These things usually boil down to money and power, not {{cultural_issue_of_the_day}}.
It's unclear to me that the military is currently any less effective and efficient than it was in the 90s. In Hollywood films in those days, it was typically portrayed as being incredibly efficient, but that has nothing to do with reality.
My own anecdote says that "The wastefulness of the military budget" has been an issue for many decades -- go look up Eisenhower's warnings of the military/industrial complex, and consider that the problem had been building for quite a while at that point.
Back then, of course, "cultural rot" would've meant "Treating black soldiers as equals"; in the 90s, IIRC, it would've meant "Treating female soldiers as equals". Just wondering, are you in favor of racism and sexism as well, or are you just anti-trans? Please note that anti-trans attitudes are likely to age about as well as racism and sexism have.
IMHO, every social change feels a little weird at the time; you're used to thinking a certain way, and now you're told that it's wrong; people take that sort of things personally. Other self-righteous people sometimes realize they can use the new woke attitude to swan around and club people who're moving more slowly -- bullying, really, and this bullying is the serious problem on the left, not the wokeness itself. We'd all be better off if we were better at granting grace to people making good-faith efforts to change their habits and attitudes.
So social change is hard. But that doesn't make it wrong, or rot, or virtue-signaling; it really does make life better for unfairly marginalized people, and as it spreads, the power of the leftist bullies will dissipate, and we'll be left with a better world overall.
And: if you want to disempower those leftist bullies faster, support racial justice, support women's rights, support trans rights. You don't have to club people over the head with it; just offer quiet support, because it's the right thing to do, and it'll make the bullies all the madder if there's nothing they can use to feel superior to you. :-)
My memory is fuzzy, but this 37 minute video [2] has a breakdown.
If memory serves, the root causes were faults in the pumps and delays in the 28 baud diagnostic printouts running minutes or hours behind which left everyone operating on bad data.
Part of that was exacerbated by the operators applying techniques used on subs (something about preferring to keep low pressure in some vessel, because high pressure there could sink the boat if containment was lost), the TMI design didn't need this as it could vent/blow-off, and the operators became somewhat fixated on "trying to save the boat" and missed a bunch of procedures.
Of course this doesn't invalidate your point, but even if the reactor designs are really similar, it may be a mistake to cross train anyone.
(disclosure: haven't seen this video in a year or so, and am generally a fan of nuclear power considering the alternatives, but it needs to be done with different, safer reactor designs and probably with new branding because no matter what it's going to take _forever_ to convince anyone to trust nuclear, when they associate that term with the dangerous, BWR designs that were never intended for land)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xQeXOz0Ncs
Although I'd imagine if there were many issues they be known about. I'd love to learn morea about nuclear reactors on carriers and submarines, but I imagine most of the engineering knowledge is secret.