This morning's news reported that the Commander of the US Pacific Fleet had flown to Japan to personally dismiss the Commander of the US Japan based forces. It took a few days for this to happen after the recent ship collision close to Singapore. The official statement indicated that this was the second incident and confidence in leadership had been lost.
Why does this story have any relevance to the NNSA? Contrast the US Navy response with that of LANS. When repeated failures happened at LANL, there were no firings at the top leadership ranks.
2 comments:
When, oh when will they learn that the Navy way and the LANL way are not the same? You would have thought that they learned their lesson when Nanos tried it the Navy way and look at how that turned out. Running LANL by Navy rules just can't work ever. LANL is a laboratory and it is full of scientists that design and run experiments. Experiments that by and large fulfill the scientists' predictions, but sometimes the breakthroughs come when the the hypothesis is roundly discarded based on an unexpected experimental result. The Navy way does not abide mistakes (nor should they)related to navigating a ship on the open sea. One collision is one too many. Nanos had some weird notion that any unexpected experimental result was the same as a ship collision and he treated the staff as if they were his sailors on watch that had failed to identify and head off disaster. It didn't work before and it won't work now, and the posters that keep on bringing up the concept of moving NNSA to DOD need to first understand that the science culture will never work in a defense controlled environment.
NEVER EVER.
When, oh when will they learn that the Navy way and the LANL way are not the same? You would have thought that they learned their lesson when Nanos tried it the Navy way and look at how that turned out. Running LANL by Navy rules just can't work ever. LANL is a laboratory and it is full of scientists that design and run experiments. Experiments that by and large fulfill the scientists' predictions, but sometimes the breakthroughs come when the the hypothesis is roundly discarded based on an unexpected experimental result. The Navy way does not abide mistakes (nor should they)related to navigating a ship on the open sea. One collision is one too many. Nanos had some weird notion that any unexpected experimental result was the same as a ship collision and he treated the staff as if they were his sailors on watch that had failed to identify and head off disaster. It didn't work before and it won't work now, and the posters that keep on bringing up the concept of moving NNSA to DOD need to first understand that the science culture will never work in a defense controlled environment.
NEVER EVER.
Post a Comment