Single Wrench Demonstrates Government Inefficiency

I apologize if this was already posted but I didn't see it when I searched for "government wrench".

This isn't a post about left, right or middle.... it really doesn't matter, becasuse when this type of inefficiency is clearly demonstrated in a manner so incredibly ludicrous as seen in this case, only government can be blamed. This one example is a microcosm of what really exists in governments today.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel admitted on Friday that three U.S. nuclear missile bases in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana were so badly managed that they had to share a wrench used to tighten warheads to the business end of Minuteman 3 missiles.

'How did they do it? They did it by federal expressing the one wrench around to each base,' Hagel told reporters Friday morning during a press conference called to introduce new system-wide reforms affecting the nation's entire intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal.

'They were creative and innovative and they made it work. But that is not the way to do it. We now have a wrench for each location. We're going to have two for each location soon.'

The three facilities in question house about 450 nuclear missiles.

Video

Daily Mail

Let's all be thankful that FedEx does its job better than the government did and never lost that one wrench. Not one KIND of wrench... ONE WRENCH!

That's insane...

~Namaste

Hagel has got to be lying. With machinist at each of those facilities a wrench could have been made to fit, whatever missiles where stored there.

How many wrenches do you think should be floating around that have the capability of deactivating nuclear defences?

I heard this on NPR. Unbelieveable.

I'm sure the wrench has a special shape and all, but this fits a problem that 3D printing can solve. Even if done in plastic in which some wrenches still function up to a point, they could make as many as they need on demand. If the Navy has solved this problem on aircraft carriers, what are these nuke guys doing wrong?

a reply to: Ceeker63

agreed. this sounds like a baloney story.

Chuck Hagel is an "O.G." liar.

originally posted by: Psynic
How many wrenches do you think should be floating around that have the capability of deactivating nuclear defences?

I imagine one could be deactivated with a sledge hammer.
I'm sure some special tools are required to activate one, but any competent machine shop should be able to make whatever is necessary.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
I apologize if this was already posted but I didn't see it when I searched for "government wrench".

This isn't a post about left, right or middle.... it really doesn't matter, becasuse when this type of inefficiency is clearly demonstrated in a manner so incredibly ludicrous as seen in this case, only government can be blamed. This one example is a microcosm of what really exists in governments today.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel admitted on Friday that three U.S. nuclear missile bases in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana were so badly managed that they had to share a wrench used to tighten warheads to the business end of Minuteman 3 missiles.

'How did they do it? They did it by federal expressing the one wrench around to each base,' Hagel told reporters Friday morning during a press conference called to introduce new system-wide reforms affecting the nation's entire intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal.

'They were creative and innovative and they made it work. But that is not the way to do it. We now have a wrench for each location. We're going to have two for each location soon.'

The three facilities in question house about 450 nuclear missiles.

Video

Daily Mail

Let's all be thankful that FedEx does its job better than the government did and never lost that one wrench. Not one KIND of wrench... ONE WRENCH!

That's insane...

~Namaste

Let me put this in a realistic context. In the eighties there were complaints about 'government' inefficiency over specilized $800 hammers and $600.00 toilet seats. The government addressed that issue. Now not having enough of these high priced speciality wrenches is government inefficiency and the answer is to buy more.

So how one instance any more, or less, inefficient then the other.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Let me put this in a realistic context. In the eighties there were complaints about 'government' inefficiency over specilized $800 hammers and $600.00 toilet seats. The government addressed that issue. Now not having enough of these high priced speciality wrenches is government inefficiency and the answer is to buy more.

So how one instance any more, or less, inefficient then the other.

Were the hammers and toilet seats cited in fact 'specialized'? Or wasn't the issue that these were commonly available items for which the government was allowing themselves to be bilked by suppliers?

originally posted by: Ceeker63
Hagel has got to be lying. With machinist at each of those facilities a wrench could have been made to fit, whatever missiles where stored there.

Except that it wasn't Hagel that was lying, he was just reporting on what the report was from the Pentagon and Defense Department.



~Namaste

It's downright comical sometimes. The nuclear program in this country has been ignored since the end of the Cold War and it shows...sometimes glaringly.

This is what you get when you just demand 'small' government. No conservative today wants 'efficient' government, they just want 'small' government.

One wrench for three crews? Sounds like small government to me.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Do you seriously believe they spend 800 dollars on a specialty wrench, or 600 dollars on a toilet seat? That's what they say they spend. As with anything in the government you cannot trust it. They spend 20 dollars on a toilet seat then 580 goes to a black project or in some bureaucrats pocket.

Just remember ... these are the same people you are all falling all over yourselves to put in charge of both your health care and your Internet. How well did they do rolling out just one website to run that health care? Hmmm?

And here you are complaining about question of whether or not you believe them on the question of one wrench or not one wrench. Either way, it's not terribly good.

But they are completely qualified to run both your health care and your Internet. No questions asked.

a reply to: ketsuko

Wait...you think the government wants to take over the internet?

You haven't been listening to Ted Cruz, have you?

a reply to: links234

That's what Net Neutrality is. Or do you still believe that the ACA is about lowering your health care costs and giving you more choice? Anything they tell you is about the opposite of what they claim. The net will be neutral? What's the opposite of that because it's what you get.

You need working Internet? Well, remember they have one working server farm ...

The real question is, how often do the they take the warheads off the missiles?

If they only remove the warheads once a year or once every 5 years for preventative maintenance they really don`t need a bunch of the same wrench.

It says there is a total of 450 missiles dispersed between the 3 bases.I`m positive that they don`t take all the missile warheads off at the same time.They do all the missiles on one base,one at a time, and leave the other two bases functional and ready to go.When that base has completed all their missiles and is fully functional again then the next base starts.

since only one base would need the wrench at any given time there`s nothing wrong with having only one wrench especially if it`s a very expensive wrench.

a reply to: ketsuko

Who ever told you the ACA was about lowering your healthcare costs? It's about keeping the entire medical delivery system form collapsing and smaller regional hospitals from going bankrupt. Unrecoverable medical care provided annually to the uninsured has been increasing exponentially and the system is at the breaking point. Only so much of that 'free' care can be passed on to those who are insured (which is a diminishing percentage of the whole). ACA is an attempt at forestalling the collapse of the system. Otherwise folks living in areas with lower population densities and/or weaker economies can suddenly find that the closest hospital is 100mi away. Is it the best solution? Probably not. When has the government EVER done anything well? But is it meant to lower your healthcare costs? Absolutely not and no one ever said it was.

a reply to: ketsuko

OK...this might blow your mind but stay with me on this...

The internet is already neutral. What the government is proposing is keeping the internet exactly as it is. OK? Still with me? Net neutrality is about keeping the internet exactly as it is now.

So long as you're still following I'll be happy to keep explaining. Let me know.

a reply to: Tardacus

I am all for small government and conserving wherepractical, but having one wrench for 450 missiles is retarded, each base should have at a minimum 2, that way one can continue to be used if the other is lost or requires annual calibration or some such.

Sort of like the Graeae, I guess. Interesting implications.

They shared one eye and one tooth, which they took turns using. By stealing their eye while they were passing it amongst themselves, the hero Perseus forced them to tell the whereabouts of the three objects needed to kill Medusa (in other versions the whereabouts of Medusa herself), by ransoming their shared eye for the information.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: links234

That's what Net Neutrality is. Or do you still believe that the ACA is about lowering your health care costs and giving you more choice? Anything they tell you is about the opposite of what they claim. The net will be neutral? What's the opposite of that because it's what you get.

You need working Internet? Well, remember they have one working server farm ...

That is not what Net Neutrality is. Net Neutrality is the idea that a packet of data is not discriminated against or altered based upon the source, destination, or contents.