Nuclear Officers Napped With Blast Door Left Open

Lasrick writes "AP's Robert Burns reports that 'Air Force officers entrusted with the launch keys to long-range nuclear missiles have been caught twice this year leaving open a blast door that is intended to help prevent a terrorist or other intruder from entering their underground command post.' Why is that signifcant? At least one of the officers was napping at the time. Airforce officials said other violations like this have undoubtedly occurred and gone undetected. Yeesh. 'The blast door violations are another sign of trouble in the handling of the nation's nuclear arsenal. The AP has discovered a series of problems within the ICBM force, including a failed safety inspection, the temporary sidelining of launch officers deemed unfit for duty and the abrupt firing last week of the two-star general in charge. The problems, including low morale, underscore the challenges of keeping safe such a deadly force that is constantly on alert but is unlikely ever to be used.'"

Re:Strange...

[timeOday]

RTA, they spend a long time (days?) down there and it is permissible for one to sleep while the other stands watch. But in this case they are supposed to lock the vault door:

The written Air Force instructions on ICBM safety, last updated in June 1996, says, "One crewmember at a time may sleep on duty, but both must be awake and capable of detecting an unauthorized act if ... the Launch Control Center blast door is open" or if someone other than the crew is present.

The blast door is not the first line of defense. An intruder intent on taking control of a missile command post would face many layers of security before encountering the blast door, which â" when closed â" is secured by 12 hydraulically operated steel pins. The door is at the base of an elevator shaft. Entry to that elevator is controlled from an above-ground building. ICBM fields are monitored with security cameras and patrolled regularly by armed Air Force guards.

Re:In their defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Another ignorant poster who is somehow under the impression that things have gotten *worse* since Bush left office. Strangely enough, that's not actually the case. We're not yet to the point where we have a net positive job market since the beginning of the Bush administration, but we're well above where we were when Obama took office. And that's in spite of a Republican-controlled House that simply refuses to vote on anything that might make Obama look good.

(Seriously, they unilaterally changed House procedures so that instead of *any* representative being able to call for a vote on the Senate version of a bill, only the House Majority Leader, or his designated representative, could do so. That's why it took so long to get the 6-week continuing resolution passed to re-open the government. There still hasn't been a vote on an actual budget.)

Re:In their defense

[Jane Q. Public]

"Wow. Another ignorant poster who is somehow under the impression that things have gotten *worse* since Bush left office."

Wow. Another poster who misinterpreted somebody else's post and goes off on a political diatribe.

"And that's in spite of a Republican-controlled House that simply refuses to vote on anything that might make Obama look good."

And what might those things be? What, in your opinion, would make Obama look good? Let's see:

Bailouts? (It might have been Bush's idea but it was Obama who did it.) Did that make him look good?

Increased foreign wars, after he had vowed to decrease them immediately? Did that make him look good?

Inflationary monetary policy? A recession we still aren't out of? Massively increased debt and deficit? Do those make him look good?

Obamacare? Is that making him look good?

Increased domestic surveillance, when he had vowed to decrease it, immediately? Does that make him look good?

Increased intrusion into constitutional rights, when he had spoken out against it in his campaign? Does that make him look good?

Hmmm. Making a serious effort to be as objective as I can, I would still have to say no, no, no, no, no, and no.