Talk:Hyman G. Rickover

---

Call for Rickover Interviewees

Greetings,

I am AustinKnight, and as of November 2005 am the primary author of the Rickover article. I am interested in compiling Rickover interview stories for the purpose of creating a respectful and honest book about these. With the lack of any other substantial form of compilation, I believe that these engaging stories will otherwise be completely lost over time.

I am a former mid-grade naval officer (LCDR) who served as an engineer officer and weapons officer aboard Atlantic & Pacific 688s from 1979-1988, and offer my personal word and committment that the treatment of these stories will be such that reputations will be well-served...very much including the Admiral's.

Stories may be sent to: rickoverinterview @ hotmail.com (remove spaces)

Other Rickover stories are welcome as well, but just from those who have direct, first-hand knowledge, please.

For confirmation purposes, please include your name and the name & timeframe of all boats you served on. The default position and appropriate expectation is that your name will not be used publicly, and in any case not without your expressed, written consent.

Regards,

--AustinKnight 18:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Rickover Incident

A high ranking Admiral drives up to the gate of a naval base. This base has a policy of 100% check of ID cards and there is a new Marine on guard duty at the gate.

Marine: I need to see your ID.

Admiral: I don't have time for this nonsense. (to the driver) Go ahead.

Marine: Don't do that.

Admiral to driver: You heard me, Drive on.

Marine draws his sidearm and says: Sir, this is my first time on post. Do I shoot you or your driver?

Apparently this incident is Rickover, as mentioned in a book about NR-1. Is it true? If so, I think we should include it because it gives us insight into Rickover's personality. -Joseph 15:22, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Nuclear Navy

During the 1940's or 1950's, one of America's Diesel submarines got herself trapped underwater by the Soviet Union, and was subsequently forced to surface and run for Japan. This incedent played a major role in the decision to activly pursue nuclear power at sea, and I think it needs to be mentioned in the article. TomStar81 22:35, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sub incident occured in 1958, 4 years after the USS NAUTILUS was launched. This incident helped Rickover gain momentum in having nuclear subs built.

Anyone who has access to a source please go ahead and add a summary for the article. Be bold. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy and NR

Two things should be added. ADM Rickover became a rather controversial figure later in life(because of his influance), and something should be added about it. Also, it should be added that NR interviews EVERY nuclear power candidate officer in the Navy. This is mentioned, offhandldidly, about Pres. Carter.

Forcing Conformance to Approved Submarine Construction Drawings

The Admiral requested and got an emergency meeting of Key Executives/Managers of General Dynamicvs/Electrtic Boat Div. in a hotel in NY City Friday July 2, 1965. Purpose was not announced ahead of the meeting but it became evident it was to rub managements nose in allowing Engineering to request Naval Reactors Code 08 (his operations) for approval to deviate from approved designs when construction mistakes yielded non-compliance. His "scream session" reminded management this kind of performance detracts his time needed to sell submarines to Congress. Therefore, from that point on, all approved nuclear drawings were to be stamped in two inch high letters "ND" meaning non-deviational, period. I remember it clearly because it was my birthday and a party in my honor had to be canceled while the company limosine took us to NY. There is more to this story. The way the hotel suite seating was re-arranged, cold sweet grapes were obtained for the admiral, copies of the latesty newspapers and magazines obtained for his use, and how the meeting content developed as the admiral went around the room asking each person "what do you have to say for yourself?" Marv Curland

Carter, Rickover and TMI

If anyone has a good, referenceable source for this info/section, please provide same. Past searches regarding this claim did not find anything authoritative that could be used. --AustinKnight 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The only source that I found is the relative's affadavit. -Willmcw 23:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks sufficient. Robert Rickover, the Admiral's son, is a rare name, and does appear on other sites to support his wife, Jane, in her recollections. --AustinKnight 00:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Carter did not commission a general nuclear power study, but rather one focused on TMI. Jane Rickover's affidavit appears valid, but it is a small extrapolation to assume that she was talking about this study. It is also reasonably questionable as to whether a presidential commission focused on TMI would go outside of its commission to make general recommendations to shutdown the entire industry, but her affidavit is her affidavit. --AustinKnight 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If I read the affadavit correctly it appears that Rickover thought that the commision's evaluation of safety hazards was so negative that publishing it would have had the effect of ending public support for nuclear power. I don't get that they explicitly recommended anything like that. -Willmcw 01:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We were still working through the original draft/language of this section, which was fairly rough in terms of accuracy. --AustinKnight 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rickover's childhood/Annapolis experience

I think the section over-emphasizes Rickover's European Jewish roots, his connections back to Ryki and his discovery late in life that all the Jews in Ryki had been killed. This material would be interesting as a sort of sidebar in a full length book about Rickover but I don't think any of this played a major part part in making Rickover the man he became. I'm sure it must have influenced him a little bit (if nothing else, it shaped his parents), but not enough to commit space to here. Rickover never seemed very interested in his Jewish roots and even became an Episcopalian at some point. I propose removing most of this stuff.

I think much more relevant was his position as an unpopular outsider at the Naval Academy and the role anti-Semitism played in this. Rickover probably went from a neighborhood (Jewish immigrants in Chicago) where he fit in culturally to a place where he was a total misfit. Rickover's value system (brains and learning), background (Jewish immigrant) and personality (prickly, almost anti-social) were at such odds with those of the Academy, where "manly virtue", genteel values, Protestantism, sociability and military bearing were more esteemed. Rickover never seemed to forget this; years later when he finally wielded real power, Rickover took shots at these traditional aspects of Navy culture whenever he could. Rickover was hard on all Navy officers, but especially those that seem to come from the traditional Annapolis mold of the early 20th century. Rickover appeared to despise the Naval Academy in particular and sometimes publicly called for its abolition.

--A. B. 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, but I'd not be too quick to judge relative weights, and would suggest keeping encyclopedic facts -- particularly those that are foundational to Rickover's psychology since he was clearly a bit of an odd duck. In fact, you yourself refer twice to the fact that Rickover was raised Jewish and the effects that this had on his life. Having been interviewed by the man, and later stood next to him supervising reactor operations as we took one of the 688 class fast attacks to sea for the first time, I can personally vouch that the man was quite Jewish in his mannerisms, behavior and style of speech. Yes, his first wife was an Episcopalian and apparently practiced himself, but there's no question that his psychological formative years (0-5 yrs-old) and in Chicago were as a European/immigrant Jew. I'd also remark that the Naval Academy stuff on the web is largely overblown, and likely only to be of interest to boat schoolers (of which I have a good number of good friends). Yes, Rickover may have called for the closing of the Naval Academy...but as have any number of others. *All* of the academies have come under scrutiny for closure from time to time. It's not like he bore a grudge toward Annapolis...he just didn't much care for it; particularly -- since he was a technologist -- the liberal arts aspects/weighting of the Academy (which he was successful in substantially curbing). And, to my experience, the guys that got the hardest, wildest Rickover interviews were college grads, not the Academy guys...at least, not unless they were non-nuke Captain-Admiral types who were carrier bound, as they did get put through the wringer (e.g., Annapolis-grad Zumwalt). Last but not least, if you're just going by web accounts, or non-nuclear naval experience, and do not have direct personal knowledge of Rickover or nuclear propulsion, consider deferring your comments for a while. The article isn't going anywhere. There are many, *many* other officers that served under Rickover and who are still alive who can provide an authentic take on the guy in an encyclopedic way. If by any chance you're getting most of your info from Dr. Schratz' "hit piece" that was written in 1983, I'd definitely postpone any editing; that was a grossly one-sided, highly pejorative, near-irrational rant that does not jive with the predominant literature on Rickover. *Anyone's* life would look pretty disgusting if the negatives were strictly one's focus. Biographies on Wikipedia serve best when they take the high road and focus on accomplishments. In any case, if you do choose to edit, please be sure to cite your sources. Cheers, --66.69.219.9 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust museum link and Paul R. Schratz

I could find no mention of Rickover on the Holocaust museum's web site. If there's something substantive about Rickover himself, then I suggest linking directly to that citation. If I'm missing something here, let me know.--A. B. 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you literally read my mind: I was going to replace the Holocaust Memorial link with that of the U.S. Naval Institute's oral history re. Rickover...but saw that you'd already done so. A fine edit. While I don't agree with adding the Schratz link as, in my humble opinion, its clear bias renders it beneath that of an encyclopedic reference, I'm not in any way compelled to remove it. It speaks for itself: as a bitter tirade from a WWII diesel boat commander and Academy grad whose era had passed him by. Battles between the disestablished diesel boaters and the nuclear navy are the stuff of legend; at least this captures that in full force. Since all combatant U.S. submarines today are nuclear-powered, it's pretty clear whose arguments carried the day. --66.69.219.9 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reformatting the links I added. For what it's worth, I think you're too harsh on Schratz and his article. Lots of sharp people thought many of the same things about Rickover and his methods. Also, I think the older diesel boat generation was not necessarily anti-nuke and they were impressive in their own right, as any study of the U.S. submarine war in the Pacific will show. Visionaries in the submarine community were pushing for nuclear subs even before the Manhattan Project; the first U.S. enrichment effort was part of a low-key, long-term project to develop nuclear propulsion for submarines before it was taken over for The Bomb's development. When the bombs went off in Japan, submarine force leaders immediately put two and two together and pushed hard for a nuclear submarine. That's when Rickover hit the scene.

It's true, however, that many WW2 submariners were bitter, however, since Rickover pointedly made a show of taking as few of these people as he could he could get away with. He also tried to systematically destroy the rejectees' careers if he could. A family friend of my parents fell into this category; he was brilliant. I think Schratz' insights are good, regardless of his personal background--A. B. 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I have nothing but respect for WWII submariners, who in many people's opinion -- including mine -- were the only substantial maritime thing that was between us (or the Australians) and the Japanese after Pearl Harbor's destruction of the surface fleet. They led a hard life, and far too many experienced hard deaths, God rest their souls.

However, with the development of nuclear power it ultimately was Rickover who was put in the position of leading a wholesale changeout in the mindset of the submarine force. Rigorous discipline in the operation of the propulsion plant was essential, as entirely new risks and sciences were involved. Rickover knew U.S. politics, and was keenly sensitive to the possibility of the program being shut down if there were ever a single, serious nuclear incident.

Old dogs tend to think they know all they need to, and do not handily learn new tricks. Creation always comes with a near equal amount of destruction, especially when it is accompanied by revolutionary change, not incremental. Far too many diesel boaters insisted on building diesel boats, and Rickover was politically savvy enough to know that the two could not co-habitate in the U.S., as some politician, somewhere, would argue that the diesel boats were cheaper and thus "better." In the Cold War era, such thinking could have been lethal to U.S. national security and simply had to be done away with, regardless of the personal costs.

It's ironic, but Schratz' major error in his opinion piece was the same core fault of Rickover: he lacked the heart to be balanced in his judgments.

My respects and best wishes to your parents' friend. We all owe him and others our deepest gratitude. --66.69.219.9 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Diesel boats can be just as lethal as nuclear boats and some other fleet operators continue to build and use both. The issue is more one of range, endurance and speed. Even today, if we had a major mission for submarines to just lurk in one area near their base, a conventional submarine would be a much cheaper choice. The Swedes, for instance, will never miss not having nukes. The U.S. Navy, however, had to go to an all nuclear submarine fleet becuase of the distances to its missions.--A. B. 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, c'mon...a snorkeling diesel boat is a chip shot target-wise, and today's nukes are as quiet as a diesel running on its battery. From payload, to speed, to survivability, to endurance, to livability there's no comparision between the two platforms today. Other fleet operators do not have the U.S.'s scope of responsibilities or politics to deal with. Building diesels in the U.S. is a non-starter. --66.69.219.9 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

References

I deleted the reference to the novel "Blow Negative" from the references.

Here's what the Wikipedia Guide to Layout says about references:

Put under this header, again in a bulleted list, any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article.

--A. B. 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just read an amazon reviewer's synopsis of "Blow Negative"; while it sounds like an interesting book, it also sounds as if there are many differences between that events in the novel and in real life. --A. B. 04:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because it's a work of fiction, not a biography -- it was inspired by Rickover and his work with the nuclear sub. Hayford Peirce 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

The Wiki guide to layout says "Further reading" can contain other info that might be of interest to the article reader.

Let me ask the people who keep deleting this reference: why does the article of Thomas More contain a reference to A Man for All Seasons? Why does the article on Huey Long contain a reference to All the King's Men? Why does the article on Reinhard Heydrich contain a reference to The Man in the High Castle as well as many other works of fiction? Why is it not possible to reference an article on Rickover with a novel clearly about him? If you can't answer any of these questions, I suggest you leave the reference to "Blow Negative" alone. Hayford Peirce 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hayford, interesting point. As I read your back and forth with 66.69.219.9 last night, I immediately thought of Warren's book. I'm not sure why you put this book in the references to begin with since none of the three works of fiction you cited above were listed in the references section:

Reinhard Heydrich#Heydrich in popular culture

Thomas More#Influence and reputation

Huey Long#In culture

Well, I just stuck it in there because it was the only place that existed that was about books. I hadn't looked at the other three references at that time. Remember, a lot of Wiki is still improvised to one degree or another, although standardization is coming along. Hayford Peirce 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you briefly spell out how the fictional character differs from Rickover. From what I've just read about the book, it sounds like there were significant differences between actual events and those depicted in the book -- is this true?

You mean briefly in the article, where I have listed the book?

Honestly, I really don't know the best place since I don't know much about the book; there's not a lot about it on the usual submarine and Rickover web sites. One possibility is just a longer sentence than what you've already got (or a second sentence); I think much more than that is too long for an entry in a list like that. Another is to put longer comments in something like a new "Rickover in popular culture" or a "Rickover - Influence and reputation" section. That may be overkill, however. --A. B. 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll expand the current reference by, say, a sentence, and link it to an article about the book itself. Then I'll start a [{stub}} about the book, putting in a couple of initial sentences of my own. I'll have to find my old copy and reread it -- then I can make a longer article about it. Hayford Peirce 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rickover is viewed so very differently by various biographers and former colleagues -- I wonder how Stephens viewed him. I look forward to reading the book if I can find a cheap used copy. --A. B. 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an *excellent* book, with serious flaws (fiction-wise, that is), but the parts about the Rickover character are wonderful.... Hayford Peirce 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"WikiProject Biography" and "Military history WikiProject"

These project tags have been slapped on this article by the Looper5920 and Nobunaga24 "tag team" without consulting with the article's editors in any fashion.

Ever heard of building a consensus? Who TF are you guys, and why are you cluttering this article's Talk page with your self-promoting activity? And why do you think you're the ones who are qualified to speak to the quality of the article? Do you have some specific qualifications in that regard (and don't quote us as to just how many other articles you've glued your project tags to)? Lastly, do you have any direct familiarity with the topic...at all? --66.69.219.9 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)