Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Nixon wanted to build nukes because nuke construction projects are almost ideal conduits for graft. When a nuke plant construction project goes 400% over budget and 3x over schedule, do we get 400% more nuke plant? No, but every penny goes into somebody's pocket. The ratepayers invariably end up paying through the nose.

This is part of why small-scale factory-built nukes never found a foothold in the US. There just isn't the scope for wholly-legal corruption to generate the institutional support that big nukes got.



Why is a nuke plant an ideal conduit for graft versus any other government contractor project? Is there evidence for this?


True, many other government contractor projects have been effective graft vehicles. The F-35 jet and the SLS rocket are other, very current examples. People have begun to catch on about nuke plants; they started out as a scam to make the uranium economy more favorable for weapons work, and that has been baked in.

Notable recent exceptions include solar and wind farms, partly I expect because people can tell how much they should cost: N panels x $P per panel, N turbines x $P per turbine. Also, people doing them tend to be idealists; they want the most power out that money can buy, anywhere else if not here.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: