Every few weeks some deep tech influencer post on X something like this, “If the Navy can run hundreds of nuclear reactors safely and cheaply, why can’t the private sector?” or alternatively they ask "why can't the navy run the nuclear private sector"
It’s a fair question — and a flawed one. The Navy didn’t make nuclear work because it was simple. It made it work because it was sacred. Admiral Hyman Rickover built a system designed not to fail — standardized, centralized, and ruthlessly disciplined. It served its mission perfectly. But what works for warships doesn’t always work for markets. Rickover’s genius was that he eliminated uncertainty. Every submarine and carrier reactor shared the same DNA. Training, design, operations — all uniform, all accountable to one command. That’s why the Navy’s record is spotless. The Ford-class carrier’s twin A1B reactors can operate for fifty years with only one refueling — a feat of engineering discipline as much as physics. Rickover’s model worked because the Navy had one job: deterrence and defense. It didn’t need ten competing designs. It needed one that never failed. In other words, In that world, standardization isn’t bureaucracy — it’s survival.
But the private sector plays a different game. It thrives on iteration, competition, and failure that leads to progress. Rickover’s model worked for the Navy precisely because it removed those variables. He built a monopoly on excellence — and that was exactly what the Cold War required. But if we apply that same command-and-control philosophy to commercial nuclear, we don’t get innovation. We get procurement. And when government procurement becomes industrial policy, we end up with a handful of politically protected players instead of a dynamic marketplace. That’s not how you rebuild a nuclear economy. That’s how you stall one.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member