Launch Command Preserved In Power Failure, But Nuclear Designs Still Risky 167
With a follow-up to Tuesday's story, Martin Hellman writes "Slashdot reported that a system failure at Warren AFB in Wyoming affected 50 ICBMs and that 'various security protocols built into the missile delivery system, like intrusion alarms and warhead separation alarms, were offline.' Assuaging fears that America's nuclear deterrent might have been compromised during this failure, the source article notes that the missiles still could be launched from airborne command centers. Other reports cite an administration official offering assurances that 'at no time did the president's ability [to launch] decrease.' Given the difficulty of debugging software and hardware that is probably not a good thing. The history of nuclear command and control systems has too many examples of risky designs that favor the ability to launch over the danger of an accidental one."
Why have them (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Questionable need in 1950 never mind 2010.
Then they worked, and are continuing to work.
Re:Why have them (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect some bad mods for being right. Everyone likes to pretend that the Cold War didn't happen, and most of the people with the strongest opinions didn't live during it, have never served in the military or had relatives that did during the Cold War. Plenty of mistakes have been made along the way (Vietnam for starters), but having a strong military and nuclear deterrent since WWII wasn't one of them.
While I understand why, most people under 30 don't fully appreciate the threat of the USSR after WWII as they are fortunate enough to not have lived under it. Ironically, the reason they haven't lived under that threat is due to what some are complaining about to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bull shit ( I am all for a strong nuclear force etc) but basically Russia had the USA hoodwinked into thinking they were 10* stronger than they actually were. The whole shit with russia was more or less just propagated to further the whole red scare.
*Facepalm*
Bravo for making an example of the GP's point.
Yes, ask any dog. (Score:2)
Then they worked, and are continuing to work.
Dog barks at postman. Postman comes and goes away. Dog keeps barking at postman every day. Seems to work.
Re:Why have them (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of nuclear weapons is to deter conflicts on the scale of the world wars from ever happening again, and so far they've done that admirably. They were never intended for the purpose of dealing with smaller scale outbreaks of violence even ones as large as the Iraq war.
Re:Why have them (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, nuclear ICBMs weren't, but we certainly did have programs to develop tactical nukes and even backpack bombs. But we decided for various reasons that we shouldn't be using nukes on that scale, and should just use them for when we have no alternatives and need the massive effect for which they are the only tool, and because they are a very thorough deterrent.
Re:Why have them (Score:4, Informative)
Nukes would definitely still be used for tactical purposes in any large-scale military conflict (which hasn't happened for quite a long time). NATO vs Russia, Russia vs China, China vs USA, India vs Pakistan, China vs India - if any of these pairs got into full-scale conflict, then definitely any tight grouping of 100.000+ soldiers+armor should fear a nuclear warhead, and such groupings would be inevitable.
Re:Why have them (Score:5, Informative)
then definitely any tight grouping of 100.000+ soldiers+armor should fear a nuclear warhead, and such groupings would be inevitable.
Wrong answer. No military is going to group 100k soldiers in an area that can taken out by a single warhead, and never would have. Ever. Even in WWII we were only able to kill 100k people by striking civilians. This is the whole reason you have multiple military bases, to distribute you capabilities and make it impossible for an enemy to take out a significant portion with a single strike. With the exception of training bases, military posts generally have less than 10k people, and often less than 5k people stationed there, for this exact reason. The remainder of the work force on a base are civilians.
And you won't see tactical nuclear weapons being used in the field likely ever, as that is the invisible line in the sand that would justify the enemy using nukes, perhaps on civilian targets. And there is no justification for using them against an enemy without nuclear capability. If an enemy used tactical nukes on us, we would still use them as a strategic weapon in retaliation, against fixed targets, not mobile troops. Even though we have them, tactical nuclear weapons make no sense, as they are solely a deterrent, a strategic weapon. Perhaps this is why they were all under SAC (Strategic Air Command) and not TAC (Tactical Air Command) during the Cold War, including all ICBMs (obviously excepting navel based warheads under the Nuclear Triad philosophy: Bombers, ICBMs, Submarines)
So, such groupings are not only NOT inevitable, they are highly unlikely as there is no tactical or strategic advantage to such a grouping, and tremendous risks.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US launched an all-out strategic attack on an opponent, they would also launch tactical attacks on opponent military forces. It isn't like the ships at sea would stop fighting just because there is nobody left at home to fight for...
I think that this the logic behind tactical nuclear weapons. Plus, they give an army more options, and commanders always like having options.
Re:Why have them (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US launched an all-out strategic attack on an opponent
China? Russia? What do you think the odds are that we would be doing a First Strike against any nuclear power? Correct answer: Zero, nada, zip. This means they would be used as a second strike, which is by definition, strategic positioning of weaponry, and the founding idea behind the Nuclear Triad. They wouldn't be bombing boots on the ground in China, too much chance for collateral damage, and the real goodies aren't even the soldiers (which can be handily taken care of with conventional weapons.) The real goodies are infrastructure. If the shit were literally to hit the fan and you have to second strike (as I discount ALL possibilities of a first strike by the US), you nuke dams, power plants, nuclear facilities, military installations, and maybe even factories and shipyards. Yes, soldiers would die, but the real target is infrastructure. If China landed troops on the west coast, tactical nuclear wouldn't be an option except as a hail mary. You don't piss in your own chili that way.
While the Geneva Convention is against it, the most effective way is to nuke rice patties making them unusable for years, literally starving the troops. Same reason for bombing dams, to destroy the ability to feed themselves as arable land is now flooded with radiation and washed away in the resulting flood. Then, I'm not exactly a huge fan of the idea of "rules" of war. Seems pointless since one side always ignores, and the other side always cheats when they can. If you notice, every war since all the rules have been put in place has been a long slogging battle with more death than would be possible if the rules were ignored (Korea, still ongoing, Vietnam, lost, middle east, etc.) And yes, I am aware that I am in the minority on that point, which doesn't negate the truth of the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
"In war, brutality is good because it makes the war end quickly." or something along those lines?
+1 Interesting
Re: (Score:2)
I was not aware of that quote, but was tempted to say as much, particularly if they were dumb enough to enter the SE portion of the US where ownership of military worthy weapons is higher than the rest of the nation. When I have made that point before, people tend to jump in and try to argue against it, saying how tanks, etc. would negate that. They forget the Revolutionary War I suppose, where just a few crazy rednecks hiding in the trees caused havok amongst the most disciplined of troops. Ironically,
Re: (Score:2)
"In war, brutality is good because it makes the war end quickly." or something along those lines? +1 Interesting
-1 fucking stupid more like
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, have you never read this [factcheck.org], or were you being ironic with your signature?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on the nature of the occupying force and their objectives and the nature of their government.
The US didn't really win the Revolutionary War so much as it forced the British to stop fighting it. The British clearly could have kept fighting, and they won almost all of their battles. The problem was that they really didn't have any reason to right - the English populace had no desire to brutally suppress a bunch of Western colonists and the body bags were beginning to pile up. They probab
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno - war is a nasty business no matter what you do. It basically is the ultimate contest of wills - who is willing to sacrifice more and how willing they are to do it. In the end might makes right is how EVERY war has always been fought.
Sure, I don't have to like it, but if you're stuck fighting a war your only options might be to fight in a way you'd rather not, or lose. So, then the question is what is one the line if you lose, and what values are you willing to give up to protect it?
Most value sy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yo momma so fat, they use her belly button as a missile silo.
Re: (Score:2)
1946 was entirely different from now.
If the US decided to use nukes against a non-nuclear enemy, say a hypothetical invasion of Iran, the entire world would be up in protest, and in certain cases a retaliation from china/russia might even be possible. In 1946, the US had nothing to fear from anyone when nuking japan. (and let's be honest, nuclear weapons back then were less well understood, and far less powerfull then today)
And yeah, tactical nukes are pointless, as soon as you nuke a tank batallion, expect
Re: (Score:2)
Highly unlikely. To damaging. The land would be useless, the PR would be a nightmare and damage whatever cause you have, and you risk retaliatory strike.
AS a practicaly use weapon, there is n gain. As a retaliatory deterrent, a necessity.
Re:Why have them (Score:4, Informative)
They were never intended for the purpose of dealing with smaller scale outbreaks of violence even ones as large as the Iraq war.
Actually they were. [youtube.com] It was later decided that this class of weapon countered MAD politics and may actually encourage wide spread use of larger nuclear devices. In turn, these weapons provided limited tactical value, not to mention a long list of logistical and security issues. As such, such weapon programs ceased to be.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really haven't done the job admirably. WWI and WWII were almost entirely European wars. It wasn't until Japan attacked the U.S. that WWII became global by an stretch. Until then, it was just a regional conflict in Europe an
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight, and undo the damage my teachers have done...
"It wasn't until Japan attacked the U.S. that WWII became global by an stretch."
"Similarly, it wasn't until Germany tried to get Mexico to attack the United States that WWI became in any meaningful sense global."
WWI and WWII were regional conflicts until the protaganists made them global.
That clears things up a lot.
So WWI was regional until France and England, no, wait, Germany tried to spread it to us that it became 'globalized' and w
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that the U.S. wasn't affected. It just wasn't affected enough to drag it into a war that was mostly happening halfway around the globe.
One could reasonably argue that World War I wasn't a world war even after the U.S. became involved. Everyone involved was basically fighting on a single continent with the exception of Japanese naval involvement, as far as I'm aware. (Russia is generally considered to be a European nation.) BTW, to be pedantic, the Germans didn't technically threaten to spre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot Africa.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the Ottoman Empire getting involved in WWI? They're bordering the Mediterranean Sea. They might not be part of Europe (though Turkey is in the EU), but it's hardly a stretch to think of them as being part of the same basic region of the world, particularly given how narrow the Strait of Gibraltar is.
Re: (Score:2)
though Turkey is in the EU
Not yet it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you that Britain wasn't doing much appeasement after 1939 when we declared fucking war on Germany
Re: (Score:2)
No, the U.S. and its allies outclass its enemies because of advanced fighter aircraft, cruise missiles, submarines, carriers, attack helicopters, and conventional munitions. A weapon that you're not willing to use cannot possibly be of any use. It is only the threat of using something that makes it relevant.
You're right that I had forgotten about Australia. In my defense, however, this was an attack on a country that was not fully independent from Britain at the time, and as such, it wasn't nearly as far
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is, other than Africa, Asia, the Pacific islands, the US and Australia, World War II was primarily a localized European conflict?
Re: (Score:2)
Australia gained independence in many steps. The first of those steps was in 1901. The last was in 1986 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
"The point of nuclear weapons is to deter conflicts on the scale of the world wars from ever happening again, and so far they've done that admirably."
That's an interesting conclusion, but based on what evidence? How can you be so certain that it's the nuclear weapons that have deterred such conflicts, rather than perhaps just that even the most crazy dictators around nowadays simply don't have either the will or even resources to cause another world war? Russia has no interest in it, because like Europe, it
Re:Why have them (Score:4, Insightful)
The presence of considerable nuclear weapons do a great job of explaining this sudden change in tactics by the USSR.
Re:Why have them (Score:4, Insightful)
Since then, the USSR has only directly invaded one country, Afghanistan, that wasn't already occupied by it.
And how about the countries the US has invaded and the DOZENS of countries where the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders and put puppet governments in their place?
Re: (Score:2)
And how about the countries the US has invaded and the DOZENS of countries where the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders and put puppet governments in their place?
I guess nuclear weapons don't fix every problem, do they? Still you have to wonder how many more countries the US would have invaded, if the USSR didn't have its own nukes, wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Still you have to wonder how many more countries the US would have invaded, if the USSR didn't have its own nukes, wouldn't you?
Hold on, so you think the USSR gave the US a sort of allocation of countries they could fuck up, with the threat that if they exceeded this quota, then they would nuke them?
Re: (Score:2)
Hold on, so you think the USSR gave the US a sort of allocation of countries they could fuck up, with the threat that if they exceeded this quota, then they would nuke them?
Absolutely. The US did the same. Such is the bizarre nature of the Cold War.
Re: (Score:2)
So our nukes worked, but theirs didn't!
Go USA!
Re: (Score:2)
"And how about the countries the US has invaded and the DOZENS of countries where the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders and put puppet governments in their place?"
Minor scuffles in the overall struggle. They evoke emotions, but looked at coldly, they were sideshows. Sometimes useful, sometimes not, but all of the war effort by both sides was of a piece.
The stakes were far too great (do not forget that the main competitors had direct experience of a world war most of them didn't spend in thei
Re: (Score:2)
Iran, Vietnam, Chile? These are countries of tens of millions of people. And far from being a sideshow, the actions in these major regional players shaped the futures of entire continents. The histories of the Middle East, South East Asia and the entirety of South and Central America have been shaped profoundly by the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At first I thought you were arguing that since the proliferation of nukes, there have been a lot less *actual* tigers. Which weirdly, is not only true, but largely caused by the countries you mention!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Tiger_distribution3.PNG [wikimedia.org]
Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)
So a previous president lost the biscuit for months at a time. That is the president would have been unable to authenticate to military command that he was giving a launch order. Why was that not considered a problem? When 50 missiles going into a still usable but wacky state is?
Re:Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit was (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, Clinton didn't lose anything, his aide lost the codes but not the football itself (guess I'm assuming there's more to the football than just a folder of codes). The aide then covered that fact up for months before anyone checking on him bothered to do more than take his word for it.
But Clinton was in no way involved in the loss or cover up of the situation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The president losing the launch codes is a little harder for the reds to exploit then possibly a systematic failure
Unless it was the reds that "founf" the biscuit. They don't actually have to use it, all they have to do is put it into play. The time necessary to disregard, authenticate a new code is longer than a missle launch. Which is why the US nuclear threat is three pronged, land, sea, and air. The only missles that do not need a Permissive Action Link are sea launched, surface or sub-surface.
Was this not the whole point? (Score:2)
Re:Was this not the whole point? (Score:4, Funny)
Or at least, I hope they run good protection software.
Like ... Search and Destroy. Or Avast! Nothing like pirates for protecting nuclear warheads.
[note: this was an attempt at comedy.]
Re: (Score:2)
50's era logic. at that time it would seem unlikely for someone to want to accidentally launch them. ie hack the system to cause a fake launch.
however it would be useful to prevent launch. thus giving a first strike advantage to the russians. so the failsafe is actually M.A.D
honestly i think in the cold war context that makes sense. you build it so if something goes wrong you take everyone with you and if you know your enemy has that mentality you don't effin hack their shit.
now in a more modern context wit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, the evolution of language. In 1,278,698 I.D. use of the shift key diminished, but the point made was not lost on even the lowly four and five diggers.
It's true: the M.A.D. doctrine (by which I mean M.A.D in newspeak) inverts the risk profile of the launch-fail condition. Deterrence is like that. In oldspeak, as we used to say, "when the cat's away the mice will play". No, those strange symbols are not mouse-whisker emoticons. We used to call them delimiters, back when both ends of a sentence had on
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad we only have negative evidence that M.A.D. actually worked in the first place.
"Positive evidence" as in real mutually assured destruction? The fact that no one used nuclear weapons in any capacity outside of testing (ie: USSR/Afghanistan, US/Vietnam, etc.) clearly shows that M.A.D. worked rather well. If only the U.S. had nuclear weapons during the middle 20th century, I'm quite sure that they would have been used in other conflicts, to "save lives". M.A.D. made it so everyone must wanted nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
It almost failed catastrophically at least half a dozen times. Here's [wikipedia.org] an interesting article on the guy who, although it's up for some debate, probably prevented world war three single-handedly.
The fundamental principle of MAD assumes rational and informed actors on both sides of the table. At one point we had Khrushchev sitting across from us. At one point they had Reagan.
Re: (Score:2)
At one point we had Khrushchev sitting across from us. At one point they had Reagan.
Both of which I say were much more rational than given credit. One way to get your opponent to pay attention is if they think you are crazy enough to use the nuclear option. Even Obama has made it clear that it isn't off the table. And as for Reagan, I would gladly vote for him again. On the domestic side, he was the closest we have had to a libertarian president. Obviously his foreign policies were not libertarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as for Reagan, I would gladly vote for him again. On the domestic side, he was the closest we have had to a libertarian president
I'm not sure if that is more insulting to Regan or libertarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
Risky!! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's "Risky." You need to know it's STILL RISKY. Risk we say!
Be worried. Because their is risk. Don't think about the security those nooks have provided since WW2; there was and is absolutely no "risk" that another world wide conflagration might have or will happen without those risky missiles. But those nooks! The nooks are RiSkY you fool. RISKY. Don't worry about the risk to medical capabilities in the US as we legislate someones' idea of justice into medicine, either. No risk there at all. Running up 10% of our GDP as debt every year is also clearly risk free. So you just keep worrying about the nooks! They are Risky!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think about the security those nooks have provided since WW2; there was and is absolutely no "risk" that another world wide conflagration might have or will happen without those risky missiles
Yeah "security" at what cost? The only "security" that nukes brought us was the "security" that if someone tried to completely wipe us out we could wipe them out too. That isn't security. Should it be considered security to wear a suicide vest because if someone tried to rob you, you could kill the robber?
And sure there hasn't been a world war on the scale of WWII, but for the inhabitants of countries like Vietnam and Korea where people's lives both westerners and natives alike were used as pawns in a
Re: (Score:2)
And the only security you have that someone isn't just going to kill you for your stuff, is that they'll probably be caught and imprisoned for it.
I don't normally resort to rudeness, but you are a naive fool. Naive because I had to explain the previous point, and a fool because you are criticizing something you don't understand.
In the event of a nuclear war between Russia and America, the first target for Russian nuclear weapons would be American nuclear weapons. If you want deterrent, you have to make sure
Re:Risky!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Our current diplomatic process will lead to another war like this, only the leaders of both countries might not be sane enough to avoid nuclear war next time.
Neither Russia nor the US wanted anything from the other country other than safety. If we had avoided mutual suspicion at the end of WWII and had closer ties, perhaps both nations could have prospered and accomplished much rather than simply building more bombs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't know much about Joesph Stalin, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
I've read the protocols from Potsdam and Yalta conferences. He sure was a reasonable man as far as foreign politics goes. Even the Churchill acknowledges it. I failed to see the baby-eating monster with unlimited lust for power.
Having survived the most devastating war in the history of mankind, having fought on Russian soil against best army of the time supported up by whole European industry, Soviet government naturally wanted to have buffer states just in case next war happens. Strict Soviet control over
Re:Risky!! (Score:4, Insightful)
And what was the reason for all this? Simple ignorance. If we had actually talked with Russia which basically saved the West's asses from Hitler and included them with our projects, sharing intelligence and the like and had closer American-Russian ties perhaps we could have avoided the entire cold war. Perhaps with the opening of relations between the two countries conditions would be better for the Russians and Americans alike.
Riiiiggghht... it was all a misunderstanding; Stalin was actually a nice, reasonable guy beneath that genocidal exterior and would have been a walk in the park to reason with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why was the above post rated funny? The OP is right. In retrospective it turned out that the USSR never intended to attack the US and that the "domino" theory which lead to proxy wars and support for atrocial dictatorships was based on a misjudgment of Soviet foreign policies. Basically, both sides were completely paranoid and built up their nuclear arsenal because they were convinced that the other side was planning a first strike, although neither of the side ever planned a first strike. This went so far
Re: (Score:2)
The other people that have replied should study more history. After 1990, when lots of formerly classified information became available, it became clear that East and West never planned a first strike and the whole cold war was based on paranoia and misjudgment of the other side's motives. The incapability of both sides to correctly assess their opponent's motives almost lead to the complete destruction of the world when a NATO maneuver was misinterpreted as the preparation for a first strike in 1983. At al
Re: (Score:2)
But take away those nukes in 1960, and we'd all be eating vodka for breakfast today.
I'd love to know how the USSR would have managed to invade and conquer the US, even if they had wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare China during the "cultural revolution" to China today. Yes, China isn't perfect, but because of increased trade and cooperation with the west China has grown more and more free. I still wouldn't want to live there, but given the choice between pre-westernized China during the early part of the 20th century to China today, I would pick China today.
Russia could have experienced the same thing
Re: (Score:2)
Would you ever try to rob someone who was wearing a suicide vest? Would anyone?
You'd just shoot them from a safe distance, obviously.
So, why didn't it happen the way we've been told? (Score:2)
Re:So, why didn't it happen the way we've been tol (Score:5, Funny)
So why aren't we sitting in a post-apocalyptic wasteland right now?
Have you been to Detroit recently?
Re: (Score:2)
Does that count as post-apocalyptic?
It wasn't a "power failure"... (Score:2)
Obviously more fact checking is needed.
And yes, the system is designed to be able to launch even if an attack (or something else) has damaged part of the system. You know, like "the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"?
It's called "redundancy". Would you want a weapon system that is disabled by any damage that might occur? Like in a war?
Re: (Score:2)
peacefully and lovingly help each other.
Die you commie !
Telemetry program are written in... (Score:2)
to spiral
if
fd
spiral
end
Canard. (Score:5, Informative)
"risky designs that favor the ability to launch"
There are multiple safeguards built into the system that have to be released in order to launch even one missile. None of the safeguards are coupled, meaning that there is no cascading effect. Each one has different inputs and a different means to activate it.
One of the simplest is that it takes the near-simultaneous activation of two mechanical, key-locked switches to send the fire command to the missile, and these are separated by enough distance that one person can't do it alone. And it only gets to that point after a number of other manual steps have been taken to prep the launch.
Even the President's order is not sufficient to start everything rolling. The people in charge of monitoring the threat systems go to him to ask for authorization. He doesn't go to them - they'd never believe him if he did, since there's no way he'd know there was a threat. And they don't make their decision lightly.
At the point where it's necessary to launch a nuke, it will be blindingly clear to everyone that we should have made the process simpler, not that it is too simple.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At the point where it's necessary to launch a nuke,
And that time is now! We must preserve the purity and essence of our natural fluids. How can anyone not understand this?
Re: (Score:2)
Even the President's order is not sufficient to start everything rolling. The people in charge of monitoring the threat systems go to him to ask for authorization. He doesn't go to them - they'd never believe him if he did, since there's no way he'd know there was a threat. And they don't make their decision lightly.
The US does not have an unconditional no-first-strike policy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the simplest is that it takes the near-simultaneous activation of two mechanical, key-locked switches to send the fire command to the missile, and these are separated by enough distance that one person can't do it alone. And it only gets to that point after a number of other manual steps have been taken to prep the launch.
Not only that, with Minuteman systems a key turn by both the commander and deputy in a launch control center doesn't directly launch the 10 missiles they are in charge of; instead their key turns are registered as a launch "vote" within their squadron. The 50 missiles in the squadron do not actually receive the launch command until at least two of the five launch control centers in the squadron submit launch votes within a second or two of each other. This both prevents any of the launch control centers f
Re: (Score:2)
No. You have been reading/believing too much propaganda. One person can do it alone. He cannot do it *with his hands and no other simple devices* alone, but he can do it alone very easily.
But that would be cheating!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where is it incorrect?
You need the POTUS and SECDEF concurring. SECDEF is the one who tells POTUS we're under attack. If POTUS went to SECDEF and said "launch a nuke", SECDEF would look at POTUS and go "what the fuck?"
There's also the matter of illegal orders. The military personnel all the way down the chain to the jolly, candy-like buttons are responsible for knowing that what they are doing is not illegal, and for refusing to do it if it is.
If we're not under attack, or Congress has not authorized war
nuclearrisk.org (Score:2)
I've been foloowing this blog/news site over the past months -- it exposes the danger of thenuclear arsenals in qa quite rational way - and the way to address it is just giving more exposure to these rational dangers, sot hat people demand dismantling nuclear weapons over time.
It is certainly worth a look - and an rss feed to follow! http://nuclearrisk.org/ [nuclearrisk.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... but... also interesting: we've had several nuclear power plant problems. Have we ever had an accidental nuclear bomb explosion?
(I actually support nuclear power, by the way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well - taht is the base for the author site risk assesment:
While almost everyone would have an issue with living close to a nuclear ower plant, the risk of the M.A.D. policy uiis equivalent to that several times over, and no one cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... but... also interesting: we've had several nuclear power plant problems. Have we ever had an accidental nuclear bomb explosion?
I don't think it's something that would have gone unnoticed, somehow...
Re: (Score:2)
Utter tripe (Score:2)
reassured???? (Score:2)
I am in definitly NO WAY feeling more secure knowing that ICBMs can be launched even with their safeguards down!
Re: (Score:2)
Their safeguards were never down. -A- safeguard was down. HUGE difference.
I sense a disconnect (Score:2)
'at no time did the president's ability [to launch] decrease.'
Were there any intruders? Were any warheads separated from their launch vehicles? I know, I know. I should RTFA.
Citation needed (Score:3, Informative)
From the summary: The history of nuclear command and control systems has too many examples of risky designs that favor the ability to launch over the danger of an accidental one [nuclearrisk.org].
[[Citation Needed]]
Seriously - because the claim quoted above is not supported in either of the linked articles. In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw. (A difference roughly as subtle as a baseball bat upside the head - and that the writers are unaware of this is a sure and certain sign they aren't qualified to write on the topic.)
The writer of the article cited above further compounds his error by using a situation from over three decades ago as 'proof' that a problem exists today - a situation which his own quote shows to no longer exist.
Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Insightful)
"In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw."
If so, then the distinction between an operational flaw and a design flaw is a distinction without a difference. Or at least one without significance. If a system designed to prevent something from happening can be easily subverted when implemented as designed then it has a huge design flaw. It assumed (and required) that basic security practices would be followed (unique combinations). If this was not followed, it was worthless. This was by design.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. It's the difference between using a screwdriver to drive a screw - or to stab someone. It's a huge difference.
Um, no. The system was designed to have a combination stored in it, and then have that combi
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm under-impressed with the site's rigorousness as well. Everything the author talks about is something that's been talked about endlessly in the public literature. With the claims made, I kept thinking there was at least a rumor-mongering hint about something new and different.
Launch unlikely anyway (Score:2)
There's an interesting talk given by Richard Rhodes a couple of months ago discussing the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons:
http://foratv.vo.llnwd.net/o33/rss/Long_Now_Podcasts/podcast-2010-09-21-rhodes.mp3 [llnwd.net]
In a nutshell, it probably doesn't matter if they were offline, they're unlikely ever going to get used.
Listen to the talk for some interesting takes on the "mutually assured destruction" situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.... troll. Just making a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
This idea that we need to launch 34423423423423 missiles as fast as possible is based on laughable ignorance.
No one person, be it the president, vice president, speaker of the house, a general, a soldier, etc. should be able to launch a nuclear weapon.
It should have to go through multiple people to determine whether or not to launch it and then let people state their reasons then finally come to an agreement.
Do we want a situation like the Cuban missile crisis again where one
Re: (Score:2)
Wooosh!
Re: (Score:2)
With few exceptions, most nations are more free than the U.S. anyway.
Free in what way? At least the US government isn't playing big brother and spying on all it's citizens (yet.) You can even own firearms and keep them at your home in the US. It seems like most European governments are afraid of their citizens so they have been slowly stripping them of their rights to privacy and self-defense for years.
As an American, you can own as many guns as you want, if the police/army come knocking you will still have to go with them or be killed yourself. You can shoot a dozen cops, their colleagues are not going to say "oh, that guy's a real hard case, we'd better not arrest him after all".