The Political Assault On Los Alamos National Laboratory 215
Harperdog writes "Hugh Gusterson has a great article on the troubles at Los Alamos over the last decade. Since the late 1990s, nuclear weapons scientists at the US Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory have faced an unanticipated threat to their work, from politicians and administrators whose reforms and management policies—enacted in the name of national security and efficiency—have substantially undermined the lab's ability to function as an institution and to superintend the nuclear stockpile."
Frankly... (Score:5, Interesting)
...the idea of disappearing into a cloud of vapour at any time doesn't scare me anymore. I grew up with dive-under-the-desk drills, "Protect And Survive" [atomica.co.uk], "Threads" [imdb.com] (which terrified me the first time I watched it) and "When The Wind Blows" [imdb.com] (which made me cry). I'm so used to Government using scare tactics to get its own way I'm slap happy to them.
What does frighten me is the fact that people are still scared of what TPTB to put it bluntly, won't ever do because they have too much to lose; TPTB know people are scared because people are dumb, panicky animals and that is ripe material to rob, rape and pillage.
You can't rob, rape and pillage radioactive ash.
Those who have everything they want at a whim are more afraid of losing it than those who have to scrimp, save, recycle, reuse and fight for it. I don't know why, it's just the way I see it. Probably some primal thing which says "You can't take it with you - you leave this world as you entered it, cold and naked." Or maybe I've just accepted the inevitability of corporeal mortality.
Re:Not needed any more (Score:4, Interesting)
> The US currently has enough warheads to destroy the world several hundred times over
> which would be ash and dust and a few scraps of metal
Hmmm, let's use math instead of guesses.
The area of "complete distraction" effect of a modern warhead is about 3 miles radius. The area of the Great Britain is about 90,000 square miles, so that means we would need 30,000 nuclear warheads to destroy the UK to the level you're talking about. For the US you would need over 1 million warheads.
So, you're wrong.
Re:Exaggerated by about five orders of magnitude (Score:4, Interesting)
So the U.S. arsenal has already been slashed by about 89%, in terms of megatons, from its Cold War peak.
Hack Job (Score:4, Interesting)
I just read the entire paper. Before reading it I was neutral and largely ignorant of Los Alamos' problems and culture. After reading it I tend to believe that the culture there is indeed one of arrogance and privilege and that the author, Gusterson, is their mouthpiece.
The paper is not even close to a scientific treatment. It is a series of conclusions, allegations, and characterizations more suited to a letter to the editor (or a Slashdot rant like this one) than a NSF funded study report. He never once describes the scientific culture that is the subject, nor does he analyze it. Nor does he analyze the management. He simply hurls characterizations and insults at it. The paper reads like a list of grievances brought forward by a shop steward.
To use Gusterson's words against him. He says, "Recent condenmations of Los Alamos have been based on remarkably thin cartoonish descriptions of its culture." But his paper does exactly that, it seems to be based on remarkably thin cartoonish descriptions of the management.
I'm still ignorant of the actual culture at Los Alamos. However, if there was a calcified culture of arrogance and privilege, and that culture sent forth someone to present their views, I would expect it to sound exactly like Gustafson's paper. If that paper were the only evidence, I would say "Fire them all."
Re:Not needed any more (Score:4, Interesting)
I would also point out that the British had a lot of success against the French sticking to the longbow which they had been using for years before the crossbow came along. Yes the cross bow had more range and did more damage per a shot, but in the time it takes to reload the long bow men could have run the distance and the next reload they would have got several shots off. Also the shortbow (basically shortened version of the longbow could be used from horseback).
The longbow is also much harder to learn. The reason us english used them well was something to do with the amount of legal encouragement we were given to use them. This apparently included crazy laws preventing us from doing anything else at certain times (on sundays or holidays) and making sure all practice ranges were over 220 yards long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow [wikipedia.org]
Also, your impression that longbow men moved is not accurate. The best plan was for the longbowman to sharpen a very big stick and plunge it into the ground next to him at 45 degrees. He then sharpened the other end too then stood just behind it. The stick had to be sturdy enough such that a horse charging it could not break it and close enough to the stick next to it that a horse could not get through the gap. He then just sat there and made arrows until the battle commenced and some fool walked in range.
Also, longbowman were not exactly useless when it came to close combat as the hammer they used for driving stakes into the ground was nasty if you clobbered someone with it. They also had a useful little short handled axe for making arrows. They were also unarmoured since they had no need for it so much more manoeuvrable than anyone who had survived walking through their hail of arrows.