Slashdot Mirror

The US govt's seemingly quixotic investment of hundreds of billions in missile defense seems more justified in light of this. When "some guy" can do it, it can't be long until almost any nation can.

Longer term I have the same concern about nuclear weapons. What if somebody found a simple, cheap way to make highly enriched uranium? It would be a disaster.

You don't need highly enriched uranium, just enough smoke detectors.

Longer term I have the same concern about nuclear weapons. What if somebody found a simple, cheap way to make highly enriched uranium? It would be a disaster.

carrying packages with bombs in them in Afghanistan

Child soldiers in Sri Lanka, in Iraq, and in Israel/Palestine.

I looked for, but did not immediately find, references to children (or women) serving as bomb carriers (or proxy bombers) in Vietnam, though I recall hearing of such specifically in the Israel conflict (women wired with remote-detonated vests).

I have never heard any rumors nor seen any documentation the the launch codes have ever been changed from 000000000. http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

The military doesn't seem to think that much of the launch codes, why do you?

If you and a partner have defeated the base security, and gained access to, and secured the launch controls of the nuclear missiles, how much greater of a hurdle is it going to be to get the launch code?

The existence of the launch codes does reduce the chance of an accidental launch, just like paper cutters that require you to press two buttons more than three feet apart reduce the number of limbs accidentally chopped off.

I am sure that their are things that should be kept secret, but that information is smaller than one might first assume.

Check This and see what we have.
something like 2,500 Mt in total active nuclear arsenal.

(In the 60's it was something like 20,000 Mt )

The fireball size of a 1Mt nuke is around .5km from what I saw on Wikipedia. so ~2,500 .5km diameter spheres. (Area = ~.2km^2)
(US = ~9.6 Million km^2)

Expect 3rd degree burns and the destruction of most civilian buildings at 10km out (of the 1Mt explosion).
With no overlap that would be ~2% of the US.

Note that were not even touching on fallout, natural disasters from the earthquakes, weather changes, usable food stock getting destroyed, etc.

Let's see... when's the last time China invaded another nation? When is the last time a Western nation invaded another nation?

But let's forget history for a moment. What does the Air Force see in our future? And, consider you aren't American for a moment, and what your rational response to this policy would be.

As we implement our vision to fully exploit space as a space combat command, AFSPC [Air Force Space Command] will become a significant force provider of CS [counter space], conventional and strategic prompt global strike capabilities with even greater force enabler capabilities. As depicted in Figure 2-2, our space capabilities are built upon a structure where the uppermost portions of SFE [Space Force Enhancement] and SFA [Space Force Application] depend on a solid foundation. While our ultimate goals are truly to “exploit” space through SFE and SFA missions, as with other mediums, we cannot fully “exploit” that medium until we first “control” it. The needed foundation, therefore, consists of the assured space access and infrastructure provided by the SS and MS areas along with the CS capabilities (SSA, Defensive Counterspace (DCS), and OCS) required to control space and ensure Space Superiority...

3.2.2 MID-TERM (FY12--17)
In the Mid-Term, AFSPC will deploy a new generation of responsive space access, prompt global strike, and space superiority capabilities. Our Weapons Officers and other space professionals will integrate and operate these capabilities into joint and task force operations. In practical terms, AFSPC will continue to prioritize efforts that support SFE transformation to include Transformational Communications and space-based Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capabilities. Responsive spacelift capabilities become more important in this timeframe due to their support of both Global Strike and DCS (Responsive replenishment of space assets). Such work will increase support to the terrestrial warfighter while protecting US space assets and demonstrating space combat capabilities.

3.2.3 FAR-TERM (FY18--30)
In the Far-Term, AFSPC will target resources toward fielding and deploying space and missile combat forces in depth, allowing us to take the fight to any adversary in, from, and through space, on-demand. Based on previous development efforts, AFSPC will focus on Battlespace Awareness (space and terrestrial), OCS and DCS, and prompt global strike and LBSD capabilities. Many of these will be supported by responsive spacelift and payload capabilities. We will continue to explore advanced technologies to revolutionize and transform our operations beyond 2025. The result will be a space combat command that is organized, trained, and equipped to rapidly achieve decisive results on or above the battlefield, anywhere, anytime.

The US nuclear arsenal has an unbelievable amount of safeguards and fail-safes - procedural, physical, and technical.

Really?
The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the “locks” to all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so the “secret unlock code” during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO.
From here

so much like a rehash of the Patriot missile / SCUD results from the first gulf war? You'd think the military-industrial complex could afford to make up new lies.

Ridiculous amount of safeguards? While permissive action links (requiring codes for launch) were created and deployed at the urging of Defense Secretary McNamara after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Air Force kept the codes set to all zeros until President Carter found out about it. That was over ten years later. The Air Force kept the codes at all zeros so they could launch without presidential authority. Source: http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm. To quote, "And so the “secret unlock code” during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO." So, when you say ridiculous amount of safeguards, I'm not buying it without verification.

Bullshit.

Nope. Not bullshit at all, sadly.

Perhaps you meant we can't do better in the future? Or were you saying that we can change the past?

Wow, never talk about nuclear bombs again. every single 'fact' you have is wrong.
According to the CDI: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/USNuclearArsenal08.pdf most US warheads currently deployed are in the 100-300 KT yield range.

When you say "expanding its influence" are you referring to anything specific? I'd be interested in hearing your take.

I read this interesting article recently about growing tensions between the Saudis and Iran which states : "Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen - three different theaters have appeared where the Saudis have moved in to challenge Iran's growing regional influence." The most interesting part is about growing tensions on the border in Yemen unnervingly close to the oil fields that supposedly has the Saudis very worried.

I think you're right in pointing out no one is worried about territorial expansion, but rather about Iran becoming the regional power broker. That would make Iran what we call "incontournable" ("inevitable") in french on Middle East issues. Being held over a barrel (of oil, get it) by the Saudis from time to time is bad enough but the Iranians taking their place would take things to a whole new level ('73 all over again and worse.)

Setting off a working nuke would be purely a symbolic act I think, a way of underscoring Iran's ascendence in defiance of the west. Certainly it wouldn't immediately give them a strategic advantage and personally I don't think they're crazy enough to lob a nuclear missile at Israel despite the rhetoric. As the afore mentioned article says : "Iran is very radical on one hand, but on the other hand you can't say that it is an irrational country."

Well, that's a fairly good code compared to the launch codes of the Minute Man nuclear missiles during the cold war:

Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so the "secret unlock code" during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO.

http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

One of the other results (the first one that comes up for me actually) claims that in testimony presented to Congress Postol's methodology was called out as flawed based on the fact that three or eight Patriots were launched at every incoming missle and his video analysis is done per interceptor fired completely ignoring the massive odds against more than one interceptor making a hit. The Isreali's independent analysis puts the success rate at 50%.

Sorry, I'm an old fart. This was a big scandal in the 80s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-16-pentagon-travel_x.htm

http://armedservices.house.gov/list/speech/armedsvc_dem/AndrewsOS092409.shtml

http://www.cdi.org/adm/725/
(excerpt :
Senator GRASSLEY [R Iowa]: The Defense Department wants you to believe that they are making dramatic changes in the way things are purchased, particularly spare parts. I think the most out-standing example is the $600 toilet seat of 1983. And we thought that we had that problem taken care of and, 16 years later, the $600 toilet seat was costing $1800. )

(All amounts in USD.)
World Expenditure for 2008: $1,470,000,000,000.
US Expenditure for 2010: $636,292,979,000.
Difference: $833,707,021,000. (Really, that's FIRST GRADE math.)
Iraq Expenditure for 2009: $32,400,000,000.
France Expenditure for 2008: $70,613,746,423.
People's Republic of China Expenditure for 2009: $70,308,600,000.
Russian Federation Expenditure for 2008: $39,600,000,000.

US Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2005: 4.06%.
Iraq Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2006: 8.6%.
France Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2005: 2.6%.
People's Republic of China Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2009: 1.7%.
Russian Federation Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2005: 3.9%.

IMF GDP estimates as of 2008 (in Millions of GDP):
United States: $14,264,600.
Iraq: $90,907.
France: $2,865,737.
People's Republic of China: $4,401,614.
Russian Federation: $1,676,586.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/fy01/topline.html
http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03topline-pr.cfm

United States FY2001 budget request: $305.4B.
United States FY2003 budget request (includes Department of Energy): $396.3B.

The US likely spent a similar percentage to other 'first world' countries in 2001 and 2003. Bloody war starts in Iraq, percentage increases. US has a very large GDP, has large military spending, but in-line with percentage except when having to deal with large-scale deployment of troops, even then, significantly less than other nations with serious external security concerns.

Iraq doesn't make nearly as much money, but spends very significant amounts on military.

France spends in-line with other 'first world' countries.

Russia spends directly in-line with US 'high' watermark.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figures for 2008, listed on the very same page on Wikipedia.
US world share of spending: 41.5%. (For slow people: it'd have to be greater than 50% to be 'more than the sum of all other countries combined'.

You should know better than spreading FUD on Slashdot, especially when your own link proves you were making it up. Also, that's a pretty epic fail at reading.

Also, technically, that'd be like earning with $1862 (US revenue for 2004 in billions) in your personal monthly budget, somehow spending $2338 (US expenditure for 2004 in billions), after you've already completely tapped out your savings and gone significantly into debt (accruing $7001 of outstanding debt as of 2004, yes, in billions; ~2002 was $13) of which between $305 and $636 is for the your personal alarm system and a family pet/guard dog (inclusive of food, housing, cleaning, grooming, etc, most people forget that), and you spend $18 or $21 on a weather-proofed telescope for your back porch. So...like many Americans' average spending (and I live in America, do not spend like this), the priorities are fairly strange and bass-ackwards, and going into debt. A President with an MBA probably should've done better with YOUR analogous projected household monthly budget so you don't have the bank repossessing your house.

My boyfriend loves it when people are as grossly incorrect as the parent was. He's going to be sorely disappointed that I beat him to the 'this is extremely basic math/logic' correction.

Too Long Didn't Read version: Parent is FUD, grossly overestimating US expenditure vs. world expenditure, not taking into account excessively basic math, completely ignoring charts on webpage he/she linked that state exactly what he/she said him/herself, would probably blatantly misreport your income and expenses on taxes and get you audited.

(All amounts in USD.)
World Expenditure for 2008: $1,470,000,000,000.
US Expenditure for 2010: $636,292,979,000.
Difference: $833,707,021,000. (Really, that's FIRST GRADE math.)
Iraq Expenditure for 2009: $32,400,000,000.
France Expenditure for 2008: $70,613,746,423.
People's Republic of China Expenditure for 2009: $70,308,600,000.
Russian Federation Expenditure for 2008: $39,600,000,000.

US Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2005: 4.06%.
Iraq Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2006: 8.6%.
France Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2005: 2.6%.
People's Republic of China Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2009: 1.7%.
Russian Federation Expenditure as percentage of GDP as of 2005: 3.9%.

IMF GDP estimates as of 2008 (in Millions of GDP):
United States: $14,264,600.
Iraq: $90,907.
France: $2,865,737.
People's Republic of China: $4,401,614.
Russian Federation: $1,676,586.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/usmi/fy01/topline.html
http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03topline-pr.cfm

United States FY2001 budget request: $305.4B.
United States FY2003 budget request (includes Department of Energy): $396.3B.

The US likely spent a similar percentage to other 'first world' countries in 2001 and 2003. Bloody war starts in Iraq, percentage increases. US has a very large GDP, has large military spending, but in-line with percentage except when having to deal with large-scale deployment of troops, even then, significantly less than other nations with serious external security concerns.

Iraq doesn't make nearly as much money, but spends very significant amounts on military.

France spends in-line with other 'first world' countries.

Russia spends directly in-line with US 'high' watermark.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute figures for 2008, listed on the very same page on Wikipedia.
US world share of spending: 41.5%. (For slow people: it'd have to be greater than 50% to be 'more than the sum of all other countries combined'.

You should know better than spreading FUD on Slashdot, especially when your own link proves you were making it up. Also, that's a pretty epic fail at reading.

Also, technically, that'd be like earning with $1862 (US revenue for 2004 in billions) in your personal monthly budget, somehow spending $2338 (US expenditure for 2004 in billions), after you've already completely tapped out your savings and gone significantly into debt (accruing $7001 of outstanding debt as of 2004, yes, in billions; ~2002 was $13) of which between $305 and $636 is for the your personal alarm system and a family pet/guard dog (inclusive of food, housing, cleaning, grooming, etc, most people forget that), and you spend $18 or $21 on a weather-proofed telescope for your back porch. So...like many Americans' average spending (and I live in America, do not spend like this), the priorities are fairly strange and bass-ackwards, and going into debt. A President with an MBA probably should've done better with YOUR analogous projected household monthly budget so you don't have the bank repossessing your house.

My boyfriend loves it when people are as grossly incorrect as the parent was. He's going to be sorely disappointed that I beat him to the 'this is extremely basic math/logic' correction.

Too Long Didn't Read version: Parent is FUD, grossly overestimating US expenditure vs. world expenditure, not taking into account excessively basic math, completely ignoring charts on webpage he/she linked that state exactly what he/she said him/herself, would probably blatantly misreport your income and expenses on taxes and get you audited.

The launch code (actually called permissive action links is "00000000". At least they were for years, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were set to "12345678" by now.

I would suggest it is a circumstance as depicted by Noam Chomsky:

A CONVERSATION WITH NOAM CHOMSKY

"Mr. CHOMSKY: You're supposed to love the flag, but you're supposed to hate the government. You're supposed to love the symbols, you're supposed -- You have to be a jingoist, otherwise you're not going to accept things like Pentagon spending. So, it's a complicated operation, but, you know, not that complicated.

You're sitting in a PR office, you can figure it out. Get people to be patriotic, subordinate, silent, hate government, blame government for everything that goes wrong, think governments can do nothing right, not notice that more and more power is being turned over to private hands, which are completely unaccountable and are totally --

Mr. SHORR: And those private hands are?

Mr. CHOMSKY: Corporations, which is a totalitarian institution. People are unhappy. A lot of things are going wrong with their lives. Real income is going down, working hours are going up, families are falling apart, a lot of bad things. And you've been taught for 50 years that it's the government's fault, so you bomb a -- you don't bomb the GE headquarters, you don't read the Fortune 500 and find out who's got all the money, you don't notice that they've just celebrated their fourth straight year of double digit profit growth. That stuff is for special people.

What you're supposed to know is, 'yeah, those bad government guys, they're doing it.' And government is bad because it's potentially influenceable. You could take part in it an change it. So, hate them. And that creates the mood of anti-politics, and that's part of the -- you know, that's part of the propaganda. "

The issue is not that they'd invade S. Korea. The issue is that they'd use their artillery to flatten Seoul.

U.S. military estimates in 1994 were that those artillery pieces could bombard Seoul with 5,000 rounds in the first 24 hours of any attack. Such an attack could mean tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties and billions of dollars of damage in Seoul.

From here

More info here

The Virginia Class Submarine; a "cheap" alternative to the $2 billion apiece Seawolf class, the Virginias... smaller, and less capable than the Seawolfs in most respects... are now even more expensive than the ships they replaced, at $2.3 billion a pop.

The Virginia class submarine is a "cheap" alternative to the $4.4 billion apiece Seawolf class (see the relevant CDI page). I'll note that's $4.4 billion in 1996 dollars, and that's assuming no further cost overruns over those already experienced for the 3 in the process of being built.

The reason the Virginias were $2.3 billion is due to only building 1 a year. Congress is making the Navy accelerate to 2 a year and the shipyards are already building Block II Virginia class submarines that cost save $300 million per boat (i.e. they're already back down to $2 billion -- in 2009 dollars). The last Virginia class to be christened, USS New Hampshire, was delivered early and under budget.

Don't get me wrong, the Navy loses a sickening amount of money not just on the programs you've listed, but on outdated technology in general. But I don't think it's fair to point a finger at the Virginia class, especially given it's relatively low price (IMO) versus the surface ships and fighters you've mentioned.

The experts have been over dirty bombs upside down and backwards. Their conclusion is the same conclusion that occurs to anyone with even a modicum of nuclear knowledge: Dirty bombs don't work.

It depends on what you mean by "Dirty bombs don't work", I saw some computer simulations on TV of a dirty bomb let off in a city that rendered areas uninhabitable for decades (a study of terrorism strikes on a city prior to the Olympics). Even Wikipedia cites studies that suggest that a complete cleanup of external surfaces in an urban area to current decontamination limits may not be technically feasible.

With that in mind, the motivations of an attack would have to be evaluated, it may not be killing people. For example an overt attack on an area might kill less people than a covert attack on a water source - where one is designed to cause obvious disruption and another is designed to cause as many people as possible to ingest radioactive elements.

The Center for Defense Information also suggests that the evacuation alone, from a Dirty Bomb, would be enough to cause significant injuries, and says With urban areas especially difficult to decontaminate after a radiological attack, any abandonment could be permanent, potentially costing trillions of dollars.

So maybe 'Dirty bombs' don't work to kill people en-mass, they may work perfectly well to cause economic damage, panic, disruption and render areas unusable, and since we haven't seen one deployed to it's full effect, it maybe premature to say 'Dirty bombs don't work'. You can't blame people for not having a modicum of nuclear knowledge, anymore than anyone can blame you for not know about something you have no interest in - but you know is dangerous when used as a weapon.

It's called spending money wisely.

Do you really need $2 billion stealth bomber to bomb people without radar? Or a $138 million stealth fighter (F-22) who's main design was air superiority against Soviet fighters and bombers, but now ill be relegated to dropping bombs and bouncing rocks?

Hell, there's weapon systems that even military doesn't even want! The Seawolf was built for jobs! The AH-66 Comanche lasted 22 years before being canceled. It's mission role was changed at least twice, and we got nothing.

Do we need to purchase all new precision guided weapons when we already have large stockpiles of "dumb" weapons?

It's called the Military Industrial Complex, and who warned us about that? Lefty-commie-peacenik Eisenhower. And Heaven forbid if the government actually spend it's money wisely.

Before I respond concerning very specific policies of the (now defunct) Soviet Union, I would like to have some more substantial corroboration than what you understand to be the case.

My impression is somewhat in error. There were four USSR submarines with nuclear tipped torpedoes in play, but they weren't authorized to use them. It didn't keep one submarine commander from threatening to do so:

The four diesel submarines, which were armed with both conventional and nuclear-tipped torpedoes, sailed from the Arctic Kola Peninsula. They managed to pass unnoticed through U.S. and NATO cordons in the northern Atlantic, but were spotted by the Navy as they approached Cuba. The submarines needed to come to the surface often to charge their batteries, and that made them easy marks for the U.S. anti-submarine cordons around the communist island.

Capt. Valentin Savitsky's B-59 submarine was quickly spotted by Navy patrol aircraft when it appeared on the surface. American destroyers rushed to block the submarine and began dropping stun grenades to force it to resurface, said Vadim Orlov, who was in charge of the submarine's radio intelligence at the time.

``The Americans encircled us and began dropping grenades that were exploding right next to us,'' Orlov was quoted as saying in the book. ``It felt like sitting in a metal barrel with someone hitting it with a sledgehammer. The crew was in shock.''

The bombardment went on for several hours and some sailors lost consciousness as oxygen ran low and temperatures inside the submarine soared above 122 degrees.

After an especially strong explosion shook the submarine, ``Savitsky got furious and ordered an officer in charge of a nuclear-tipped torpedo to arm the weapon,'' Orlov said in the book.

``There may be a war raging up there and we are trapped here turning somersaults!'' Savitsky cried, according to Orlov. ``We are going to hit them hard. We shall die ourselves, sink them all but not stain the navy's honor!''

The submarines' commanders could use conventional torpedoes only on order from the navy chief, and the use of nuclear torpedoes could only be authorized by direct order from the Soviet defense minister, the book said. However, the close surveillance by the U.S. Navy made it hard for submarines to resurface for scheduled communications sessions.

Savitsky eventually controlled his anger and ordered the submarine to the surface. It was dark but the area was brightly lit by searchlights from U.S. ships and a U.S. helicopter buzzing overhead. ``We felt like a wolf hunted down,'' Orlov remembered. ``It was a beautiful but frightful scene.''

Would Kennedy have ordered that done that to a nuclear armed sub? My take is that they didn't know.

Hmmm, there's a interesting outline of the Cuban Missile Crisis by a Steven Van Evera. No references so it's not that useful.

Still I think there's a few points to bring up. First, there was a great deal of uncertainty, ignorance, and miscommunication in play. For example, it is claimed that Kennedy didn't know at the begining that Turkey had a comparable number of US nukes. Castro didn't know about US nuclear superiority. The shooting down of the U2 supposedly wasn't authorized. The USSR didn't expect their deployment to be discovered. And so on. Second, it takes time for a government to come to a decision. Part of the problem with the Cuban Missile Crisis was how fast it unfolded. Neither the USSR nor the US were prepared. Third, there were parties that had the power (though not necessarily authorization) to use nuclear weapons on the spot.

That I will cede handily. But it's not really relevant to my obse

The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the "locks" to all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so the "secret unlock code" during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO.

But Palin is a public menace even before she gets her hands on nuclear weapons.

Imagine, something scarier than Dick Cheney. Just as ugly though.

Here's the first result. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/cyberdefense-pr.cfm

But a much more direct link is between the violent terror group FARC and the illegal drug trade.

The paramilitaries have more to do with drugs than FARC does. Drug kingpin Pablo Escobar started the AUC paramilitary. And while Uribe gave the paramilitaries a free pass, he won't even negotiate with FARC or ELN.

But any reference to there being a moral imperative to obey drug laws sees to be missing from the Toward Freedom Website.

Narco News does better there, that is pointing out the damage the Drug War inflicts.

Falcon

Perhaps the Clinton Administration should have upgraded and done better job to provide our Military with better equipment before handing the next administration the Department of Defense.

Actually, I agree - but not in the sense you might think.

You see, the U.S.A. currently spends as much on defense as the next 20 countries combined.

Underfunded? Hardly. You should really ask where all that money is going, because if our deployment capabilities are "stretched" by this little side show in Iraq, then we have no hope of defending ourselves against an actual threat, and we're not getting our money's worth.

Fortunately for us, no such threats exist anymore, i.e. the kind that could overthrow our government and occupy our homeland. China possibly could, but they would get nuked in the process, and besides, we're their best customers! Why would they attack us?

We beat the Soviet Union by outspending them into oblivion, and it looks like we're still stuck in that power dive. The only difference is we'll crash and burn a couple decades after they did.

Apparently not. My dialysis center runs all Microsoft OSes, and I've even heard the techs complain about how they were sure they entered info, but it wasn't in the system. Sounds like a familiar problem.

Their system also seems to miscalculate the amount of fluid to be taken off. At first I thought maybe it was just trying to challenge the presumed dry weight which was in the system, but if this were the case, then why have the techs started calcuating it by hand? I have observed this in two dialysis centers, so I would imagine it is happening in all of the dialysis centers owned by the same company.

At any rate, obviously there is a major defect somewhere, and it would be surprising if someone was not killed by it already. If you take off too much fluid during dialysis, it can easily be a life threatening situation. They haven't stopped using this system, which I'm sure they would if criminal or even civil punishments were involved, so I would say no, criminal punishments do not come about due to flaws in medical software.

In fact, how would anyone trace it down to the computer in the first place? Most people assume computers give flawless answers, they just expect them to crash a lot, so if a computer gave an incorrect answer to a calculation or missing information, and that error got someone killed, who would even think to check the computer? They would probably just blame the nurse or technician. Plus I do not think there is a tracking / recording system to tell you what result the computer gave anyway. How would you prove it?

As far as banks and the like, since when have you heard of a teller being arrested for losing a check or mistyping information? It happens all the time, and if the victum can't prove it, then they are shit out of luck. If they can, then the bank just corrects the error. The only time I've heard of bank employees being arrested were for obvious deliberate fraud. It is probably the same way with computer software.

The safeguards on the US nuclear arsenal are also DRM. They've worked for a long time....

Actually, this "security" was a complete technological failure. ...
The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the "locks" to all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so the "secret unlock code" during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO. ...

http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

your way off, it was 00000000!

I don't really find parent that "Funny" - The general code really was 00000000 until 1977 (and probably still the same on individual devices, until much later).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_369/ai_n6142131
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=167
http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

According to Wikipedia, this is actually true, so I don't know why it was modded 'Funny', maybe because it's true and funny; Wikipedia gives http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm as the source. The combination was actually 00000000, but that isn't really much safer. (They apparently changed this rule about 30 years ago, so you can't take advantage of it nowadays.)

Healthy skepticism is a good thing. http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

Granted, it's hard to get multiple sourcing on this, but Bruce Blair and the CDI are hardly a bunch of sensationalist muck-rackers. I suspect the audits to which you refer were partly a response to SAC's little maneuver.

It's good to know that the codes were kept secret, since they were set to 00000000 for most of the time. I'd be surprised if they were significantly different now. Are they 12345678 or just 1111111?

Demonstrably false--the fall of Jim Crow, numerous Supreme Court rulings, the Posse Comitatus Act, the abolition of slavery, and many other historical events have not only given back seized freedoms, but have created new ones.

It actually will protect Europe from Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian launches.

Except the ones who are communist, marxist, nationalist or just plain crazy e.g. Shining Path, FARC, ETA, LTTE, RUF, etc. See US State Department list .

You could call the White House with Prez Bush's SS#, etc, but they still would not give you the codes to the nukes (well, hopefully, you never know with that crowd...:(

Right now, we must concentrate on steering Russia towards developing a true democracy...

Especially one where people are no longer being assassinated, poisoned, "disappeared" or otherwise shut down. Is there any country on the planet that is become more free and its citizens getting more rights?

For every American killed by a terrorist, 2,427 die of skin cancer, 4,893 expire in car accidents, 9,735 are shot to death by nonterrorists and -- you might want to stub out your cigarette before reading this -- 30,666 are claimed by heart disease and another 18,0746 by cancer.

March 10, 1956, Over the Mediterranean Sea

A B-47 bomber carrying two nuclear weapon cores in their carrying cases disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea. The aircraft, on a nonstop flight from MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, to an undisclosed overseas airbase, was lost with its crew. After takeoff the B-47 was scheduled for two in-flight-refuelings before reaching its final destination. The first refueling was successfully completed, but the aircraft never made contact with the second refueling tanker over the Mediterranean Sea. Despite an extensive search, no trace of the aircraft, the nuclear weapon cores, or crew, were ever found.

but here is an eye opener
http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents. htm

Some links:

KH-11
KH-12
KH-13
KH-13

From what I can gather, the KH-11 is vulnerable to a laser attack. The KH-12 generation has some countermeasures against laser attacks and the ability to detect them. Additionally, it can manuever in orbit to avoid attacks. It does not however have "stealth" technology to make it invisible to radar and infared. The KH-13 may or may not have "stealth" technology, but may not even exist.

Only the latest generation, if it exists, has the stealth technology making it invisible to radar and infared.

The only thing clear from the article is that China can track the *some* US satellites and attempt to blind them. Not specified is what class of satellite is being tracked and whether or not the attempts are successful.

What about China? Current thinking is that China has less than 400 nuclear weapons. However, most of those are based at fixed sites, unfueled and their warheads in storage. In otherwords, China would not survive a first strike (its fixed sites would be hit) and does not have the to capacity to launch an effective first strike.

Dear distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters,

Humanity has arrived at an inflection point in our history, one whose influence will steer our course for decades, or, more likely, centuries. The post-millennial rise of both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism tears at the very skirts of the Enlightenment.

Your fellow citizens have twice elected an inarticulate and violent demagogue as President, a man who has expressed deep personal doubts about the validity of the scientific method and its relevance in America's primary-school classrooms. Three-fourths of the adult population profess a belief in angels; two-thirds believe the Christian Bible is the literally-true word of their God. Over half state that humans were created by God in their present form.

One American adult in one thousand can state the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Meanwhile, to the elected representatives of this singularly-unenlightened population, you, America's scientists and engineers, have cheerfully handed control of several thousand thermonuclear weapons.

And now you're bickering endlessly about... whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Cut this shit out. Now. I don't want to live in another Dark Age, or worse, die upon the threshold of one.

Let Pluto be Pluto, whatever Pluto is, and let's put our heads together and figure out how to deal with the delusions we've created for ourselves here on Earth. We need intellectual leadership, not semantic panem et circenses.

Answers? Sorry; you're the scientists, I'm just some obviously-unlaid AC, ranting into the night on Slashdot's nickel. If I had any suggestions, believe me, I'd be making them, but I don't.

But come on. We've got to do something productive here.

This is about a stopped attack, very true. The UK did it, not the US. This is a very complicated issue. As to the potential of explosives on board, there is no need to bring your own, Alcohol is available and could easily used. Intelligence is the only way to get a grip on this. The terrorists are using foolish tactics, anytime an attacking agent is going to die with every encounter, they guarantee a reduction in their own forces instantly. Yes in wars, there are the pawns, and at critical points they are lost as a military requirement. This dying for terror is not working, it does not scare people as the terrorists think, in fact they look stupid, and obviously have very poor strategists. It will not take too much longer for the followers to walk away. Stupidity is what it is and will not take long to fail. On the political front; they behave as cowards in attacking civilians and not directing attacks at military targets only. This is cowardice, and no military or religious organization would support a cowardly war plan.On the other hand the US is also taking the low road which is also not too wise ! The US should capitalize on the flaws in the terrorist's political behavior, instead they are punishing US citizens and taking away liberties and rights. There are so many weak points in any nation, that the real security would come from an empowered civilian population. I am reminded of an article that came out quite a while ago, whereby it was demonstrated that 50,000 people die every year in the US from car accidents, see; http://www.cdi.org/polling/34-swatting-fly.cfm/ The fact that more people die from car accidents every year, than have died from all the terrorist attacks, and all of our war dead combined, in the last TEN years helps put the terrorist actions in a perspective. If we reacted to car accidents as we are to terrorists, then in an anology we would have strict speed limits of about 25 mph on highways. Random police road blocks would examine the mechanical condition of vehicles with strict enforcement of worn parts,brake pads, tires, and so on. Prison sentences would be stiff for such attempted murder by car. There would be a need to monitor phone conversations in case someone admitted having any fault in the vehicle they own. Car parts stores would need very special attention, special papers would be required on all transactions of parts for these horrible death machines that everyone would need to fear, and the greatest killer of Americans would need to be the Headline of all newspapers. An at fault accident could bring the death sentence or at very least life imprisonment without possibility of communication with normal road fearing, patriotic Americans ! The greatest Killer of Americans would need to be controlled completely, and discussion of risky driving behavior would possibly entail conspiracy charges. WE LOSE more Americans by far by accident than through all the moronic attempts by these terrorists, The Terrorists are not effective and we should not give up our rights because of paranoid politicians that may have other agendas anyhow. All the terrorists are accomplishing is pushing more and more of our tax dollars to go to Israel, because these genetic brothers can't get along with each other. The terrorists have done more to support Israel than all the special interests groups combined. The Islamic leaders need to start a peace movement. Israel needs to love their brothers and the Islamic people need to Love their Israel brothers. I note that in some comments the actual use of nuclear weapons is mentioned. That is deplorable, our president claims a Christian faith, and that is his business, but Christians are supposed to love their enemies, and turn the other cheek. Killing over faith without love is an abomination, no matter who does it. The only possible use of a nuclear device would be deep beneath the surface, where no humans would be hurt, but the entire oil fields would become radioactive and worthless. That would