McMillan must be in real trouble, seeing that Napolitano is coming to pay a visit.
In the early days, UC had leaders that understood why it was important to the country that the strategic deterrent be guided by great scientists. There have not been any UC faculty comparable to Lawrence or Seaborg for decades at this point, and may never be again. The Saxon and Gardner eras of UCOP marked the beginning of the end of knowledge about and interest in nuclear weapons for the top leadership. The last serious intellect on the subject in UCOP was Jud King, and he has been retired for years. The great science leaders of decades past would be horrified to discover that someone such as Kim Budil was now in charge of UC stewardship for LLNL and LANL.
Comments
August 14, 2017 at 11:04 AM
Prove it!
August 14, 2017 at 5:55 PM
I doubt they fear him they just have no clue. Perry has to just go along with stuff since he has no idea what the lab does, he just figures that the people running the lab must know what they are doing. As for Janet that is harder to say. Steven Chu certainly had a very low opinion of McMillan.
August 14, 2017 at 6:39 PM
We have been "burned" by many people that start out like this in the weapons complex. Remember Nanos? The staff, particularly X-division, loved and adored him when he started. He has the same characteristics as Kim.
It may not be surprising if these are self-promoting posts. That would fit in with the character.
Could be that these are self-serving posts, which would not be surprising.
August 14, 2017 at 7:12 PM
Chu was not restrained in expressing his view that McMillan did not meet the minimum requirements for the position. Perry has a different background and may not yet be ready to differentiate between last week's bottling of Thunderbird and a 1941 Inglenook Cab. Both come from California and one is exceptional while the other is only for bums.
August 15, 2017 at 5:25 PM
That is true but this does not change that fact the he was also right about McMillan.
She is an empty chair, along with Dirks and other leadership.
Clearly a brainwashed follower of the "McMillan money" cult. Find an authentic nuclear weapons tester and, if they will speak with you, you might find out just how ignorant McMillan really is.
August 15, 2017 at 11:43 PM
Throw the red flag on this one. If UC had wanted a LANL Director that knew bombs, then they would have made a different choice than McMillan. There were other options available that had hardware and earth-shaking experience. McMillan has none of this.
August 15, 2017 at 11:43 PM
McMillan is still a poor leader. He may know very specific technical aspects of bombs but he really does not understand the bigger picture about all the science and engineering that needs to go into making and maintaining them. He has absolutely no understanding of even broader issues of non-proliferation, computer modeling, clean up, aging, and so on. In fact I would argue that his expertise is so narrow and that he is so disconnected from broader scientific world and the outside world that he simply cannot be a good leader. Compare his to Sig Hecker and the differences are immediate.
Of the transplants that arrived from LLNL with LANS, McMillan was the most arrogant, and by far the least qualified in weapons. Anastasio, Mara and Knapp each had broad and deep experience in nuclear weapons.
McMillan neither knows weapons nor is he a decent manager. He has matched Chu's expectations and been the failure that was predicted.
Agree. While Anastasio was Director, he did not allow McMillan to have many discussions with visitors about weapons.
We can all agree that McMillan was woefully unqualified to get his position and he has failed at almost every point in his tenure.
So what next? What went so terribly wrong in the process that resulted in his selection and what can be learned from that train wreck in order to avoid another catastrophe?
Enough already!
We can all agree that McMillan was woefully unqualified to get his position and he has failed at almost every point in his tenure.
So what next? What went so terribly wrong in the process that resulted in his selection and what can be learned from that train wreck in order to avoid another catastrophe?
August 16, 2017 at 7:37 AM
Do some digging and verify that the so called process that UC ran resulted in 4 finalists being interviewed by Pattiz and the rubber stamp committee. McMillan was sold to them by Anastasio as the best available candidate.
August 20, 2017 at 10:45 AM
People have said a number of bad things about Charlie on the blog. In real life there are a few mellow supporters or noncommittal folks when it comes to Charlie I don't think I have ever heard anyone say single good thing about Terry over the many years. Only Nanos gets more negative comments. At least Terry is consistent. If someone has something good to say than throw it out. There have always been some posters that come to defend Younger, Seestrom, even Knapp, and most every other name that has been put on the blog in a negative fashion. I cannot seem to remember any coming to defend Terry.