Skip to main content

Are GM and ULM guilt of high treason?

Image
By scooby
Contributed anonymously:

1. Aid and comfort to the enemy. The capabilities of the US to defend itself from future threats are certainly less now. Not doubt Russia, China, and Middle-East powers are greatly pleased by the destruction of LLNL.

2. There was intent to commit harm on the US by crippling the ability of LLNL to be a competent steward of the nuclear stockpile. GM and ULM cannot claim ignorance of what might happen. This is supported by the timeline of events and number of managers who collaborated in the efforts. Clearly the actions taken were carefully planned and widely discussed prior to execution. Therefore malice and forethought.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Please take a deep breath. Comparing what we are going through to acts of high treason is mind boggling.

What next, ULM was on the grassy knoll in Dallas back in November '63?
6/17/2008 9:51 PM
Anonymous said…
Seems a simple enough question.

If the reason stated is good enough - say yes. If not, say why.

Tempted to say yes. After all, we have a lot of comments here about how the mission has been damaged.
6/18/2008 6:17 PM
Anonymous said…
"Intent to commit harm" is in the eye of the beholder. The Federal establishment sent this train in motion. There were different drivers in play than our happiness, but spraying around the term 'treason' is not supported by the two assertions posted. Are we going to take years to work through this? Yes. Is our ability to be a "competent steward of the nuclear stockpile" crippled? Hardly. Who knows, perhaps adversaries are displeased because 100's of mega-bucks will be available to invest in other arenas. Course that's chump change compared to what we've dropped in other hemispheres.
6/20/2008 9:11 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more