Skip to main content

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

Comments

Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
"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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
A "well informed audience"... that would be refreshing - requiring respite from vulgar prejudice against what’s not easily known.
Anonymous said…
There is a big difference between what is not well known and what is being actively concealed or distorted.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
Your comments would be taken more seriously if you didn't spell "lose" "loose".

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

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...

Trump is to gut the labs.

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.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!