The discourse surrounding Rickover's leadership emphasizes a critical evaluation of past methodologies in nuclear submarine engineering and strategic arms processes. While it is acknowledged that Rickover significantly impacted these sectors, there are doubts about whether his lessons have been adequately integrated into contemporary practices, especially within the US submarine construction industry. The comments reflect a mix of admiration for his stringent standards and criticism of his approach, highlighting a generational gap in management styles. Users expressed concern over the current state of submarine construction, particularly for international partners like Australia, who may not benefit as anticipated from agreements involving US submarines. The discussion encapsulates a broader debate on innovation versus established technology, suggesting a tendency to favor untested concepts over proven ones because of perceived limitations in the latter. The complex legacy of Rickover, especially regarding his internal reception and management style, raises questions about current leadership norms in technology fields and the adaptability of modern engineers to rigorous oversight practices.