4 ms·

>PF-4 is also the only place where existing cores removed randomly from the arsenal can be painstakingly tested to see if they remain safe and reliable for use

>PF-4 is also the only place where existing cores removed randomly from the arsenal can be painstakingly tested to see if they remain safe and reliable for use in the nuclear stockpile. That work has also been blocked, due to PF-4’s extended shutdown, according to internal DOE reports. I wonder if having another facility that can perform this work wouldn't provide the right incentive for the underperforming unit to improve. Competition is a healthy thing. Knowing that there is another lab that is doing the work to specifications should provide good motivation to improve.

HarryHirsch 9y ago
Competition in search for excellence is a dangerous tool, management implements a metric and the departments optimize for the metric no matter what the long-term goals are. This is how Sears became run into the ground: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys... Armed forces around the world rely on esprit de corps. The British SAS don't have to compete against Navy Seals to know they are the best, they know already.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Of course if something analagous to the SAS selection course was used for hiring at these labs, methinks you wouldn't see sloppy work either.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    Also the training. In special forces each serviceman is trained beyond the immediate job duties. If the commander or anyone with special skills dies during a mission someone else must step up immediately to replace them and of course they all had the requisite training. You'd ask just how a nuke technician could even think of getting close to assembling a critical mass. Are they really that dumb? Have they never been told?
- sverige 9y ago
  Yes, I guess that's what I'm getting at. And the SAS and SEALs are very aware of each other's existence, I'm sure, as well as that of the Russian Spetsnaz and similar forces.
vkou 9y ago
In the years leading up to World War I, the Royal Navy was convinced that rate of fire was everything. Every ship drilled to maximize their rate of fire. Commanders of vessels who could not keep up with their peers were sacked. When the Battle of Jutland came around, the Royal Navy greatly outnumbered the Kreigsmarine, and caught it unaware. The engagements were incredibly in the United Kingdom's favour. Numerically, the battle was a disaster for the Royal Navy. Its losses were double that of their opponent. One of the reasons for it was that a number of RN ships exploded after taking a single hit - while German ones took shell after shell, and stayed afloat. In their zeal to optimize their firing rate, the Royal Navy did away with the simple precaution of installing airlocks between their ammunition storerooms, and their gun rooms. You see - opening and closing an airlock every time you needed to get to and from the ammunition room wasted too much time. Hitting a German gun room would destroy the gun. Hitting a British gun room would destroy the entire ship. But boy, did those gun crews shoot fast. Unless your competitive process rigorously accounts for every form of cut corners, you're going to get what you measure... With some shortsighted optimizations thrown in.
- keithpeter 9y ago
  Jutland: there were issues around the culture of waiting for signals (flags!) from the flagship and also around the personality of the Commander in Chief and some of the other admirals as well as the issue you mention. See The Rules of the Game by Andrew Gordon if you have an interest in naval history or how large organisations respond to change.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    "Finally, there is a brief summary of the findings which assert that the loss of the British BCs, contrary to conventional wisdom was the result of over sensitive British propellant charges rather than the tendency of the crews to ignore safe ammunition handling practices to increase rate of fire." Review of https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-John-Campbell/dp/0870213245/ https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-John-Campbe...
munificent 9y ago
> Competition is a healthy thing. It is a way to incentivize and improve efficiency, but it can also be a very expensive way to do so. It requires a lot of redundancy. You're effectively doing the work multiple times in parallel and discarding the loser. That's fine when you're talking small farmers growing strawberries who can switch to another crop if it turns out their strawberries aren't good enough. But running multiple nuclear weapon processing facilities simultaneously and pitting them against each other is an insanely costly way of improving safety.

HarryHirsch 9y ago

Competition in search for excellence is a dangerous tool, management implements a metric and the departments optimize for the metric no matter what the long-term goals are. This is how Sears became run into the ground: http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys... Armed forces around the world rely on esprit de corps. The British SAS don't have to compete against Navy Seals to know they are the best, they know already.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
Of course if something analagous to the SAS selection course was used for hiring at these labs, methinks you wouldn't see sloppy work either.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  Also the training. In special forces each serviceman is trained beyond the immediate job duties. If the commander or anyone with special skills dies during a mission someone else must step up immediately to replace them and of course they all had the requisite training. You'd ask just how a nuke technician could even think of getting close to assembling a critical mass. Are they really that dumb? Have they never been told?
sverige 9y ago
Yes, I guess that's what I'm getting at. And the SAS and SEALs are very aware of each other's existence, I'm sure, as well as that of the Russian Spetsnaz and similar forces.

vkou 9y ago

In the years leading up to World War I, the Royal Navy was convinced that rate of fire was everything. Every ship drilled to maximize their rate of fire. Commanders of vessels who could not keep up with their peers were sacked. When the Battle of Jutland came around, the Royal Navy greatly outnumbered the Kreigsmarine, and caught it unaware. The engagements were incredibly in the United Kingdom's favour. Numerically, the battle was a disaster for the Royal Navy. Its losses were double that of their opponent. One of the reasons for it was that a number of RN ships exploded after taking a single hit - while German ones took shell after shell, and stayed afloat. In their zeal to optimize their firing rate, the Royal Navy did away with the simple precaution of installing airlocks between their ammunition storerooms, and their gun rooms. You see - opening and closing an airlock every time you needed to get to and from the ammunition room wasted too much time. Hitting a German gun room would destroy the gun. Hitting a British gun room would destroy the entire ship. But boy, did those gun crews shoot fast. Unless your competitive process rigorously accounts for every form of cut corners, you're going to get what you measure... With some shortsighted optimizations thrown in.

keithpeter 9y ago
Jutland: there were issues around the culture of waiting for signals (flags!) from the flagship and also around the personality of the Commander in Chief and some of the other admirals as well as the issue you mention. See The Rules of the Game by Andrew Gordon if you have an interest in naval history or how large organisations respond to change.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  "Finally, there is a brief summary of the findings which assert that the loss of the British BCs, contrary to conventional wisdom was the result of over sensitive British propellant charges rather than the tendency of the crews to ignore safe ammunition handling practices to increase rate of fire." Review of https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-John-Campbell/dp/0870213245/ https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-John-Campbe...

munificent 9y ago

> Competition is a healthy thing. It is a way to incentivize and improve efficiency, but it can also be a very expensive way to do so. It requires a lot of redundancy. You're effectively doing the work multiple times in parallel and discarding the loser. That's fine when you're talking small farmers growing strawberries who can switch to another crop if it turns out their strawberries aren't good enough. But running multiple nuclear weapon processing facilities simultaneously and pitting them against each other is an insanely costly way of improving safety.