"A big question is: Should Los Alamos National Laboratory remain open at all and with what mission?"
I
am not sure if this is a serious question, considering that the scope
of screw ups in the government agencies and facilities LANL is pretty
down there. Overall it is a silly question as LANL is no going
anywhere...ever. That is a fact of life.
But lets try to address the question anyway.
Yes
or no. Yes LANL should remain open or if you close it down you would
just have to build something like elsewhere or break it up in parts and
send those elsewhere if you want to have a deterrent. The question is
can opening up a new facility really work? Where are you gong to move it
to? Texas, Utah, sounds good but how does it change anything. It will
be insanely expensive and risky since you will have to move so much
stuff. Who are you going to hire the same old people? New people might
be leery of ever going into such a new faculty after seeing what
happened to the old facility. Can we just shut down LANL and only have
what we currently have at LLNL, Pantex?...nope. What is done at LANL
that cannot be done elsewhere? Right now plenty as I said you could
always build something new or add new capabilities at other facilities
but how is that fundamentally different? One could argue that one will
get more bang for your buck in long run if you break it up since the
overhead rates and profits for sleazy companies are much lower at other
places, but what is to guarantee that if one expands Pantex that some
sleazy corporation will just get hold of it and steal all the money.
LLNL is already privatized and its overhead rates are just as bad so how
does that save any money?
Can LANL be fixed? Well it depends
on if you think something is wrong and a realistic look at LANL would
show it is working and is probably one of the least wasteful
organizations in the government right now. Yes that is a sad argument
but is probably true. I would say getting rid of the for-profit company
would be good step in the right direction as well as getting rid of the
gross receipt taxes.
But being realistic LANL will not be
closed. Do we close down the NSA, CIA, FBI after all the screw ups, do
we close down the Congress after all the messes? No we do not and LANL
is not going to be closed either. Did we close down Rocky Flats? Yes but
than all the people went to work elsewhere in the complez and now LANL
does the same job so essence we did not close down Rocky Flats either.
One can always frame other questions.
(1)
Should the United States remain a nation and for what purpose? What is
done in the United States that cannot be done better and cheaper
elsewhere.
(2) Should we move Santa Fe to Southern New Mexico so we
would have less problems with snow? Just what done at Santa Fe that
could not be done elsewhere?
(3) Do we really need New Mexico as State?
(4) Why not make Esperanto the official language of Florida and New Mexico. It is easy to learn and less problems that English.
16 comments:
I second doing away with New Mexico as a state.
It was never new, and it isn't Mexico, so why is it still a thing?
NM is the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle you need in order to complete the puzzle but it contains no part of the picture.
Some good stuff on the LASG.
"Unlike some NGOs that should have known better, this organization opposed “competing” [sic: it never was or will be a real competition] the LANL contract during the presidency of G.W. Bush, opposed privatizing LANL, and we were never happy with LANS. - See more at: http://www.lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin213.html#sthash.Le0kqdPd.dpuf"
Really seems like LASG is on LANLs side on this. It is odd since if LANL where not privatized it would run better, do more science, and be more effective in the mission. I thought LASG was against these things and would prefer the money be diverted from lab work into the hands of private contractors for profit.
"various elementary accountability standards demanded by the Pentagon (no great champion of accountability itself, but miles beyond DOE). - See more at: http://www.lasg.org/ActionAlerts/Bulletin213.html#sthash.Le0kqdPd.dpuf"
So they want the DOE to be as demanding as the Pentagon, again it is odd since I would think they would rather have a slow and wasteful DOE run the labs rather than an operator that would be the most effective and get the most out of the labs. LASG kinda seems pro LANL mission on this and that's really cool.
"But really, after more than 50 studies of management reform, it has become finally clear that neither LANL nor the other two nuclear weapons labs can be reformed. (“3 National Nuclear War Laboratories have run amok, block disarmament, & should be shut down,” March 2015). "
This is a tad confusing, as it implies that if the labs could be "reformed" than LASG would not want to shut them down? By reformed does that mean run better and being more effective in he ability to carry out the mission? They should just come clean and say they want to shut down all the labs under any condition.
"As former Pentagon economist William Weida has said, “The single most important reason northern New Mexico remains poor is its failure to acknowledge that the bomb was a mistake.”"
This of makes complete sense and could also explain why Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and the District of Columbia remain poor as they too have not acknowledge that the bomb was a mistake. To really nail this point down we just need to determine if New Hampshire has acknowledged the bomb was mistake and if someone can confirm this than I think we have an airtight argument.
"If the three nuclear labs shut down tomorrow, it is our studied opinion that the U.S. would be more secure, more awake, and better ready to face the challenges before the nation today. They have negative value. That does not mean that everything they do is of negative value. But those few things they do that are worth doing would, on balance, be better done elsewhere. The labs are only “smart” in an autistic-savant sort of way."
Hmmm, judging by some of the logic used by LASG I am not sure they are in the position to say they have "studied opinions" In any case this is a very bigoted and ugly thing to say. I guess LASG thinks that people with autism have negative value. Shame on LASG, there are many many people with various forms of autism that have contributed far far more for to this world than Mr Mello ever has.
Yep. Weapons science.
"Yep. Weapons science.
January 4, 2016 at 11:51 PM"
?? Please add some context.
"Yep. Weapons science.
January 4, 2016 at 11:51 PM"
Perhaps what LASG means by "autistic-savant sort of way" is that the lab only thing does weapons science. This of course is not true considering all the other science that is done at the lab and also done for the mission. But even if it was true it is meaningless thing to say as it can be said about anything. Facebook is smart only in a "autistic-savant sort of way" since all it does is Facebook. Boeing is smart only in a "autistic-savant sort of way" since all it does is airplanes, colleges are smart only in a "autistic-savant sort of way" since all is does is education, and LASG is smart only in a "autistic-savant sort of way" since all it does is study Los Alamos. So anything that has some specialization is "autistic-savant ", well that makes total sense.
NM has one of the worst economies in the US, yet Los Alamos has more rich people in the county than any other county in the US. Closing LANL would work out well for both groups.
NM has one of the worst economies in the US, yet Los Alamos has more rich people in the county than any other county in the US. Closing LANL would work out well for both groups.
January 5, 2016 at 9:35 AM
Makes complete sense, Sandia needs to go as well.
January 5, 2016 at 10:33 AM"
Northern New Mexico has many problems, Sandia, Kirkland, LANL, and UNM, are also part of the the reason that Northern New Mexico is so poor. All you have to do is compare it Southern New Mexico and see how things are completely different. Northern New Mexico should have followed Southern New Mexico and admit that the bomb was a mistake.
Riiiiiiiigggggggghhhht.
"Riiiiiiiigggggggghhhht."
Now that is the culture of arrogance on display for all to see.
You could part out major pieces of LANL without a problem. I have worked the labs and the production facilities. Do not kid yourself. You don't have uncle Pete anymore and the other labs and facilities would love to take your programs. Some of the major programs were on the table not but ten years ago. The only thing I can't see leaving is LANSCE
"You could part out major pieces of LANL without a problem. I have worked the labs and the production facilities. Do not kid yourself. You don't have uncle Pete anymore and the other labs and facilities would love to take your programs. Some of the major programs were on the table not but ten years ago. The only thing I can't see leaving is LANSCE
January 7, 2016 at 10:16 PM"
This is partially true it would still cost money to move it out and in the end the other labs would grow to absorb these new capabilities and they would hire many of the former LANL people. The point is that for "get rid of nukes" view of LASG, it does absolutely nothing and as for " I hate people that work at LANL" crowd it again does not absoutly nothing as these people would get jobs at the new faculties. So don't kid yourself, LANL or more precisely what is done at LANL is not going away, it may be moved but it is not going away, so suck it up buttercup.
"As former Pentagon economist William Weida has said, “The single most important reason northern New Mexico remains poor is its failure to acknowledge that the bomb was a mistake.”"
"William J. Weida is a professor of economics at
The Colorado College"
Hell that is right up there with Harvard and University Chicago's economic departments.
I don't want what LANL does to go away. I am just pointing out that LANL the institution is vulnerable and it would be foolish to think otherwise. Capability across the NWC has been consolidating since the late 90s. Look at the reductions in the production facilities.
"I am just pointing out that LANL the institution is vulnerable and it would be foolish to think otherwise."
I am just pointing out that what LANL does is not vulnerable and if you have the skills you will do just fine where ever facilties. To think otherwise would be foolish.
Post a Comment