would have to bargain and you would have leverage where you now have none.

Anonymous said...

So. You with some leverage, walk into your division leaders office with a well-written employment contract. Now.

Anonymous said...

Or. Do it as a group.

Anonymous said...

NNSA killed LLNL in 2007. The carcass is now well into stink.

Anonymous said...

Yep. I am a strong, experienced supporter of NNSA.

Yep. Love taking a good beating.

Keeps morale up.

Anonymous said...

Russo was a horrible boss. Brutal. Ignorant. Willfully ignorant.

Liedle was impotent.

The current lacky is an impotent figurehead.

Bret has 50 people at LLNL that are far more qualified for any senior position than any Bechtel emigre, who doesn't know what LLNL stands for.

UC oversaw the creation of a strong, responsive organization. Some of that expertise still exists.

Anonymous said...

All you twits should read the section of the current NNSA contract entitled "Follow-On Contractors." Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

7 years later, I regret the new contract more than I did then.

I particularly regret now not throwing my damn shoe then at that lying rat bastard, Tyler Przbylek, who came and spoke and soft pedaled the impact of the upcoming disaster selling BS to us,

"lanl needs the changes, LLNL probably does not."

Oh it's "substantially equivalent" alright, if success is "substantially equivalent" to failure.

I knew he was lying as he spoke and I reached for my shoe. Instead I sat there. I wrote "comments". I failed.

Anonymous said...

""lanl needs the changes, LLNL probably does not.""

In the end LLNL got the most changes and got hurt far worse that LANL. Ironic.

"Oh it's "substantially equivalent" alright, if success is "substantially equivalent" to failure."

We saw how that worked out. Say bye to 1700 people. LANL did not even have to RIF people.

"I knew he was lying as he spoke and I reached for my shoe. Instead I sat there. I wrote "comments". I failed."

You are not alone, a number of people thought maybe it would not be so bad or that maybe they could do some good. It was a horrible failure. Ok maybe some high level managers in system got really rich and Bechtel got some booty.

Anonymous said...

The only thing needed for the bad to triumph is for the good to do nothing.

Anonymous said...

And if that aint enough the liars a NNSA posed like they would contribute to the TCP1 plan in fair share with employees long enough to fool Parney, who forced employees to reduce salaries a whopping 10% and the lying bastards at at NNSA reneged.

You labor for these rat bastards why?

Anonymous said...

and with meager 1% raises, how many years to regain the 14%?

Good job LLNS / NNSA. I wonder why moral is low.

Anonymous said...

Here's what the last LLNL RFP required of bidders
---------
H-23 SEPARATE CORPORATE ENTITY AND PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE

(a) The work performed under this Contract by the Contractor shall be conducted by a separate corporate entity from its Parent Organizations. The separate corporate entity must be set up solely to perform this Contract and shall be totally responsible for all Contract activities.

---------

There was never an explicit requirement that the bidder be "for profit" and an industrial company in nature.

UC could easily set up a separate wholly UC owned LLC to meet this requirement. It also would still limit liability exposure to UC. However, Bechtel wanted its huge percentage of the management fee, and the clearest way for a public state institution like UC to do this was enter into a "teaming" partnership LLC with Bechtel.

Bectel does zero for LLNL - but UC needs them as a very visible partner to keep the LANL contract. If LANS lost the LANL contract, I know that UC would not team again with Bechtel for the LLNL contract bid - they would go it alone with the UC LLC route.

Anonymous said...

The desire to improve the Nuclear Weapon Complex management model by shifting toward "public interest" is the reason contracts will no longer be extended. In my opinion that is what got Miller in trouble, she extended the contracts.

Those considering retirement in the next ten years should probably keep an eye on this issue.

Anonymous said...

"However, Bechtel wanted its huge percentage of the management fee, and the clearest way for a public state institution like UC to do this was enter into a "teaming" partnership LLC with Bechtel."

There has been a lot of talk that Bechtel leverages the contract to gain extra hidden profit. One of things is that they move people in for as short a term as possible so that there lifelong pension gets transferred over to LLNLs. They move these people through in 3 year spots and they bring in the most expensive people. I heard that when they have people travel to the west coast that they have them stop at LLNL for an hour or so and charge the whole thing to LLNL. They have this down as a science as way to milk as much money out of the system as possible and in the end they deliver nothing. The people they bring though seem to know this and and basically use the three years as a big vacation and add less than zero to the institute. It is a corporate raid and nothing more.

Anonymous said...

I know that UC would not team again with Bechtel for the LLNL contract bid - they would go it alone with the UC LLC route.

February 21, 2014 at 5:59 AM

You are delusional. Your pining for the good ol' days has you blind to the fact that UC wants absolutely nothing to do with running LANL and LLNL. Some of the faculty and most of the regents got thoroughly splattered when the crap hit the fan over the security and other major public messes, mostly at LANL at the time. Remember, UC put Nanos in charge - you think he thought up "cowboy buttheads" all by himself? I had a personal conversation with one of the UC regents at LANL during the transition from Browne to Nanos. He was livid, and clearly was looking forward to Nanos kicking some butt. UC is not stupid and will never put themselves in that position again (and having a "separate" LLC will not protect them from getting splattered again). UC is perfectly happy to be an almost-silent partner to Bechtel, and take its share of the award fee.

Anonymous said...

Right, I'm sure UC has little interest in returning to the previous management situation, so those days are gone and have been gone for seven years now. However, another university might.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure UC has little interest in returning to the previous management situation... However, another university might.

February 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM

I'll bet other universities are capable of learning UC's lessons. Just because Congress decides it made a mistake, doesn't mean any nonprofit will want to take on the obvious risk. Guess what happens if the contact is restructured to exclude for-profit corporations, and no one decides to bid? You all want to be federal government employees?

Anonymous said...

February 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM

What is wrong with being a federal employee? I certainly would prefer that over LANS employee. Even if it would mean reduction in pay. At least I would have some protection as a worker.

Anonymous said...

U of Texas here we come...

Anonymous said...

At least I would have some protection as a worker.

February 21, 2014 at 11:54 AM

You mean like all the feds that were furloughed during the shutdown last year?

Anonymous said...

Can my children get free U of Texas tuition, or at least in-state tuition. I guess we'd have to become Republicans !

Anonymous said...

LLNS see a trend here? The result of not building employee good will.

Maybe long term survival was never your goal.

Anonymous said...

February 21, 2014 at 1:09 PM

I take a furlough over a RIF anyday.
But that is probably lost on you.

Anonymous said...

I'll take prudent management that prevent either.

Anonymous said...

February 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM

I stated "if" LANS lost the LANL contract. In other words the Bechtel-UC team lost, so there's no reason for UC to go with a losing corporate structure to bid on the LLNL contract.

Also I've actually attended open UC Regents meetings, and there is no way in hell the UC Regents would roll over and let an out of state university come into California and take over a major research lab - let alone one that UC founded.

Anonymous said...

Also, a "UC/LLNL LLC" does not necessarily mean a return to direct UC management. There would be a board of governors (just LLNS) except all would be appointed by UC. Lab employees would be employees of the LLC not UC. This is how Argonne Lab is now run under the LLC owned by the University of Chicago. Benefits and employee policies would be those of the LLC, not UC or UCOP, but would probably be closer aligned or similar to UC's. The LLC might even contract with UCOP HR to manage benefits as opposed to Hewitt.

Anonymous said...

Delusional. UC is done with the labs. They will never trust DOE/NNSA again. Getting thrown under the bus once is enough. No not-for-profit entity will ever except the financial and political risk inherent in DOE laboratories. Why doesn't someone (one of your intrepid left-coast news media outlets) just ask them? The faculty and regents are solidly against it.

Anonymous said...

"Delusional. UC is done with the labs. They will never trust DOE/NNSA again. Getting thrown under the bus once is enough. No not-for-profit entity will ever except the financial and political risk inherent in DOE laboratories. Why doesn't someone (one of your intrepid left-coast news media outlets) just ask them? The faculty and regents are solidly against it.

February 21, 2014 at 7:16 PM"

You may have a point. My guess is what some of the other posters said it will still be LLC but more like how Argonne is run. It could be a consortium with UC as one of the main partners. I also disagree that the UC will not do it. They already are doing it. The faculty are always for it, at least the science faculty are and the regents I believe will still want to do it.

Anonymous said...

The faculty are always for it, at least the science faculty are and the regents I believe will still want to do it.

February 21, 2014 at 8:52 PM

The UC faculty is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-nuclear everything. Even before the 2004 - 2006 fiasco, the faculty had petitioned to get UC out of the national labs several times. The regents were of cooler heads until they were severely burned by the negative publicity about their catastrophic failure to prevent or mitigate the very public problems. They long ago decided that a passive, nearly uninvolved presence was best. After 7 years of that, I think they are ready to let go completely. They have enough problems figuring out how to keep all their CA campuses open. The LLNS/LANS award fee is a nice but small remuneration for almost no effort on their part. To take a more active, central role in a new contract I think is beyond anything they want to get involved in.

Anonymous said...

Federalization is the obvious answer to the not so successful experiment of privatizing the complex. Time is running out to straighten out the system and few other options exist. Can the current system really remain in place until 2018 or 2019 without continued decline? We all know that something has to happen. We hope it is positive and constructive.

I don't see an alternative to federalization other than continuing as we are and accepting the status quo.

Anonymous said...

Well, I can tell you from personal experience and from direct communications with colleagues and peers that management (at least lower and middle, at both LANL and LLNL) morale has also never been lower.

February 19, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Ah poor guys. If you look at the LANL management at level, particularly at the upper levels there have little to no changes in the management since LANS took over. It's the same ole good ole boys. If they don't like, they can quit, but nnoooo, they love the inflated salaries and bonuses....bottom-line.

Anonymous said...

Bruce Held's statements have been widely misinterpreted. He is not talking rebid. He is talking Federalization.

Anonymous said...

I presume that means NNSA would have to manage the labs directly, putting an end to all battles between the laboratories and the folks in the Forrestal Building. That would probably be one of the unspoken motivations - you can't battle with your boss for long, otherwise you're out the door.

Anonymous said...

you can't battle with your boss for long, otherwise you're out the door.

February 22, 2014 at 9:02 AM

You think the employees of the labs can be convinced of that? Where's your evidence? This blog is nothing but a battleground between the employees and their bosses.

Anonymous said...

Good topic for debate: Are recalcitrant, insubordinate federal employees easier or harder to get rid of than recalcitrant, insubordinate contractor employees?
Or put another way, are federal bosses more or less tolerant of recalcitrance and insubordination than contractor bosses? Discuss among yourselves.

Anonymous said...

"Bruce Held's statements have been widely misinterpreted. He is not talking rebid. He is talking Federalization.

February 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM"

Federalization might be the best bet. I don't think Bruce Held was saying that but it would a step in the right direction. I still think it will be LLC like Argonne. As for UC they are still interested, they in fact get a lot of academic perks for the management such as a large number of UC graduates work at the lab. As for the faculty the scientist and engineers types are for UC managing the labs. These are the faculty that bring in the money so the Regents listen to them. No offense to the humanities types but since they do not bring in much money they simply do not have much say. I know plenty at the UC systems and you would be surprised how many would still want UC to run the labs. The idea being that it is better that a university run it rather than a sleazy corporation. At R1 universities the professors are not nearly as liberal as you think. They are on average left of center but not that far left. Faculty are fairly smart I think even they are seeing that there is not much difference anymore.


After all was Obama that different from Bush? He still bombs countries, still reduced our freedom, still spends like crazy, still bails out Wall street, still puts our peoples in harms way, and still works for special interest groups. In fact they are pretty much identical. There is really little difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Sure they argue about gun control every know and then but that is just for show. Sure they argue about abortion every know and than but not really since Republicans are actually fine with it. They kind of argue about immigration but again not really since republicans are actually for it for obvious business reasons.

Anonymous said...

The actual workers, would take anyone besides Bechtel.

The day to day folks have been treated very poorly under this LLC.

Anonymous said...

How would a LLC headed by UC be different? The current LLC is headed by UC. Universities are business entities just like corporations. They may accomplish some public good, but not because they lack self-interest. The only reason UC stayed around so long before privatization was that it was allowed by DOE to be an absentee landlord, exercising little or no control over the contractor managers. That is still their preferred MO, but DOE will never again allow that. UC got caught with their pants down once because of their lackadaisical management style. Neither party can tolerate a repeat of that. You keep mentioning Argonne. They don't do nuclear weapon design and testing, they don't do SNM in large quantities, and they don't do much highly classified work. They really are just a university research facility. LLNL and LANL are not. The fact is that UC is forever tainted with the smell of management failure at the DOE national security labs.

Anonymous said...

Mr. "Where is your evidence?!?!" is back.

I submit it is self-evident that employees cannot battle their bosses forever, and dumping some of the worst offenders (for example Moses last year, arguably Albright too) goes a long way towards convincing the rest.

People in Washington are tired of the BS from the uncontrollable labs, and would prefer to have some more direct control over them. I think that's what Held was getting at, and he's alluded to it before, even speaking directly to lab employees. Privatization not working is code for, we're still getting the same BS from the labs, and it's time to sit directly on top of them.

Anonymous said...

"I submit it is self-evident that employees cannot battle their bosses forever, and dumping some of the worst offenders (for example Moses last year, arguably Albright too) goes a long way towards convincing the rest.

People in Washington are tired of the BS from the uncontrollable labs, and would prefer to have some more direct control over them. I think that's what Held was getting at, and he's alluded to it before, even speaking directly to lab employees. Privatization not working is code for, we're still getting the same BS from the labs, and it's time to sit directly on top of them.

February 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM"

You may have a point, however I think they are staring to realize that the labs actually need a portion of self-control not external control. This really is the way it should be as the labs themselves are the ones with the expertize on how to run a nuclear weapons lab. Washington does not have anyone who knows how, why, or what about any of this. The other thing is that most people know by now that there was never actually any problems at the labs or at least not as bad as they where made out to be. There was no BS coming from the labs but rather words of rationality.
They know the whole thing was nonsense. They kept going about how LANL was the problem yet in the end it was LLNL that got the far worse out of it. It just goes to show that the none of it was ever real in the first place. It was all about private companies pushing to make a buck. They are starting to realize that we actually jeopardizing our national security with privatization and that is starting to worry some people, at least that is what I am hearing.

Moses and Albright where not battling with their bosses they where working for the bosses which was LLNLs, not the United States. They have to act on the best interest of the corporation not the best interest of the nation. The BS from the labs that Washington is getting is not actually from the labs it is from the corporation running that wants to make profit.

Anonymous said...

Mr. "Where is your evidence?!?!" is back.

February 22, 2014 at 10:47 AM

You misunderstood. The "evidence" I was asking for is that lab employees can be made to understand that "you can't battle with your boss for long, otherwise you're out the door." Most on this blog seem to think they are bullet-proof.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, they are not bulletproof, and I can think of multiple examples of people who didn't get that. When the money dries up and the long knives come out, the "problems" are the first to go - so if people want to be "problems", fine, but they need to be willing and prepared to bail out.

Anonymous said...

"You misunderstood. The "evidence" I was asking for is that lab employees can be made to understand that "you can't battle with your boss for long, otherwise you're out the door." Most on this blog seem to think they are bullet-proof.

February 22, 2014 at 12:27 PM"

I think you have missed the point. No one thinks they are bullet proof, however if the boss treats you bad for long enough you leave for something better. This is exactly what has happened at the labs. We have lost a tremendous amount of talent and expertise. The labs are now getting such a bad reputation that that the best simply do not want to come the labs anymore. DC is starting to understand this.

Anonymous said...

Bosses aren't all that either.

Nobody pays these rates for giving presentation in the outside world.

If they did remember how & could work the grind, their pay rate is too high.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much it cost for the chili cook off...

http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-waste.html

Anonymous said...

"People in Washington are tired of the BS from the uncontrollable labs, and would prefer to have some more direct control over them. I think that's what Held was getting at, and he's alluded to it before, even speaking directly to lab employees. Privatization not working is code for, we're still getting the same BS from the labs, and it's time to sit directly on top of them."

Unfortunately, one needs only to look at the NNSA site/field offices to see what a worthless group of people these are. For forty years, when we had a real enemy, the AEC/DOE let the contractors run the Labs and Plants. After the Russians gave up, the importance of the weapons complex dropped by orders of magnitude, allowing worthless federal bureaucrats to build their empires without great risk to national security.

Anonymous said...

After the Russians gave up, the importance of the weapons complex dropped by orders of magnitude, allowing worthless federal bureaucrats to build their empires without great risk to national security.

February 22, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Historically I think you are correct. However, it is irrelevant to today's situation. That circumstance will never happen again.

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, one needs only to look at the NNSA site/field offices to see what a worthless group of people these are. For forty years, when we had a real enemy, the AEC/DOE let the contractors run the Labs and Plants. After the Russians gave up, the importance of the weapons complex dropped by orders of magnitude, allowing worthless federal bureaucrats to build their empires without great risk to national security.

February 22, 2014 at 8:38 PM"

I think you nailed it. One theory I heard is that it is starting to get out to the rest of the world especially how we treat out nuclear labs. Not good.

Anonymous said...


Can someone please explain why UC was so bad?

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain why UC was so bad?

February 23, 2014 at 7:52 AM

For one thing we never saw them at the Labs. They were invisible or absentee, which compared to Becthel's non-value added gorilla tactics was great.

Anonymous said...

So the cat was always away. Guess what the mice did? "No management" is not a form of management.

Anonymous said...


Again I am asking what did UC do that was so bad. It worked great for more than 50 years. Saying they did not manage the labs seems kind of weak to me since the labs seemed to run much better under UC than they do now.

Anonymous said...

"UC's lack of management allowed both LANL and LLNL to get themselves in incredibly deep trouble, which ultimately led to the privatization fiasco"

I was there too and I am not buying it. What as this incredibly deep trouble?
The Wen Ho Lee thing had little to to with UC or anyone else managing the lab. Look at what happened with Snowden which actually far worse. Should we privatize the NSA? There are had been a series of far more serious incidents at at places including privately run places. I contend that it nothing to do with who was running the labs in 1990s or the management style. There was a big push to privatize anything and everything they could so business could make more money. Again if what really about LANL why did they also go after LLNL? Well it is simple if think it was all about they money. So please point to how UC which was so good for 50 more years suddenly go so bad? I thought the push by the politicians in the Wen Ho Lee case had nothing to do with the labs but was a way to smear Clinton and Richardson.

Anonymous said...

The Wen Ho Lee thing had little to to with UC or anyone else managing the lab.

February 23, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Depends on what you mean by "thing." I was talking about how the lab and UC screwed up the investigation after the fact. If you think LANL upper management and UC didn't feel that they were in incredibly deep trouble, you are wrong. That started the downward slide that led to Nanos and all the other problems. What did you think pushed Domenici over the edge and made him support privatization?

UC didn't "suddenly go bad"; it tried to keep doing what it had always done, when it was clear to almost everyone that that wasn't even close to good enough anymore.

Anonymous said...

"UC didn't "suddenly go bad"; it tried to keep doing what it had always done, when it was clear to almost everyone that that wasn't even close to good enough anymore.

February 23, 2014 at 2:47 PM"

Ok fine, but why "anymore". If anything it would seem that the bar would have been sent much higher during the Cold war. Again how is it that it worked for 50 years and than in course of 5 years was all so bad. It was just over one investigation? I will stick with my theory that the country just become incredibly corrupt by the 90s and that it all just a money grab. Domenici was all for privatization because he was in deep with big business. I doubt he ever cared about the nation. No matter what happened they where going to make it private and that was all there was to it. Tell me what could have UC done to prevent this.

You could well be right in that Wen Ho Lee drove the whole thing and to make sure that LANL was run better we turned LLNL over to a for profit construction company, fired 1700 people, drove out all the talent, had the costs go way up and still have safety and security incidents. That worked out well. To be honest some people did make a ton of money off this but other than that can someone tell me where the added value has been?

Hopefully we will have Bechtel run the NSA and CIA. They can do it much cheaper and far more effective since they will add the corporate oversight and actually manage the place. You have to admit that the NSA has been just been a scandal plagued institute for some time and it is only getting worse. We need to do something.

Anonymous said...

I find it inteseting of people always claiming that UC did such a bad job.
At least under UC we had excellent science programs and developed and tested nuclear weapons. Anyone who thinks that under LANS we could build a new nuclear weapon, which actually works and would come in within budget and in time is seriously delusional.

The way LANS managment has driven away some of the most talented young scientists and did not care about it, is really telling. I remember Terry Wallace, when he was asked about the brain drain by a young postdoc, basically saying, he does not care, a place always looses people. The prevailing philosophy is that anybody besides management is replacable.

While I agree with the fact that people can be replaced, the question
a good business would ask is: At what costs?

Anonymous said...

It seems that the UC management served the nation, these LLCs serve themselves.

Anonymous said...

UC did a fine job... Good science. Good stewardship. Good employee benefits. Clarity. Transparency. Empowering good leaders. It even kept the pretending blunderers on the congressional staff, military, ERDA and eventually NNSA at bay. It cultivated serious support in key poisition in Congress.

At some point, the envious and devious goblins of NNSA got the ear of a few w congressmembers jealous of the large programs. Together they amplified the "bad lab" nonsense espoused by Maralia Kelly and other ignorant do-gooders. The cacaphony of foolishness allowed incompetent pretenders to conduct a massive social experiment, improving something successful by changing its organization.

Instead, they killed it.

Anonymous said...

NNSAs privatization of the labs will be considered by historians as the worst government blunder of first decade of the 21st millenium.

The decision to nationalize them will be considered to be the worst decision of the second decade of the 21st millenium.

Reagan was right. DOE should have been disbanded in 1984.

Anonymous said...

The UC apologists and pining lovers here are amusing. It ain't comin' back folks. Take your treasured memories of the good ol' days to your grave, as old folks are supposed to do. The world has changed, and UC hasn't. That's why it is struggling to keep its campuses open and to stay relevant in a country where respect and desire for higher education is declining rapidly, as is the value of a college degree in the mind of most people. Community colleges that "train" people are much more valued than universities who merely "educate" people.

Anonymous said...

"The UC apologists and pining lovers here are amusing. It ain't comin' back folks. Take your treasured memories of the good ol' days to your grave, as old folks are supposed to do. The world has changed, and UC hasn't. That's why it is struggling to keep its campuses open and to stay relevant in a country where respect and desire for higher education is declining rapidly, as is the value of a college degree in the mind of most people. Community colleges that "train" people are much more valued than universities who merely "educate" people.

February 23, 2014 at 7:21 PM"

Whatever.

Anonymous said...

"The way LANS managment has driven away some of the most talented young scientists and did not care about it, is really telling. I remember Terry Wallace, when he was asked about the brain drain by a young postdoc, basically saying, he does not care, a place always looses people. The prevailing philosophy is that anybody besides management is replacable."

I remember people saying this kind of stuff in 2004-2005, which as that we can always replace people..ect. Well the labs lost a great number of good people and the ones that stayed on did so because retirement was not that far away. The new hires are simply not the same quality as what we use to get. It is now known in the outside academic world that labs are place to avoid. I hear this time and time again. In fact most lower level managers tell any highly talented perspective young people that the recent history of the labs shows that they are in steep decline and if you have other offers that it probably is better to take them. One manager told me he feels morally obliged to say this to the postdocs. The high level managers who are in on the bonuses do not care about the decline as long as they get the big paychecks.


The labs are no longer even close to same level
of competency as they where where before 2004 and everyone knows it. It is very hard to build a great institution but it can be destroyed very quickly.

Terry Wallace who happens to be one the most hated people at LANL has made huge sums of money with a corporate salary and bonuses but look at the cost. Terry no longer even makes the pretense of caring about the lab he is in for the money and in his mind that is what the modern lab is for, profit You have to remember now that the higher level managements get a much higher salary than they ever did under UC. That was in keeping with the corporate way and to top it off they get a portion of the bonus as well. In other words they paid enough though they know that the labs are failing they will keep the charade going. This also precisely why privatization was such a horrible idea.

The message that we destroyed our labs is not lost on other nations.

Anonymous said...

Terry Wallace who happens to be one the most hated people at LANL has made huge sums of money with a corporate salary and bonuses but look at the cost.

February 23, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Funny, because there are those of us who remember that Terry Wallace got his job, for which he was, and is, woefully underqualified, largely on the clout of his then-powerful State Representative mother Jeanette Wallace (since deceased), who was apparently seen as a valuable potential ally for LANL during the time when DOE payments in lieu of taxes to Los Alamos County were going away and the Lab was to be subject for the first time to NM gross receipts taxes. Continually having to cover his lack of qualifications and lack of the kind of mature perspective his job required by bluster and intolerance of dissent has not made him many friends over the years.

Anonymous said...

"Funny, because there are those of us who remember that Terry Wallace got his job, for which he was, and is, woefully underqualified, largely on the clout of his then-powerful State Representative mother Jeanette Wallace (since deceased), who was apparently seen as a valuable potential ally for LANL during the time when DOE payments in lieu of taxes to Los Alamos County were going away and the Lab was to be subject for the first time to NM gross receipts taxes. Continually having to cover his lack of qualifications and lack of the kind of mature perspective his job required by bluster and intolerance of dissent has not made him many friends over the years.

February 23, 2014 at 9:00 PM"

It was not really funny. He has utterly failed at everything he tried and no one could take him seriously anymore. Also the bluster and intolerance as you call it just got old. I have never meet anyone who said anything good about him not even other managers. He was able to annoy just about everyone.

They ended up putting him in a relatively harmless position that he of course has no qualifications for, understands, or appreciates. No one hears much from him anymore. When he does come around it is clear he no longer cares and no else cares what he has say either.

I have heard rge theory that he got the job because of his mother. I have no idea if there is any truth to that. I always thought he was just a complete Nanos suck up, who would say anything and do anything to get ahead so no one trusts him. At any rate it does not matter. He was just another bad manager that arose around the time of the contract change.

Anonymous said...

The prudent seek refuge and the simple suffer for it.

POS

Anonymous said...

"The prudent seek refuge and the simple suffer for it.

POS

February 24, 2014 at 4:09 PM"

We actually had a good conversation going for a change and than along comes you. POS if you are going post at least you can be a bit more outrageous or entertaining.

Anonymous said...

Follow the money and you'll understand why Congressmen -- who love receiving money for their endless campaigns -- pushed the levers to "privatize" the labs back in the early 2000s.

Congressmen like John Dingell (D-MI; just announced retirement) and Bart Stupak (D-MI; retired and now a well paid lobbyist on K Street) were two of the cadre of politicians involved with this ugly process. They and others in Congress missed no opportunities to constantly lambast the weapon labs in Committee hearings back in the early 2000s. LANL, in particular, could do nothing right in their eyes.

Our nation has become a corporate kleptocracy and powerful, politically connected entities like Bechtel won't give up their deep hooks into their lab's profit making "Money Machine" without a hard fight. They own the Congress. Bruce Held will be told to keep his mouth shut on this issue and no changes will be taking place any time soon. The abysmal morale of the remaining workforce at the labs has been known for years and has been well documented in several reports (see - Stimson Center report ~2009) but is of no consequence to those in power. They like things just as they are.


Anonymous said...

February 24, 2014 at 6:11 PM:

You are so unhappy with the state of everything, maybe you should just go off somewhere quietly and do the right thing. Quietly.

Anonymous said...

"February 24, 2014 at 6:11 PM:

You are so unhappy with the state of everything, maybe you should just go off somewhere quietly and do the right thing. Quietly.

February 24, 2014 at 7:18 PM"

POS can you please try something a bit more outrageous or loopy. This is just dam sadm, pathetic, and sick. Well maybe it is cry for help from you, if that is the case please seek help right away.

Anonymous said...

February 24, 2014 at 7:18 PM is not POS. And the cry was for relief from the endless negativism and the victimhood mentality that has taken over this blog. "Bechtel...corporate kleptocracy...K Street...deep hooks...yadayadayada." This is nothing more than a mindless Move On/Occupy rant. I just figured that someone who is so thoroughly miserable with his circumstances needed a little encouragement.

Anonymous said...

"February 24, 2014 at 7:18 PM is not POS. And the cry was for relief from the endless negativism and the victimhood mentality that has taken over this blog. "Bechtel...corporate kleptocracy...K Street...deep hooks...yadayadayada." This is nothing more than a mindless Move On/Occupy rant. I just figured that someone who is so thoroughly miserable with his circumstances needed a little encouragement.

February 25, 2014 at 8:46 AM"

Ok you are not the POS, but nonetheless you are a POS. Since you come across as creepy and nasty how about you sign your posts as NCPOS, POS may be crazy but he is not evil.

Anonymous said...

A little touchy, huh? You must be teetering on the edge.

Anonymous said...

February 25, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Where you see rants, I see people give their opinion. If you don't like it, why read it? Go somewhere else
and enjoy: https://disneyland.disney.go.com

Anonymous said...

I don't like your rants, you don't like mine. So what? Grow up.

Anonymous said...

"Where you see rants, I see people give their opinion. If you don't like it, why read it? Go somewhere else
and enjoy: https://disneyland.disney.go.com

February 25, 2014 at 6:55 PM"

When I see crazy rants by scum on the blog that think the world owes them something I am free to point out that the poster is a crazy nutcase scumbag who thinks the world owes them something. Others may choose to ignore them. I say to each their own. We need a diversity of approaches for the world to succeed.

Anonymous said...

I don't mind rants, as long as there is some actual thought behind them. I can honestly disagree with someone whose rants are based on facts, and opinions that are honest and well thought out, but differ from my opinions. It is the juvenile name-calling, the reality-free, thought-free parroting of some political talking points, the self-absorbed, self-referential whining about things that most adults have learned how to deal with, that make this blog so tiresome at times.

Anonymous said...

'I don't mind rants, as long as there is some actual thought behind them. I can honestly disagree with someone whose rants are based on facts, and opinions that are honest and well thought out, but differ from my opinions. It is the juvenile name-calling, the reality-free, thought-free parroting of some political talking points, the self-absorbed, self-referential whining about things that most adults have learned how to deal with, that make this blog so tiresome at times.

February 25, 2014 at 8:54 PM"


This is a typical attitude of arrogant scientist or engineers. This "I know how adults think" talk "I know what reality is". This attitude is what got the labs in trouble in the first place. You think your an adult yet you cannot even dress well or tie your shoes. This country is going to hell because of people like you, spend, spend, spend and entitlement, and I am soooo smart. I hope you like what your Messiah has done to this country. Most of all I am sick of your endless whining, it is time for you to man up and stop asking to be given things.

Anonymous said...

@Feb 26 &:07am:

Yeah, your REBUPLICAN messiah BUSH.
Who took a Dem Surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in history. If you bother to look at FACTS (like the OMB), Obama has been steadily reducing spending, IN SPITE OF congressional republican efforts to feed their rich-boy friends at the Washington DC trough.

Anonymous said...

Most of all I am sick of your endless whining, it is time for you to man up and stop asking to be given things.

February 26, 2014 at 7:07 AM

Funny, you seem to be agreeing completely with February 25, 2014 at 8:54 PM. Did you even read his post? There was no whining there that I could see. No mention of scientists or engineers either. I guess someone pushes your button, and the prerecorded message just comes blaring out. Sounds like the definition of a rant.

Anonymous said...

Once again, Scooby's deletion at work. No notice, no reason. Just his hatred of anything he doesn't agree with.

Anonymous said...

The Stimson Center report on the declining quality of science and poor morale at the NNSA labs was no "rant". Perhaps those people who are "anti-rant" should come out of their ignorance and take the time to read it. It's easy enough to find on the web.

Because some of the "anti-ranters" are a bit lazy when it comes to defending their views with facts, I'll help you out by giving you a link to this important report that was released in 2009:

www.stimson.org/images/
uploads/research/pdfs/
Leveraging_Science_for_Security_FINAL.pdf

This was a highly respected report carefully documenting the decline of the NNSA labs.

Other relevant events, like Congressional testimony from former LANL Director Sig Hecker and comments recorded in news articles from former NNSA head Linton Brooks serve to further document the view of informed people that the move to a "for-profit" corporate management of the NNSA labs was a very bad mistake.

Privatization may have been a wonderful idea for lab executives like Terry Wallace who dutifully headed out to Bechtel HQ in 2006 to help write the winning proposal with the help of Bechtel lawyers. Managers like Terry Wallace have been extremely well rewarded in subsequent years. The rest of the NNSA labs' work force... not so much.

Anonymous said...

Great, a 5 year old report that is "highly respected." For what, its longevity? Don't you think that if it were so "important" someone might have paid some attention to it? Keep hoping that the "privatization" will be overturned. By what Congress? This one, that is so well known for its immediate attention to serious concerns affecting the nation?? Or the next, that will do absolutely nothing while waiting for the next President to be elected? Go back to sleep and dream of UC management. Try not to wet the bed.

Anonymous said...

Great, a 5 year old report that is "highly respected." For what, its longevity? Don't you think that if it were so "important" someone might have paid some attention to it? Keep hoping that the "privatization" will be overturned. By what Congress? This one, that is so well known for its immediate attention to serious concerns affecting the nation?? Or the next, that will do absolutely nothing while waiting for the next President to be elected? Go back to sleep and dream of UC management. Try not to wet the bed.

February 26, 2014 at 8:58 PM

Read this and reread this. This is the real point. The US is done, over, we lost. The US is now the richest 3rd world country on earth. All empires die and the United States is no exception. You have to adapt to the new realities and be a winner or stick with your so called pride, ethics, and honor and be a loser like the 99 percent. The management was smart enough to figure this out, get the cash before it all crashes. If you where so dumb to think something good would come out of this that than that is on you. UC will never come back...ever, privatization will increase, it is the wave of the future, go with it and you can do very well...very well financially. Fight it and you will join the masses and be slaves.

Anonymous said...

There are some really angry and childish people posting on this site.

Anonymous said...

The decline of the United States is not the fault of "privatization." It is the fault of our apologizing, prevaricating, unprepared, untalented (except for prompter reading), light-weight, disinterested, golf-playing, vacation-taking, celebrity-loving, self-absorbed, self-referential, arrogant, dismissive, unpatriotic, smirking, ignorant, poor excuse for a President. And we deserve him. Vote better next time.

Anonymous said...

@10:17
Apparently, you don't remember minor things like FACTS....

The lab privitization happened under your favorite pal, GW BUSH. President Obama had NOTHING to do with it. The privitization was largely done and complete in 2007. Obama took office in January 2009. It was yet another BUSH handout to his corporate pals.......

Anonymous said...

February 27, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Apparently you didn't read my post - it had nothing at all to do with privatization. Please reread the first sentence of my post: "The decline of the United States is not the fault of "privatization."" Get it now?? I couldn't care less about "privatization" or who started it. Put your canned response back in the can.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently you didn't read my post - it had nothing at all to do with privatization. Please reread the first sentence of my post: "The decline of the United States is not the fault of "privatization."" Get it now?? I couldn't care less about "privatization" or who started it. Put your canned response back in the can.

February 27, 2014 at 11:09 AM"

The decline started under Bush. No one can deny that. Mass Privatization stared under Bush. Obama is just a Bush++

Anonymous said...

The decline started under Bush. No one can deny that.

February 27, 2014 at 1:30 PM

I can. The decline started with Obama's "apology tour." It was irretrievably cemented with his "red line" stupidity that he required Putin to bail him out of. It will be even more evident when Israel takes out Iran's centrifuges after Kerry flops.

Anonymous said...

"I can. The decline started with Obama's "apology tour." It was irretrievably cemented with his "red line" stupidity that he required Putin to bail him out of. It will be even more evident when Israel takes out Iran's centrifuges after Kerry flops,"

No you cannot. You just look like a complete fool.

Anonymous said...

No you cannot. You just look like a complete fool.

February 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Nobody cares about your opinion about my foolishness. Can you say something, anything at all, without a personal attack? Probably not; it's all liberals have left.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody cares about your opinion about my foolishness. Can you say something, anything at all, without a personal attack? Probably not; it's all liberals have left.

February 27, 2014 at 7:17 PM"

Liberal!? You sir are a liberal! Perhaps you call yourself a conservative but the modern unquestioning conservative is in fact indistinguishable from the follow the pack liberal. Tell me how Bush was different from Obama?
You cannot because there is no difference and you know it. You are indeed a fool and perhaps a willing fool who loves the security of being a mindless slave. Being a slave is your decision but if you chose to be slave than at least shut up.

Anonymous said...

"Fool"..."mindless"..."slave"..."shut up"... Yes, truly a perfect example of someone who has never learned the art of argument without personal attack. It is the unmistakable sign of a serious lack of interpersonal skills, respect for others, and most of all, a decent education in how to behave in civilized society.

Anonymous said...

"Fool"..."mindless"..."slave"..."shut up"... Yes, truly a perfect example of someone who has never learned the art of argument without personal attack. It is the unmistakable sign of a serious lack of interpersonal skills, respect for others, and most of all, a decent education in how to behave in civilized society.

February 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM"

Fight fire with fire.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the decline started with the "Mission Accomplished" tour. The next $800B left in the sands of Iraq was just a detail.

Anonymous said...

February 27, 2014 at 9:55 PM

The decline started with Obama, facts are facts. Before Obama Bush had the economy in great shape with huge surplus. He reduced government spending, brought true freedom to everyone. American won every war decisively and quickly at low cost. He encouraged Americans not to be afraid of terrorists and not become paranoid nation willing to give up all freedoms for security. He did not spy on the people, he did not expand the government reach. He made sure our soldiers had what they needed to succeed. Bush is the true definition of a small government, freedom loving conservative. I hate Obama.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the decline started with the "Mission Accomplished" tour.

February 27, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Lovely. Still this crap after so many years. Only the most disingenuous of Bush haters still bring it up, when the facts have been known for a long time. Bush never said "mission accomplished." The "Mission Accomplished" banner on the carrier was put up by Navy brass to indicate (correctly) that the Navy mission, i.e., the battle for air superiority over Iraq, had been accomplished.

To suggest anything else is intellectually dishonest at best, despicable lying at worst.


Anonymous said...

Thank you February 28, 2014 at 7:14 AM, you made me laugh. It's amazing how strong your reality distortion field is, and there's no point in spending energy refuting all your incorrect claims - better to just chuckle.

Anonymous said...

"To suggest anything else is intellectually dishonest at best, despicable lying at worst.


February 28, 2014 at 9:08 AM"

BS, I remember that stunt well and it was a big propaganda ploy to say we won the war in Iraq. You are the one being intellectually dishonest on this. These are the words Bush used. " End to major combat operations in Iraq." It was
given on May 1 2003 and was
controversial because the vast majority of casualties, both military and civilian, occurred after the speech. Also contrary to what you are saying about the banner it was made by the White House staff members and hung up by the White House staff members.
"Bush's 'Bannergate' Shuffle". Time. November 1, 2003. 10 years latter the wars are still going on 5000 American died and god knows how many civilians. All for what?

I would say the decline begin on 9/11. The goal of the terrorists was to make us afraid, give up our freedoms, compromise our values, and waste our resources, and create a vague endless war on terrorism, sacrifice a generation of soldiers. Bush helped them succeed in this goal in spades and the 9/11 terrorist accomplished exactly what they wanted.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin_Franklin

Anonymous said...

These are the words Bush used. " End to major combat operations in Iraq."

February 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM

And he was absolutely correct. After that time, there were no major combat operations in Iraq. The scale of the initial invasion and push into Baghdad dwarfed any later operations, which were Battalion-sized at best.

Anonymous said...

February 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM

What you said is utterly false. Learn some history jackass.

Second Battle of Fallujah

he U.S. military called it "some of the heaviest urban combat U.S. Marines have been involved in since the Battle of Huế City in Vietnam in 1968."

U.S., Iraqi and British forces totaled about 13,500. The U.S. had gathered some 6,500 Marines and 1,500 Army soldiers By the time of the attack on Fallujah in November 2004, the number of insurgents in the city was estimated at around 3,000 to 4,000.[5]


Battle in Mosul

Battle of Basra,

There is a whole list of major military operations of the Iraq war that you can readily find.

Anonymous said...

The initial invasion was 150,000 troops. I'd say that "dwarfs" 13,500 by a bit.

Anonymous said...

"The initial invasion was 150,000 troops. I'd say that "dwarfs" 13,500 by a bit.

February 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM"

Hey dipsh*t you said "any later operations, which were Battalion-sized at best." A battalion is 300-1200 men. There where numerous operations more than this from 2004-2012. In 2003, there where 500 American deaths while in 2007 when there was 150K US troops in Iraq almost 1000 US troops where killed. The most intense fighting occurred in 2004-2008 well after "mission accomplished". The mission was not accomplished in 2003 and you are a disgrace and what you said is a horrible insult to our troops.

Anonymous said...

Hey dipsh*t you said...

February 28, 2014 at 8:19 PM

No I didn't. February 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM said it. Try to control yourself and recognize that on an anonymous blog, you have no idea who you are insulting. But it sounds like you are not the kind of person who cares.

Anonymous said...

There are some really angry and childish people posting on this site.

February 26, 2014 at 10:16 PM

Wake up, those are the only folks left at the Labs.

Anonymous said...

"No I didn't. February 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM said it. Try to control yourself and recognize that on an anonymous blog, you have no idea who you are insulting. But it sounds like you are not the kind of person who cares.

February 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM"

Yes you did dipsh*t


"And he was absolutely correct. After that time, there were no major combat operations in Iraq. The scale of the initial invasion and push into Baghdad dwarfed any later operations, which were Battalion-sized at best.

February 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM"

You full of it neither you nor Bush are "absolutely correct". Before you post you next pile of dung try asking yourself if know what are talking about, if you think you do than go back and look at the blog and see how many times you got it wrong.

Anonymous said...

Y'all are missing the point.Bush took us to war (at the urging of Uncle Dick Cheney) to avenge the threat to his daddy by Saddam. Few people seem to remember the speech when he said this. He lied about WMD to a gullible congress and the rest of us to justify this, then squandered his budget surplus and countless American lives to "get Hussain"

Anonymous said...

March 1, 2014 at 7:45 AM:

I am February 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM. I am NOT February 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM. Your childish anger is getting the best of you.

Anonymous said...

I am the eggman.

Anonymous said...



The Iraq war was won by Bush in 2003. Iraq caused 9/11, we liberated the region and the civilians are much better off. American was a prison before 9/11 now we are a free people. Jesus may not be an American but he is a Texan. I hate scientists and I hate Obama.

Anonymous said...

I am the walrus,

Anonymous said...

Goo Goo Goo Joob. Beatcha to it!

Anonymous said...

March 1, 2014 at 6:04 PM

Nice try, you Bush-hating liberal turd.

Anonymous said...

"Nice try, you Bush-hating liberal turd.

March 1, 2014 at 9:30 PM"

Hating Bush does not make one a liberal.


"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin_Franklin

Anonymous said...

Obama has:

Re-upped the Patriot Act;
Drastically increased drone killings;
Drastically increased deportation of illegals;
Kept Guantanamo open;
Drastically increased NSA surveillance.

Guess you hate him too.

Anonymous said...

"Re-upped the Patriot Act;
Drastically increased drone killings;
Drastically increased deportation of illegals;
Kept Guantanamo open;
Drastically increased NSA surveillance.

Guess you hate him too.

March 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM"

Indeed and you have just pointed out Obama is Bush 2.0. I have no problem with people bashing on Obama it is just that you need to be consistent when you say Bush was the opposite of Obama.

Anonymous said...

you need to be consistent when you say Bush was the opposite of Obama.

March 2, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Bush served his country in the military. Obama did not. Bush had solid business experience. Obama does not. Bush took serious concrete steps to protect America (although you may disagree with them). Obama has not.

Obama does not want to get into any situation that he cannot talk himself out of, because that's all he's got. Putin is rolling him, and you cannot excuse that fact by saying that Putin rolled Bush too. Obama never learned the lesson.

Anonymous said...

"March 2, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Bush served his country in the military. Obama did not. Bush had solid business experience. Obama does not. Bush took serious concrete steps to protect America (although you may disagree with them). Obama has not.

Obama does not want to get into any situation that he cannot talk himself out of, because that's all he's got. Putin is rolling him, and you cannot excuse that fact by saying that Putin rolled Bush too. Obama never learned the lesson.

March 2, 2014 at 7:21 PM"

The first few points are very very weak. Obama and Bush are about the same when it comes to terrorism or keeping America safe, but I have problems with both. As for Putin you have no idea what Bush would have done. The situation in Ukraine and what we may want out of it is might be slightly more complex than you think.

Anonymous said...

As for Putin you have no idea what Bush would have done. The situation in Ukraine and what we may want out of it is might be slightly more complex than you think.

March 2, 2014 at 7:36 PM

As for Bush, we know what he "would have done." He did NOTHING when Putin invaded Georgia.

As for the "complexity" of the Ukraine situation, it is no more complex than the (western at least) Ukrainians wanting a western-style democracy and willing to die to get it, the Russians being completely unwilling to give up their only warm-water port, and Putin seeing clearly that the US citizenry, and especially its President, are in extreme withdrawal mode from the world stage, almost as bad as just after WWI, and therefore seeing a very great opportunity for Russia to reassert itself as a major world power challenging the US and the west. His reasoning is the same in Syria, Iran, and Egypt. Not so complex, but much too much so for our light-weight President.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain why UC was so bad?

February 23, 2014 at 7:52 AM

They were not that bad until Glenn Mara joined them. He then then became a puppet of the "Big Three" i.e. McMillan, Knapp, and Anastasio. His only goal was to pad and protect himself and this "crew".

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain why UC was so bad?

February 23, 2014 at 7:52 AM

They were not that bad until Glenn Mara joined them.

March 7, 2014 at 7:49 AM

That's a very short-sighted and historically ignorant answer. UC's sins were ones of omission. Long-standing benevolent neglect in the face of a changing world did the labs no favors. It is never a good idea to allow the inmates to run the asylum. The proof is in the result.

Anonymous said...

It is never a good idea to allow the inmates to run the asylum. The proof is in the result.

March 7, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Which is, after 60 years of the "inmates running the asylum", the nuclear weapon stockpile at the heart of our national security.

Anonymous said...

Which is, after 60 years of the "inmates running the asylum", the nuclear weapon stockpile at the heart of our national security.

March 7, 2014 at 5:20 PM

No, the "result" is that the National Labs are in serious decline, and the nuclear weapon stockpile is too, not helped by the fact that there is no one left at the labs who ever saw a nuclear weapon detonation above ground, or who can plan and execute a fully instrumented underground nuclear weapon detonation. What do you think will happen if the annual stockpile reliability report is ever made public?

Anonymous said...

The decline of the labs began with the creation of the NNSA to prevent "the inmates running the asylum." Then, The decline of the labs was firmly established by privatization.

Anonymous said...

The decline of the labs began with the creation of the NNSA to prevent "the inmates running the asylum."

March 8, 2014 at 7:06 AM

The need for NNSA might not have arisen if UC had been doing its job.

Anonymous said...

"The need for NNSA might not have arisen if UC had been doing its job.

March 8, 2014 at 10:49 AM"

I keep saying this but I would contend UC was doing the job very well for 60 years but by the late 90's the corporate takeover model was so strong that everything was going to be taken over regardless.
I know it is easy to blame UC but this was about money for corporations nothing more and nothing less. Of course this has consequences and we are seeing it happen. There is a reason America is in decline the labs where just one small little piece in this game.

Anonymous said...

by the late 90's the corporate takeover model was so strong that everything was going to be taken over regardless.

March 8, 2014 at 11:56 AM

I guess Argonne had good university management, as opposed to LANL and LLNL which had UC.

Anonymous said...

I doubt if there are more than a half dozen congressmen who know where Argonne is, much less what it does. Nuclear weapons, however, are of great interest inside the beltway.

Anonymous said...

March 8, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Irrelevant. You can't dismiss the counter to your claim by saying that no one knows about it.

Anonymous said...

"Irrelevant. You can't dismiss the counter to your claim by saying that no one knows about it.

March 8, 2014 at 9:50 PM"

The big money was in the NNSA labs, also you can always scream national security concerns in the takeover.
Argonne was not worth it.

Anonymous said...

Fair or not, it was a series of incidents primarily at LANL that brought the attention of Congress to the UC-managed labs, and led to what we have now. There was a strong Bush-era push towards "privatization", some well-publicized incidents that brought the labs into the radar, and no one in a position to stop it. UC was a hands-off laissez-faire manager, and that did work for years, but it also allowed a "cowboy culture" to continue at LANL, and that plus some bad luck and bad timing led to LANS and LLNS.

Anonymous said...

Essentially correct, except it is important to point out that none of the "incidents" except Wen Ho Lee (and the Quintana case, which occurred after the advent of LANS) turned out to have any substance. Congress reacted in typical knee-jerk fashion, and the long-standing weakness of UC management left them (UC) with no viable or robust defense, so they caved and gave us Nanos.

Blog Archive