Slashdot Mirror


US Presidential Nuclear Codes 'Lost For Months'

Martin Hellman writes "Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, has dropped a nuclear bombshell, metaphorically speaking. Shelton's recently released memoir Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, asserts that an aide to President Clinton lost a card containing key phrases needed for ordering a nuclear strike, and that the codes were missing for months. This confirms a similar allegation, made in 2004 by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a military aide who frequently carried the 'nuclear football' during the Clinton presidency. Unfortunately, human error within the nuclear weapons complex is a frequent and dangerous occurrence."

322 comments

  1. Time to take the men out of the loop ... by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Turn the decision making over to a computer. I'm sure it can't find the launch codes.

    1. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would you like to play a game of tic tac toe?

    2. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by TideX · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Ever seen the movie wargames?

    3. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by thepike · · Score: 2, Funny

      A Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

    4. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, OP just came up with exactly the same plot on his own.

    5. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it would do any good!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    6. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever have a joke go over your head?

    7. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn the decision making over to a computer. I'm sure it can't find the launch codes.

      Nah, just outsource it.

    8. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Tackhead · · Score: 1

      A Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

      Later. Right now, let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

      Which reminds me, it's time to see how Subversion is coming along.

    9. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BREEEEEOOOOOWWWWWW!!!!

      That's the sound of a radio-controlled pterodactyl buzzing your head.

    10. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      I knew there was something I forgot to do this week! It helps pad out now to the inevitable announcement that Black Mesa has been cancelled.

    11. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by gagol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ever seen movie Colossus : The Forbin Project ?

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    12. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by TrbleClef · · Score: 1

      Hey kid.... CPE 1704 TKS
      A little birdy gave it to me.

    13. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Yeh. Let the Cyberdyne supercomputer decide...

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    14. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That report http://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/general-drops-nuclear-bombshell/ mentioned in the post is a pile of assumptions, rumors, maybes, what ifs, etc ...
      If you compare, Tchernobyl and 3 miles islands did occur.

    15. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      OPE... EPO... POE... "You know why I only drink grain alcohol and rainwater, or purified water, Mandrake?"

    16. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn the decision making over to a computer. I'm sure it can't find the launch codes.

      at least that always pans out for the best in SF...
      Terminator2, WarGames, Colossus: The Forbin Project...

    17. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Mr. Potato Head...

      MR. POTATO Head!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "CPE 1704 TKS"

      Wasn't there some significance to this code..they chose it in the movie for some reason?

      I've been googling, but I can't seem to find what the deal was with this....

      Anyone?

      Anyone?

      Bueller?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      You had me panicked there for a moment.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    20. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Dr.+Charles+Forbin · · Score: 1

      Once or twice :)

    21. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      It'll be cancelled, was supposed to be out last Christmas, then suddenly that was changed to "we have always gone for a when it's done approach", threads in the forums requesting an update being mercilessly deleted and or derided by forum elites. That mod's screwed. It's a shame because it looked kind of cool, if you could get over them filling every conceivable open space with architectural oddities like crates, random grills, ducts that lead nowhere etc.

    22. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Later. Right now, let's play [introversion.co.uk] Global Thermonuclear War.

      I love Defcon but I wish they had made a REAL global thermonuclear war based in the 1980s. There should be MIRVs in the game and no missile defense.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>A Strange game. The only winning move is not to play

      Pretty much. Obviously "Mutually Assured Destruction" was meant as a deterrent to scare the ____ out of the Russians so they would never act, but if I were president I still would not have pressed the button. The US would be incinerated, but South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia would still be radiation free and livable.

      They might fall to Communism as Russia expanded, but Homo sapiens would still be alive rather than extinct.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn the decision making over to a computer. I'm sure it can't find the launch codes.

      I found a keygen by CORE how do I register the app?

    25. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the fricking problem?
      The system works according to specification. The failure point is robust.
      A lost code means no nuclear strike can be ordered.

      You should really be worried if the system was designed to launch a strike unless some code was entered every 3 months to reset the clock. (Dead mans grip)...

    26. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by inthealpine · · Score: 1

      Very first thing that came to my mind. Nice. Nice.

      --
      "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
    27. Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      No Joshua I want to play Global Thermonuclear War. Wait, is this real or just a game?

  2. well that just takes the by bugs2squash · · Score: 2, Funny

    biscuit

    --
    Nullius in verba
    1. Re:well that just takes the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, over the last couple of decades I have come to a rather uncomfortable realization.

      Americans have evolved to a people who will accept a staggering amount of incompetence in people just as long as they look and sound nice.

      Lucky we don't have any lions and tigers and bears or we would all be extinct by now.

    2. Re:well that just takes the by lxs · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing as the IgNobel peace prize? I'm pretty sure that preventing total nuclear annihilation by incompetence would qualify.

  3. Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    This is the sort of human error that gets my vote.

    Quick - any way we can "export" this "technology" to the rest of the world?

    -- Barbie

    1. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually that has got to be one of the dumbest ideas ever.
      I hope you are joking but that kind of error makes a nuclear war more likely than less.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Anderson, how can you drop the bomb, if you cannot ... speak?

    3. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mod parent up. Many people detest the idea of MAD but so far it has worked. In practice, nukes are primarily a weapon of influence rather than destruction.

      I think the continued existence of United Nations and its various agencies can be attributed in part to nuclear weapons, which made open conflict an existential risk for the superpowers, and created a need for a different way of resolving disputes. At this point, UN could probably survive without nuclear weapons, but its creation would not be possible without them.

      I think that regardless of any ideology, nuclear disarmament is very unlikely on the grounds of simple game theory - it's essentially a prisoner's dilemma where the temptation to defect is extremely large (the last remaining nuclear power can blackmail the whole world) and punishment for mutual defection is small (the cost of producing and maintaining the weapons).

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    4. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      I think that regardless of any ideology, nuclear disarmament is very unlikely on the grounds of simple game theory - it's essentially a prisoner's dilemma where the temptation to defect is extremely large (the last remaining nuclear power can blackmail the whole world) and punishment for mutual defection is small (the cost of producing and maintaining the weapons).

      And the first ever nuclear power nearly did. Before the Russians developed the bomb, there were a number of influential officers pushing to nuke them before they could nuke us.

    5. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by johneee · · Score: 1

      Well, not sure that it really would have during the '90s when the cold war was pretty much over. I can't see Russia launching anything back then even if they knew USA couldn't launch back. Everyone else was either an ally or small enough that the US's conventional assets were enough of a deterrant.

      If it happened in the '60s or '70s? Sure, yeah, perhaps, but not in the Clinton admin.

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    6. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      No worries, the Doomsday Machine will take care of that for us.

    7. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      This was around 2000 and you suffering from a failure of imagination. Even if Russia didn't see this as an opportunity. What about India? Maybe they would have decided that a first strike at Pakistan would be worth it. After all it is possible that the US couldn't act quickly enough to stop them.
      Or China decides to take Taiwan back if they could do it fast enough and threaten the US with a nuclear strike that we could react to if we interfered.
      A direct attack on the US would be the least of my worries. We would still have Trident and could take out any nation that idid it after we got new codes set up.
      But if this had leaked out I am not so sure that someone wouldn't have tried to take advantage of this super rare opportunity.
      That and the fact that Clinton's aid LOST this card and the codes where just floating around really is a whole different nightmare.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Psst! Your political ideologies are showing.

      Really now. Who in this day and age really believes that the Reagan nuke build-up was anything more than hollow posturing against a dying nation? The threats of imminent nuclear war with the USSR were fear mongering to get timid voters to stick with good old 'Big Stick' Ronnie, the 'Cold Warrior' and his GOP pals - and it worked. It worked so well that the military budget is STILL untouchable all these years later.
      Wise up you dipity-doo sniffing right-wing wannabe -- there is no nuclear threat. There hasn't been a nuclear threat since 1965. All those missels might as well be filled with spare pin-ball machine parts for all the use they will ever get and they are absolutely no good as a modern deterrent. If China wanted to kill us all they would do is call in their markers. As dear old PTerry wrote:

      "Let others boast of martial dash
      For we have boldly fought with cash
      We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes.
      We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose."

      And we can't bomb anyone else. Those great big phallic symbols are just that, my good Tweenk, and nothing more.

      Sleep tight.

    9. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by fishthegeek · · Score: 1

      Where to start... okay. We'll start with the debt. China hold's a smallish fraction of the U.S. debt. Here is the list and the sources.
      Taiwan $126.9 Billion (not China though the Chinese like to think so)
      Hong Kong $151.8 (China-ish you could argue either way but I'll get back to that)
      Caribbean Banking Centers $153.2 Billion
      Brazil $164.3 Billion
      Depository Institutions $206.6 Billion (these are commercial banks etc.)
      Insurance Companies $235.7 Billion
      Oil Exporting Nations $239.3 Billion (China is not an exporter of oil)
      United Kingdom $321.2 Billion
      Pension Funds $513.1 Billion
      State & Local Governments $531.3 Billion
      Mutual Funds $663.9 Billion
      Japan $795.5 Billion
      China $900.2 Billion
      Other $1.193 Trillion (these are bank trusts, corporate business, estates etc)
      Federal Reserve Intergovernmental Holdings $5.259 Trillion (This is the federal reserve itself)
      Source Here

      Okay... so now you know. China, even if you can include Hong Kong (which I say you really shouldn't but whatever) doesn't own anywhere near a majority of U.S. Debt.

      Now on to nukes. Read THIS in order to get a better understanding. The opinions you have appear to have no basis in fact or reality.

      --
      load "$",8,1
    10. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      Psst! Your political ideologies are showing.

      At its root this is not a political question, but a sociological one. For what it's worth, I would describe myself as a liberal socialist.

      Really now. Who in this day and age really believes that the Reagan nuke build-up was anything more than hollow posturing against a dying nation?

      Reagan was an utter idiot who didn't really understand the stability given by MAD. His SDI program proves it.

      It worked so well that the military budget is STILL untouchable all these years later. Wise up you dipity-doo sniffing right-wing wannabe -- there is no nuclear threat. There hasn't been a nuclear threat since 1965.

      First, USA defence budget (which I agree is total lunacy) is an entirely different issue, because the lion's share of it is conventional weaponry. Second, instead of investigating my ideas critically you're trying to bang the tribal drum by branding me as a neocon, which I am not (as mentioned before). No points for you.

      All those missels might as well be filled with spare pin-ball machine parts for all the use they will ever get and they are absolutely no good as a modern deterrent.

      Non sequitur. What really matters is not whether you actually have nuclear strike capability, but what others think about your nuclear strike capability. You could indeed replace all of the weapons with decoys, but it does not follow from it that you could publicly announce the dismantling of all of your warheads and the situation wouldn't change.

      And we can't bomb anyone else.

      Which is the whole purpose of the exercise. In a world governed by MAD, all nuclear powers have essentially equal standing.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    11. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people detest the idea of MAD but so far it has worked.

      Well, yes.

      By definition.

    12. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by sjames · · Score: 1

      As long as nobody else knows the codes are lost, the world is safer.

    13. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'd say the punishment for mutual defection is quite large indeed.

    14. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Psst! Your political ideologies are showing.

      [POLITICAL RANT]

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    15. Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! by suzerain · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree completely, but just to put out an alternative viewpoint: the key part of your post is "so far".

      But me, I don't think we spend millions of dollars building these things purely for diplomatic value. I think - even if by accident! - that the nukes will fly someday. Just one accidental explosion somewhere, or one action by one rogue official, and the way this whole intricate web is weaved, it seems very likely that if one goes off, they all (or many) go off.

      On a slightly different note, I look at this as one way nature will control the human population. We're quickly expanding our population to the point the earth can't sustain us anymore. A nuclear war, whenever it happens, will solve that problem. (Yes, I'm being somewhat sarcastic, but...only somewhat.)

      Anyway, I think MAD will continue to work...until it doesn't.

      --
      gameDB
  4. awesome by jjeffries · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice! It doesn't really matter if nukes work or not anyway; they are not intended to actually be used, and this just helps them stay that way.

    1. Re:awesome by Darkness404 · · Score: 1, Informative

      We, as the developed world (US, Russia, China, India, UK, EU, etc.) might not develop them but chances are, North Korea and Iran would use them given the chance.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea already has a few nukes.

    3. Re:awesome by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      During the warmest parts of the cold war, if this became known to the opponent's spies, it would likely destroy the world.

      At that time, for USSR simply knowing that it has a unique chance to do a first strike without fear of retaliation would be enough to press the red button right then and right there.

    4. Re:awesome by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Nice! It doesn't really matter if nukes work or not anyway; they are not intended to actually be used, and this just helps them stay that way.

      But they are intended to have the potential to be used, otherwise they lose their power as a deterrent.

    5. Re:awesome by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1

      We, as the developed world (US, Russia, China, India, UK, EU, etc.) might not develop them but chances are, North Korea and Iran would use them given the chance.

      Yeah, and?

      Let's just say they do use them and nuke something. Should we retaliate and put more radioactive crap into the atmosphere? For a small test case, see what happened with Chernobyl. Yeah, it wasn't a nuclear bomb but never the less, it released so much shit into the atmosphere that it affected all of Northern Europe - and that was just a conventional explosion.

      And of course there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the results of that.

      Am I saying that if we're nuked we shouldn't retaliate with our own nukes? Yep. If we retaliated, we'd just be getting much of the fallout back.

      I would argue that a preemptive conventional strike against military nukes in those countries mentioned would be completely warranted, though. Especially North Korea. I see them using nukes because they really don't have much to lose and that makes them very dangerous.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    6. Re:awesome by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      North Korea and Iran would use them given the chance.

      You mean like if some country were to attack them without justification? You mean use nukes (if they had them) in self defense?

      What kind of nonsense is that? Who would ever want to retaliate after being attacked?

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.

      Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries at each other's throats for decades after they gained their independence, yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased.

      North Korea, for all their bravado, won't use them. They'd rather sacrifice their military personnel and claim they are great warriors for going against the Western devils than shoot a nuke from a distance.

      Nukes are used for two things: deterrence and final retribution if the end is near. Go read The Sampson Option about Israel's nuclear weapons program.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:awesome by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but despite all of the posturing and rhetoric, I like to think that none of our world leaders have ever been insane enough to actually launch a nuclear strike. Diplomacy is a strange game, nice guys tend to finish last and it often pays to project a slight air of crazy, which ordinary people unfortunately believe, even if the actual diplomats/politicians don't.

      This is also important to remember in the modern age, especially when dealing with Iran or North Korea. Behind the scenes nobody wants a nuclear war, even if they got a clean "first strike", it's a world sized can of worms politically, economically, and socially. It's no good being the last nation on earth if your own people revolt and overthrow your government.

      Remember, the only time nuclear weapons have ever been dropped in anger, it caused an end to the largest war in the world's history and caused every person on earth to stop and wonder if we had gone too far.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:awesome by lwsimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The first time we dropped a nuclear bomb, it wasn't enough to convince Japan to surrender. Only dropped a second, and the threat of dropping uncountably more (which we didn't have - but they didn't know that) actually brought the war to an end.

      The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs - the impact of the bombs was the perceived threat of complete, quick destruction, not the amount of damage they caused. Nuclear weapons aren't really that special; they're just really big compared to conventional ones.

      Finally, the political fallout would only happen the first time they are used. As more small and unstable states acquire them, we *will* eventually see a nuclear exchange. The world will not end, and it will eventually become a "normal" part of war, subject to similar rules. I don't think you'll ever see a major power level a city, but if two ocean-going states are at war, it is perfectly reasonable to expect nuclear weapons to be employed in wiping out battle groups.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    9. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.

      Who says they won't? And maybe it won't be pretty, but Israel will be gone. I mean, that's about 80% of Ahmadinejad's platform, isn't it? You think they're too afraid of retaliation to do something like that?

    10. Re:awesome by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, we should retaliate and put more 'radioactive' crap in the air.

      Next question.

      Chernobyl was MORE radioactive.

      Hiroshima wasn't nearly as bad as people thought it would be.

      That said, we should not tell another country what they can and can not build until it effects things outside their border.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. there were (and probably still are) contingencys in place such as bomber/subs/bases who's standing orders were to nuke pre determined targets if they ever lost contact with Washington.

      Also the summary at least mentiones a "card" the actual nuclear launch orders are one or more breefcases full of such cards each of which is the codes for a perticular nucliar deployment pattern. Just because the codes to say: Nuke Moscaw, Bejing, and for some reason London got lost doesn't mean the "Nuke all of the USSR" codes also got lost.

    12. Re:awesome by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between two countries that are otherwise fairly sane who have a (even very heated) dispute lasting decades or even longer... and crazy or religious idealogues in control of a countries nuclear arsenal.

      North Koreas leader has shown a tendancy to be outright nuts, and doing crazy unpredictable things. He's said a lot of really really agressive things and we really don't know what to expect from someone like that. As such, allowing them to have nukes of any consequence (they have already shown to have nuke capaibility, but no real way to deliver it or any stockpile) would also be unpredictable.

      Iran has a slightly less crazy ruler, but he is a religious idealogue. If he thinks god told him to nuke someone, it could very well happen. Or worse, he might have to live up to his hyperbole or risk the rath of his own people.

    13. Re:awesome by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      We, as the developed world (US, Russia, China, India, UK, EU, etc.) might not develop them...

      I can remember a time when most of the world outside the US was seriously worried that the US president (who was already gaga) might push the button simply because he didn't get enough whiskey on his granola one morning.

    14. Re:awesome by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Launch codes aren't nearly as important as Hollywood makes them out to be.

      IN the end, they simply act as a way of saying "These two dumb asses are the ones who authorized the use of nuclear weapons, have their heads, not ours."

      --
      You mad
    15. Re:awesome by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.

      That's extremely iffy logic at best. Democratic nations who assign high value to life are extremely unlikely to use the nuclear option unless in some form of retaliation. Any nation with nukes which do not fall into the above category is a huge question mark.

      Now combine nukes with a totalitarian nation ruled by zealots with a well known blood lust for ideologies foreign to their own, and its a complete crap shoot. Made worse, are the empowered zealots with direct control over such weapons. Frankly, your odds are likely to match that of a coin toss, given the right geo-political and economic environment. Any other assessment is hippie-flower-power speak at best. Which is exactly why the majority of the world very much does NOT want Iran to become a nuclear nation.

      Basically, anything short of being against Iran become a nuclear power is just short of being pro-nuclear war.

    16. Re:awesome by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I often wonder if Iran would nuke Israel if they obtained/developed nuclear weapons. I'm sure they'd threaten it left and right and use it as a bargaining tool, but would they press the button? Remember that a lot of the sites in Israel that are holy to Christians and Jews are holy to Muslims as well. (One of the big reasons for the whole fighting over the land thing. If Muslims didn't care about that stretch of land, there would have been peace long ago.) If Iran nuked Jerusalem, they'd be destroying spots considered holy in Islam (e.g. Dome of the Rock). On one hand, the extremists would be happy that Israel was gone, but on the other hand, they'd blame Iran for desecrating the holy sites. Actually, I think all Muslims (whether extremist or moderate) would be upset over the loss of the sites (whether or not they mourned the deaths). Iran would find itself ostracized, if not outright attacked, by Christian and Muslim nations alike.

      No, I think they'd love to have the bomb and would use it as a negotiating tactic and threat, but I don't think they'd actually launch it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    17. Re:awesome by Splab · · Score: 1

      I believe and hope to whatever god there might be that NK will work like that - but to be honest, I'd prefer not to find out how they handle nukes :)

    18. Re:awesome by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Nukes are used for two things: deterrence and final retribution if the end is near.

      Nice theory, but practice showed another use: to destroy so much of the enemy that fighting becomes pointless - especially with the threat of more nukes coming. From a military perspective, there's nothing about a nuke that isn't exactly the same as a very large amount of TNT.

      Some people will use it as retribution, some people as a final Armageddon, some people will use it to turn the tide of battle in their favor. That's why the world is so uneasy about the proliferation of nukes: nobody knows who will use their nukes outside the scope of MAD. The only sure thing is that as the number of nuclear countries increases, the probability that some moron will use it in a first strike capability goes towards 1.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    19. Re:awesome by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am glad Clinton (slick Willy, not the Clinton-In-Charge, Hillary) could not push the red button. I can just see him accidentally push it while he was in the middle of a ... uh... nevermnd

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    20. Re:awesome by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima wasn't nearly as bad as people thought it would be.

      Worth noting, by todays standards or modern nuclear devices, those dropped during WWII are considered very dirty devices. Remember, the more dirty the device, the larger and more inefficient the device. Greater efficiency from smaller devices has been a long term trend.

    21. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You are assuming the leaders of those countries have some semblance of sanity. While this was true of the Soviet Union during the cold war (and Russia and China these days) Its not true of Iran and North Korea. Arm-a-dinner-jar thinks he'd get to spend eternity with 72 virgins for nuking the infidels, and Kim is mentally ill...

    22. Re:awesome by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition

      Please support that statement with evidence.

      ...yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased

      Actually, no they didn't. Both countries developed nuclear weapons in 1998. In 1999, there was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan called "The Kargil War". Both still angle to have Kashmir as part of their respective countries and there are militant groups, some of which are believed to be backed by different governments, working in the region.

      Please support your contentions, because right now, all I see are uninformed opinion.

    23. Re:awesome by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 3, Informative

      You think they're too afraid of retaliation to do something like that?

      Yes. Iran is doing fairly well as a regional major power. For all the rethoric towards Israel and hatred towards jews, if Israel was obliterated and Iran was obliterated, how would Ahmadinejad be able to continue to gain influence in Iraq and Lebanon?

      Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad has one Sunni nuclear power is surrounded by Sunni nuclear power, and two countries holding a serious number of US soldiers and firepower (Iraq and Afghanistan). He definitely would not want to appear weak.

      Of course, he may find he has no other choice than to suffer the fate of Saddam: Pretending to be more dangerous than he really is to deter regional enemies, and then attract even more dangerous enemies. Iran is a proud country with few good options. Ideally, they'll change their priorities, but until then we cannot expect Iran to be subtle and feeble.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    24. Re:awesome by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "(they have already shown to have nuke capability, but no real way to deliver it "

      Put it in a container, marked as 'rare earth' and ship it to the New York harbor.

    25. Re:awesome by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between two countries that are otherwise fairly sane who have a (even very heated) dispute lasting decades or even longer... and crazy or religious idealogues in control of a countries nuclear arsenal.

      North Koreas leader has shown a tendancy to be outright nuts, and doing crazy unpredictable things. He's said a lot of really really agressive things and we really don't know what to expect from someone like that. As such, allowing them to have nukes of any consequence (they have already shown to have nuke capaibility, but no real way to deliver it or any stockpile) would also be unpredictable.

      Iran has a slightly less crazy ruler, but he is a religious idealogue. If he thinks god told him to nuke someone, it could very well happen. Or worse, he might have to live up to his hyperbole or risk the rath of his own people.

      Ah yes, our responsible, sane rulers: from the article

      # President Kennedy was given amphetamines by Dr. Max Jacobson. Known as “Dr. Feelgood” and “Miracle Max” because of the massive amphetamine doses administered to his clients. Kennedy photographer Mark Shaw, also a Jacobson client, died in 1969 from “acute and chronic intravenous amphetamine poisoning.” Jacobson’s medical license was revoked in 1975.

      # Some reports attributed Boris Yeltsin’s bizarre behavior to alcoholism. Whatever the cause, his behavior often seemed incompatible with the responsibilities of a world leader capable of starting a nuclear war.

      # George W. Bush and his wife have admitted that his use of alcohol impaired their relationship prior to his becoming president. There have been allegations that Bush’s alcohol problem may have been more serious and lasted longer than admitted.

      # Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent memoirs acknowledge that he often had a “stiff whisky or G and T before dinner, couple of glasses of wine or even half a bottle with it.” At a minimum, this would mean that he might have to make a decision involving the use of nuclear weapons when he was impaired enough that it would be illegal to drive a car.

      # There were reports that, prior to President Nixon’s resignation as a result of the growing Watergate scandal, he “broached the possibility of suicide [seriously enough that White House Chief of Staff] Gen. Haig ordered doctors to take away Nixon’s tranquilizers and deny his requests for pills.”

      Yep, I feel better know...

      (Man, that was hard with the new stupid reply box. Hey 'Taco - how about maybe floating the right margin? It's 2010.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    26. Re:awesome by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Yep, I feel better know...

      Good! Because you should once you take reality into account. In all of the democratic examples, in no case could any of those leaders actually launch nukes without lots of additional involvement from lots of additional people. Its not like in the movies where some crazy leader can say, "nuke everyone", and the world explodes.

      Basically, if your cited examples scared you in the least, its only because you're ignorant of the subject matter. Best solution is to educate yourself rather than attempt to scare others with paranoia, ignorance, and misinformation.

    27. Re:awesome by lwsimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conditional surrender is a misnomer - that's a negotiated peace. You're grasping at straws.

      The fact is, Japan did not accept the terms offered them - they did not surrender until after two bombs were dropped.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    28. Re:awesome by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Nice! It doesn't really matter if nukes work or not anyway; they are not intended to actually be used, and this just helps them stay that way.

      Erm..., no. Your argument presupposes that, a) The parties who currently possesses nukes hope to never use them and b) those same parties will always be those who possess nukes, regardless of the number of such parties. In other words, there are definitely those parties that have a sincere desire to own nukes and use them, and as the number of parties who own them (even "benignly") increases, so does the likelihood that a willing user will come into possession of them.

    29. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The carpet bombing of Tokyo with conventional incindeary cluster muntitions actually caused more death and distruction than nukes.

      It would take more effort and only be applicable to some backwards ass country... if in response to an actual nuclear attack the attacked country did NOT use nukes to counter a nuclear strike but instead used conventional weapons to send the attacker back to the stone age.

      In a way it would show some morsel of restraint and maybe prevent others from thinking about using nukes while still accomplishing the same goals.

    30. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased

      Actually, no they didn't. Both countries developed nuclear weapons in 1998.

      Negative. India tested its first nuclear weapon in 1974, an atomic device.
      In 1998 India made its first declared test of a fusion device, a.k.a. the H-Bomb.

    31. Re:awesome by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      Of course Iran won't use them immediately, but they have their proxies who they can make use of them or related material. Regardless, they will simply become more belligerent because they know the world doesn't want to force a confrontation, so they will keep pushing, keep moving the line, and get away with more abuses to include attacking other counties believing they are safe because they have the bomb.

      North Korea can make up any offense they want, they are good at it. They are quite willing to sell knowledge.

      So, neither has to actually employ their usage, they just use their existence to ignore the world or force the world to not ignore them. One or both may be quite willing to provide proxies the means to employ nuclear bombs or dirty bombs. They will of course declare they "had nothing to do with it" and hide behind the threat of "defending themselves versus unjust attacks from the West".

      Pakistan and India are actually more rational than Iran and North Korea, and frankly that is not reassuring.

      Since we know Iran will get the bomb the new goal is to prevent them from delivering it.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    32. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.

      You're assuming a level of rationality that theocratic regimes simply do not have. And yes, when the Iranian people overthrew the Shah and kept diplomats hostage, they threw away the last of any rationality and civilization they had. May they rot and come to realize exactly how irrelevant and worthless they are as a nation. When they finally wake up from the nightmare that is theocracy, then we have a conversation.

    33. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and crazy or religious idealogues in control of a countries nuclear arsenal.

      Are we talking about Iran, or Israel? The latter already has them but won't admit to it... If we demand that Iran give up their nuclear program, we damn sure have to make the same demands of their worst enemy, which has some pretty damned extremist guys in charge as well...

    34. Re:awesome by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ... a slightly less crazy ruler, but he is a religious idealogue. If he thinks god told him to nuke someone, it could very well happen. Or worse, he might have to live up to his hyperbole or risk the rath of his own people.

      Hmmm... Sounds like the last US President, if by "his own people" you meant the Republican base.

      --
      That is all.
    35. Re:awesome by Spykk · · Score: 1

      But what happens when an Iranian nuke is "lost" and ends up in the hands of an organization that has no public ties to the Iranian government? If said organization managed to nuke New York would the US be free to nuke Tehran? What if they couldn't link the nuke to Iran and just assumed that was where it originated?

    36. Re:awesome by BStroms · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree that they wouldn't attack Israel openly. The greater worry is that they might secretly funnel a nuke to a terrorist organization and let them use it. Not all of Israel is holy ground to Muslims. There are plenty of places where they could kill many people without damaging any sacred sites. Does that mean I support a preemptive attack? No. I just realize the risk is very real if Iran can start producing nuclear weapons.

    37. Re:awesome by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I'm quite sure that if the President decides to launch an attack, the attack will be launched, if he has to drive to the base himself with the whole Joint Chiefs panel and personally see to it.

      Codes or no codes, with the whole top of the chain of command in the launch control post giving the order in person, it will happen, period. I assure you that it will. The codes and the protocols are more of a way of enforcing a default chain of command, controls against the orders being given improperly, etc. But in the military, procedures and controls are changed as a function of the authority that exists to change them. That's true in the supply chain, trucking, shipping and receiving parts of the Army, and it's true for the authority that rests directly on the President and the brass.

      That said, while the notion that President Clinton "lost the football" is pretty amusing, it's also the kind of thing that should *never* be disclosed. I wonder when we lost the idea of "loose lips sink ships?" In my opinion, the public knows FAR too many details about military operations, and I believe this puts the country at a disadvantage. There's a lot of stuff that just plain shouldn't be talked about, ever, period, whether we are at war or not.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    38. Re:awesome by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      At the core of this is the assumption that any nation that posseses nuclear weapons has at least the intention to use them if 'necessary'.

      But more important than their intention is perhaps the nation's 'investment' in peace or war. More accurately, their cultural investment in survival and in peace.

      Nations such as the U.S., Russia, France, the U.K., etc. all have a substantial investment in peace and survivial. They would lose a great deal in a nuclear exchange. This makes Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) a feasible doctrine, since it would require very serious circumstances indeed to spark an exchange among these nations.

      India and Pakistan may or may not have the same investment towards the previously named nations, but they do actually have substantial investments in each other, and an exchange between them would have devastating consequences for both. So for them, MAD is a working deterrent, and they have managed fairly well. The previously named nations just don't have sufficient reason to threaten either India or Pakistan and even risk an exchange with them, no matter the capabilities of any party.

      North Korea seems to be using their nuclear threat to maintain relevance. They have nothing to gain by attacking anyone, and everything to lose. But they need aid from the rest of the world, and rattling the nuclear dagger they have gets our attention.

      China is incrutable. But they are so heavily invested in the world economy now that a nuclear threat seems unthinkable. Besides, they have the heavy metals trade to threaten us with, a much more immediate problem, and one that has the deniability of intent to harm that a nuke just doesn't have. Unfortunately, China may be operating with a worldview that considers decades of opportunity, and we will find them a different adversary in 30 years than they are now.

      But Iran, that is a problem. Does Iran have the necessary investment in peace to not use their nuclear arsenal, if and when they possess it, in pursuit of their national goals? Mind you, Iran is a theocracy, and their national goals are influenced by their interpretation of Islam. It should not take much imagination for logical and rational obververs to conceive of a situation where Iran would not just threaten to use a nuclear weapon against another nation, the U.S. being the safest target since we would incur the scorn of much of the world in a nuclear response no matter the provocation. But what about Israel? If Iran could create or take advantage of a situation where Israel was either politically (or militarily?) isolated from most or all of its allies, would Iran find some justification for an attack? My own opinion is that this question cannot be answered with anything but 'quite likely'. In this scenario, Iran needs to be more confident of its position in the geopolitical arena. Saudi Arabia doesn't seem to be an unconditional ally. All other Arab states in the Middle East, even together, do not solve that problem. So Iran needs more powerful allies to survive the attack, both politically and physically. This is where the U.N. Security Council can prevent such a situation from coming to reality, but I have no confidence in them.

      And Israel, of course, will be compelled to keep their nuclear arsenal the open secret it is today, as a deterrent. If Israel were to receive a nuclear attack by an Islamic state, the only question would be the intensity of the response. And perhaps the specific target. In the case of Iran, Tehran would be a logical target, but would Israel widen the response, since such a situation would probably involve several states either calling for an assault or at least not objecting? Would Israel also attack Iran's supporters in that scenario? Depends, I think, on their isolation, and the actual resolve of their allies. Emphasis on 'actual'.

      There are several methods to assess the willingness of a nuclear state to actually use their arsenal. We need to also consider the state's investment in peace, not just their rhetoric or perceived benefits to them.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    39. Re:awesome by gizmonic · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the key point here is that everyone is applying western ideals and logic into an equation where those things have no value. Yes, MAD works when we're talking about the US and Russia. It does not work when you're talking about religious extremists that believe dying while killing their enemies means a ticket straight to heaven. Add in the fact that Ahmadinejad has said he hopes to usher in the age if the third Mahdi, and knowing that according to his religion, the third Mahdi will only show up after a time of great chaos and massive world conflict, you still ask what he has to gain by using nukes? Really? Yes, in most cases, dealing with reasonable people, you'd be right. But when dealing with psychotic idiots with nukes who think by using them their religious dude can show up and take over the world, normal logic is pretty much tossed out the window.

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
    40. Re:awesome by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you are making an assumption: that rationality always guides decision making

      and face it: as the nuclear option gets in the hands of more and more countries, rational decision making might not always be at the fore

      in the case of iran, you are talking about a theocracy where a small group of grumpy old men have a monopoly on the interpretation of the word of god, and sincerely believe the mahdi will reappear at a time of great suffering. here, the well-being of iran is taken care of by supernatural forces, so go ahead use the nuke

      and with north korea, you have a cult of personality revolving around a supreme leader. here, saving face and the ego of the dear leader is more important than the well-being of the people, so go ahead and use the nuke

      i don't know why you trust these countries will always be guided by rationality

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    41. Re:awesome by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Please support your contentions, because right now, all I see are uninformed opinion.

      Name a time in recent history when Iran attacked one of its neighbors. You can't use the Iran/Iraq war as Iraq invaded Iran. For all talk about the hated enemy Israel, for all the talk about how it has the power to inflict harm upon American naval forces, Iran has not attacked one of its neighbors in the modern era and when it did try to come after our naval forces, their speed boats were useless.

      The Iranian leadership isn't stupid (ok, maybe a little). They know that despite their talk, their forces, while being able to inflict some damage, would be all but wiped out if they were to attack anyone in the region. Sure, they would gain some territory initially, but since a large portion of the world's oil supplies come from that region, just like we did when Iraq invaded Kuwait, we'll do what it takes to protect that oil supply.

      While India and Pakistan still have hostilities over Kashmir, I was referring more to all out war. No two countries, that I'm aware of, have had a toe-to-toe war since obtaining nuclear weapons. Skirmishes and incidents, certainly. But nothing like the wars we've seen in the past.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    42. Re:awesome by cowscows · · Score: 1

      If a nuke goes off in Israel, then Israel is going to bury Iran in a couple dozen nukes. It doesn't matter if they watch the rocket take off in Tehran or if it's smuggled in by some unknown terrorist group. 5 minutes after it went off, Israel would already be retaliating. They won't wait for proof, they will respond.

      Iran's leaders know this. And no matter how much they hate Israel, they don't hate it as much as they hate the thought of losing their little kingdom. They will not do anything to try and pick a fight with Israel, unless they're attacked and feel that their government is at risk.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    43. Re:awesome by guanxi · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.

      What happens if Iran smuggles a nuke into Tel Aviv and sets it off, and doesn't take credit for it? Or if an agent of theirs does something similar? What if they do that in New York, DC, and several other American cities? They can destroy their enemies without much risk of retaliation, because nobody needs to know who did it. They're rid of their enemies, and that's what matters most.

    44. Re:awesome by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      It's worth mentioning that any halfway-competent leader of Iran would be pursuing nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

      Why? Because if you have nukes, the United States generally leaves you alone (cf N Korea). If you don't have nukes, the United States may just lie and show bogus evidence that you have WMDs, and invade anyways, treaties and UN resolutions notwithstanding (cf Iraq). They already have good reason not to trust the United States: The US overthrew Iran's democratic government in the 1950's, sold weapons to their enemy in the 1980's, and have significant elements of the government openly advocating invasion of Iran. Under those circumstances, doing anything other than actually acquiring nuclear weapons would be stupid.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    45. Re:awesome by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Hiroshima wasn't nearly as bad as people thought it would be.
      It was pretty much totally flattened and killed at least half the population instantly, with most of the rest of the population dying within a month.
      How much worse do you think "people thought it would be?" How many people do you think knew about it at all?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    46. Re:awesome by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries at each other's throats for decades after they gained their independence, yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased.

      You're kidding, right?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    47. Re:awesome by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd recommend Richard Frank's Downfall as a good read on the subject, although there are others.

      Japan did not offer surrender terms. The governing council was far too divided to do so. The offer they might have agreed on was: Repatriation of Japanese troops to be conducted on a Japanese schedule and procedure; No foreign trials of Japanese war criminals; No occupation of Japan; No change in the Japanese government. The Japanese government did ask the Soviet Union to be a go-between for diplomatic proposals, and then couldn't agree on a diplomatic proposal to send.

      Nor did Japan surrender unconditionally. They were offered terms, although it was fairly close to an unconditional surrender. Whether to keep the Emperor as an institution was fundamentally left to the Japanese by the terms (although the Emperor in power at the time expected to be tried as a war criminal).

      There has been a great deal of speculation on how much Soviet actions affected the decision, but the bombs were dropped in an attempt to force Japan to accept peace terms. (My take on the nukes is that they offered the Japanese a way to surrender while saving a certain amount of face.)

      So, since they didn't offer surrender terms before, they would have asked for more than a figurehead Emperor, the Allies laid down conditions of surrender, the US dropped the nukes as part of forcing the Japanese to surrender, the US dropped the second bomb because the Japanese didn't respond to the first (and they wouldn't have, either), the Japanese never offered unconditional surrender, and the conditions of surrender allowed retention of the Imperial line, you have achieved a (+1, Informative) while being completely wrong in every statement. Congratulations.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    48. Re:awesome by careysub · · Score: 1

      Japan had already offered surrender terms to the US before the bomb drop. They asked for the emperor to remain as a figurehead. We said in return that we would only accept unconditional surrender. We dropped the first bomb because we could, we dropped the second bomb for collaborative data. After they offered unconditional surrender, we let them keep the emperor as figurehead.

      Nope they didn't. There were no offers from the government of Japan before the first atomic bombing, period. They did offer to surrender with retention of the Emperor with all his privileges and powers ("his prerogatives") after the first bomb. The U.S. rejected this offer, and dropped the second bomb, and the USSR declared war on Japan, and then the Japanese surrendered, abandoning their attempt to change the terms of the Potsdam Declaration.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    49. Re:awesome by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      They expected more cancer and a raging firestorm that'd burn the rest of the city.

      They were hoping for a Dresden or Tokyo with a single device, they got something like it, but it wasn't the same sort of firestorm.

    50. Re:awesome by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries at each other's throats for decades after they gained their independence, yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased.

      What? Are you insane? Pakistan nearly nuked india 4 years ago. And Pakistan regularly runs state(openly) supported black ops campaigns against india.

      Major backers of the mumbai attack? Pakistan, money funneled through their security agencies.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    51. Re:awesome by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Israel and the US had samples (allegedly) of Syria's plant, and the US got samples of North Korea's fallout, so I expect the Israelis have smuggled samples out of Iran's plants.

      So if a nuke, say by Hezbollah, goes off, the US and Israelis will know that it came from Iran.

      The problem with thinking the DPRK or Iran will be rational like the other nuclear powers have been assumes that their leadership is rational.

      Remember that the Iranian leadership believes that a giant conflagration has to happen, unlike Christian Revelationists who wait for the Rapture, Twelvers who follow the reappearance of the Mahdi feel that chaos and civil war are good things that'll bring about the End Times

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_imam#Reappearance

    52. Re:awesome by operagost · · Score: 1

      Where did you get your numbers? The city had a poulation of about 250,000 and 70-80,000 were killed immediately. That's far less than half. By the end of the year, up to 166,000 had died. That's not "within a month".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    53. Re:awesome by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I read about an incident where Regan and (I forgot who the Russian leader was at the time) were both drunk and both had their fingers on the atomic button.

      And there's Kennedy's Cuban missle crisis, which might have prevented a lot of you guys from ever being born had the Russians not backed down.

      (Man, that was hard with the new stupid reply box. Hey 'Taco - how about maybe floating the right margin? It's 2010.

      It's hard to find, but you can get the old style reply box in the preferences page. However, I noticed I don't get the "cowboy" warning with the new setting.

      I thought the "box being off the page" thing was an IE6 bug, but I haven't logged on from home in a couple of days.

    54. Re:awesome by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't believe everything that you read. Its very easy to have 80% of your platform be something that you can't, realistically accomplish, and can blame on others. This has been strategy of both the republicans and democrats for several generations now.

      The blowback from using their nukes would be unavoidable and huge. They would see all of their allies (military, trade etc) wither away and publicly oppose them. Any new allies that they gained would be.... useless in comparison to the old ones.

      Say what you want, 99% of any leaders real platform is "stay in power". This is usually accomplished by lots of grandstanding and proclamations while doing relatively small real things, not by driving a wedge between yourself and...well... nearly the entire rest of the world.

      These "subtleties" can hardly be lost on the Iranian power structures.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    55. Re:awesome by operagost · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked

      ... or if they believe doing so will hasten the return of the 12th Imam.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    56. Re:awesome by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. If those guys wanted a big war they would've started it by now. They're living the good life, they've got wealth and power. Once you've got that, you don't want to give it up.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    57. Re:awesome by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      I believe it was Nixon drunk with his finger on the button.

    58. Re:awesome by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      So the best way to get rid of iran is to set off a nuke in israel. Good thing to know for some enemy of both countries.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    59. Re:awesome by Zequel · · Score: 0

      Well we didn't exactly give them a lot of time to think about it, Aug 6 - 9. Think about : A) the lack of communications in war-torn Japan B) The fact it was the 1st nuke ever to be used in a war. We didn't know the full effects of radiation, nevermind the Japanese's understanding. I don't think the Japanese really knew too much in what is probably less than a 48 hour window of chaos. If they really knew I think they would have surrendered pretty quickly.

    60. Re:awesome by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Sometimes ideology and religion trump "wealth and power".

      It does happen.

    61. Re:awesome by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      So, you contention is that because Iran hasn't done it yet, it won't ever do it? You really want to stick with that? Maybe you should take a look at world history, and American history for that matter.

      You were still wrong about Pakistan and India. They were at war in 1999, just one year after both had nuclear weapons.

    62. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recently declassified material can be interpreted to suggest that Japan would have surrendered before either bomb was dropped, had the exact terms of surrender been made more clear. Apparently they were concerned they wouldn't be allowed to keep all four of their main islands.
      http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-Codes-Breaking-Japans-Ciphers/dp/155970568X
      That section is towards the end of the book (naturally) but the rest is interesting too, if you're into cryptography etc.

    63. Re:awesome by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      Rogue nations with nukes aren't dangerous because they might use them, they are dangerous because they might sell or lose them to an extremist group who will. There are those you trust with things like this and those you don't. Fascists/Dictators/Fundamentalists are at the top of the list of the untrustworthy.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    64. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries at each other's throats for decades after they gained their independence, yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased.

      Apparently you've never heard of the Kargil War.

    65. Re:awesome by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "(Man, that was hard with the new stupid reply box. Hey 'Taco - how about maybe floating the right margin? It's 2010."

      Do what I did...go to your preferences, and with some tweaking..you can set it to act just like it used to in classic fashion.

      I hate the new crap too...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    66. Re:awesome by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "But what happens when an Iranian nuke is "lost" and ends up in the hands of an organization that has no public ties to the Iranian government? If said organization managed to nuke New York would the US be free to nuke Tehran? What if they couldn't link the nuke to Iran and just assumed that was where it originated?"

      From what I've read..and this is alluded to in other threads on this discussion, the US and other countries can basically 'fingerprint' nuclear material. If one goes off, supposedly, it won't take very long at all to know the origin.

      If something nuclear comes out of Iran, and whether by accident or not it goes off in the US, I'd lay heavy money that a pretty much instant retaliation will happen to Tehran, and surrounding areas.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    67. Re:awesome by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 1

      If Israel goes, then Iran will go. Palestine too, probably. I don't think Amadinejad is crazy enough to commit suicide.

      --
      Sent from my CR-48
    68. Re:awesome by s122604 · · Score: 1

      Iran would find itself ostracized

      no, I think they would find themselves very very dead...

    69. Re:awesome by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Yes, except that it's not likely to be quite that simple, in that there will almost certainly be unpredictable wider consequences, and also it'd take a lot more than just smuggling in one nuke to destroy Israel.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    70. Re:awesome by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "they are not intended to actually be used,"

      They certainly WERE intended to be used, but not casually. The aircraft carrying gravity nukes which sat Zulu Alert in Europe and South Korea were instantly ready to turn a Communist ground attack into burnt wreckage, and given Communist indifference to casualties (can you say "human wave attacks"?) they were an appropriate card to have on the table.

      Nuclear deterrence rests on genuine willingness to use those weapons, at any level required, without a flicker of hesitation. Study a bit more about the Cold War, and about the effort to determine the consequences of various levels (yes, they exist) of nuclear war from tactical through strategic.

      Never forget that atmospheric testing PROVED tactical nuclear weapons (can be) just another tool in the toolbox, and that detonation of a modest number of strategic nukes won't be a world-ender. For example, India and Pakistan could unload on each other and India could survive with enough people to finish off Pakistan.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    71. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not as effective if they are detonated on the ground. Best to detonate them like 500 feet in the air or something.

      Shit detonating one a mile or so in the air with several tons of sand around the warhead would be a humdinger.

      Shit, lose the sand, and let the EMP kill all the electronics.

    72. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > expect nuclear weapons to be employed in wiping out battle groups

      "Nuclear launch detected"

    73. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first time we dropped a nuclear bomb, it wasn't enough to convince Japan to surrender. Only dropped a second, and the threat of dropping uncountably more (which we didn't have - but they didn't know that) actually brought the war to an end.

      The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs - the impact of the bombs was the perceived threat of complete, quick destruction, not the amount of damage they caused. Nuclear weapons aren't really that special; they're just really big compared to conventional ones.

      Finally, the political fallout would only happen the first time they are used. As more small and unstable states acquire them, we *will* eventually see a nuclear exchange. The world will not end, and it will eventually become a "normal" part of war, subject to similar rules. I don't think you'll ever see a major power level a city, but if two ocean-going states are at war, it is perfectly reasonable to expect nuclear weapons to be employed in wiping out battle groups.

      You a**holes drop the bomb and then come up with a reason why they were dropped in the first place. What is stopping US from dropping another on say Iran to justify damage it MIGHT do in the future? Kind of like "Minority Report".

    74. Re:awesome by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      India and pakistan have fought at least one war (in 1999) and probably 2 (in 1971) in which at least one if not both powers had nuclear weapons. Almost certainly the 1971 war necessitated pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons assuming they didn't have them before that. And india tested a nuclear weapon in 74, when exactly they built that weapon is up for debate, but they had enough plutonium from cirus to build their first bomb in or around 63.

      That certainly doesn't invalidate your theory that countries would only want to use them for deterrence and final retribution. The problem, in both of those cases, is the nature of the states (as well as china) and how they are going to transition to new types of government. The US, France, and the UK could all transition via a military coup, which would, by definition keep the nuclear weapons under wraps likely, Russia went through essentially an internal coup to democraticish governance. North korea could implode, and both iran and china face violent revolution to change government. That's a very different sort of question though. Then you get into the religion question. There are a lot of crazy people who would say it's worth sacrificing 70 million persians to kill 300 million americans + 5 million iraeli's is a good trade. And they are far more likely to be in the government in iran than say, saudi.

    75. Re:awesome by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      They expected more cancer and a raging firestorm that'd burn the rest of the city. Who are "they?" You are suggesting that the people who actually built the bombs had no idea of their capabilities. That's bunk.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    76. Re:awesome by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, the people who built the bomb and the people that did the bomb damage assessments for the two atomic bombs have no farking idea what the bombs would do to a Japanese city.

      Why? An atomic bomb had never been detonated near any structures or anything flammable. Remember that Trinity was simply detonated on a steel tower in the middle of the desert.

      It wasn't until Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they had any idea of what one does, and then Tumbler-Snapper and Upshot Knothole gave the US the data to really figure out how to effectively use atomic weapons for destruction.

    77. Re:awesome by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Of course Iran won't use them immediately, but they have their proxies who they can make use of them or related material.

      And as soon as they do, we'll know it was Iran that gave them the goods based on isotope testing, then we'll obliterate Tehran.

      The Iranian mullahs are crazy, but they're not stupid.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    78. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dropping of the atomic bombs also caused Japan to surrender to the US, as there was some concern that they would surrender to the USSR.

    79. Re:awesome by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      While Israel may be highly agressive in protecting their border, even overly agressive.. even extremely overly agressive....

      Their leaders are aware of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon. Other leaders do not care about those consequences.

    80. Re:awesome by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Bush was anything but an idealogue. He was certainly very pro-religion, but an idealogue? No way. He did not pretend to be a religious leader, nor did he attempt to assert his religious beliefs on everyone in the country. Perhaps, if he were presented with a bill (such as an anti-abortion bill) he might have signed it.. but that's about the worst you could say.

    81. Re:awesome by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Please don't construe this post as in any way implying that America should not have used nuclear weapons, but...

      I think you're a bit off on some of the facts. My understanding is that the Japanese leadership didn't even know the first bomb was a nuclear bomb, they just thought we had developed a new firebombing technique.

      When it comes down to it, it's a pretty murky subject to discuss and historians will be arguing about it forever. The evidence I have seen seems pretty clear that there wasn't really any serious debate within the administration on WHETHER to use the bomb? Why would there be? They were already routinely destroying cities with fire bombing and intentionally targeting civilians. They didn't fully grasp the long-term effects of radiation and fall-out, and so it as just another weapon that should be used as soon as it was ready. IIRC, Truman himself said he didn't give it much thought.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    82. Re:awesome by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

      Puiblished in the Chicago Tribune. Wasn't a formal attempt that is true, but hardly the closed book you would like it to be.

    83. Re:awesome by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Nice theory, but practice showed another use: to destroy so much of the enemy that fighting becomes pointless - especially with the threat of more nukes coming.

      Umm, no.

      Please note that in the two uses of nuclear weapons in warfare, the intimidating part wasn't that we were destroying Japanese cities - we'd done that for years already with conventional weapons (in face, we caused more casualties and did more damage in the firebomb raids on Tokyo than we did in both atomic bombings).

      The intimidating part was that it only took one bomber to do what used to take 1000 bombers. Note that since we had 1000+ bombers, if we'd not had the nukes, we'd still have wrecked Japan.

      Note also that, oddly enough, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were spared quite a bit of the horrors of war by the Atom bombs - General Arnold wrote in his autobiography that he had to make sure that several Japanese cities were placed off-limits for conventional bombing so that we could better evaluate the effects of the A-bomb on an undamaged city.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    84. Re:awesome by bluie- · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I could see Ahmadinejad going off about God speaking to him and telling him it was His Will to cleanse the holy sites of infidels in nuclear fire. It would be even worse if he actually truly believes in his religion, and truly believes he would be doing god's work. Then no cost would be too great. I don't really think this is true, Ahmadinejad seems like too much of a politician. I guess my point is, the more leaders of nuclear nations believe in fantasies, the more unpredictable and dangerous they are.

      --
      life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think
  5. Launch codes are so 1980... by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "They were immediately replaced."

    Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide.
    We are all better off losing them and to keep pretending you are going to use them if necessary.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide.

      Ignoring WWII, lets look at the cold war. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the Politburo and high-level party members were clamoring for war with the US to the point where Khrushchev made loud patriotic pro-war statements in public to appease them and privately with the US was doing his best to avoid a nuclear war. Turns out a group mentality can culminate into in irrational act like nuclear war. Not to mention the US was considering a pre-emtive strike early during the cold war with the assumption that it could wipe out the USSR but only lose half its own cities.

      Consider smaller modern powers like Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea. If felt like their regime was going to collapse and their leaders killed or sent to the Hague, why not launch for revenge? Its not like dictators or theocrats are known to be especially rational or compassionate. Most likely we'll see nuclear war in the mideast sooner than later. I'd be willing to bet within 20 years.

    2. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So far the pretending is working:

      Number of world wars in first 50 years of 20th Century: 2

      Number of world wars in last 50 years of 20th Century: 0

    3. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They were immediately replaced." Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide. .

      I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought no one would strap explosives to themselves either.

      But more to the point: the reason it's suicide is because it's mutually assured destruction. If it's not mutually assured, then it's less likely to be suicidal.

    4. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by confused+one · · Score: 4, Interesting

      more likely to happen in Korea. N. Korean gov't appears to be teetering and all it would take would be for them to lob a weapon at Japan or S. Korea and the U.S. would be forced to respond in kind. The recent torpedo incident seems to indicate the central government there isn't completely in control.

    5. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What happens when your enemy thinks you can't launch?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The recent torpedo incident seems to indicate the central government there isn't completely in control.

      Or given who is in control, it seems to indicate they are in control. Realistically, I doubt anyone knows if this was a rogue captain or a lawful order from an idiot named Kim. Given the country, flip a coin.

      You need to keep in mind, North Korea constantly provides false navigation signals to aircraft in hopes of creating an international indecent. They constantly attempt to incite troops. And occasionally, they do have weapon malfunctions which seem to land in the general proximity of troops located in the south. No shit and no exaguration.

      Given Kim's several decades of doing exactly this type of shit, it would be far from surprising to learn it was ordered. Then again, given the environment and known internal conflict for power, it may have been been a rogue captain or higher up in the military. Who knows.

    7. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by linumax · · Score: 1

      Consider smaller modern powers like Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea. If felt like their regime was going to collapse and their leaders killed or sent to the Hague, why not launch for revenge? Its not like dictators or theocrats are known to be especially rational or compassionate. Most likely we'll see nuclear war in the mideast sooner than later. I'd be willing to bet within 20 years.

      You just managed to contradict yourself in those two lines. The fact that North Korea and Iran are not attacked is exactly because of their power to defend themselves. Hint: Iraq and Afghanistan among couple of dozen countries that have experienced the "peacekeeping" and "democratizing" forces of the US in the past 5 decades. You can't take the leaders of nuclear power to Hague either, because you can't get their hands on them. So it never comes the time when the need to use such weapons.

    8. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      It's not suicide if your enemy has lost their launch codes.

    9. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I predict once North Korea sees a regime change they're going to open up dramatically and all their rhetoric will finally come to an end. North Korea is a pariah and has nothing to gain from launching a strike. Even merely having a nuclear weapon doesn't necessarily improve their position.

      Iran, on the other hand, does have a lot to gain by having a nuke. And they might even have an incentive to launch it, even if it resulted in Iran's obliteration. Likely, they'd bring down Israel with them, turn the region into chaos and almost certainly spark a real war. And some might actually consider Ahmadinejad a hero.

    10. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Number of World Wars prior to the 20th century: 0.

      I think you might have a problem with your statistical sampling.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only 3 these days that seem like they *might* shoot something like this is Iran, N. Korea, and India.

      *ALL* 3 are quite aware that Russia *AND* the US would be crazy pissed off if they did it.

      Iran and Korea at this point could make a small handful of bombs. But they will find them more useful as bargaining chips then actually using them. Which is exactly how they are using them or even the possibility that they may make them.

      Iran wants concessions on the world market to sell its oil and spread the word of the Koran. Mostly the latter then the former.

      N. Korea wants concessions on the world market to act as a superpower and buy food. They keep doing this every 2-3 years when they run out of money and food. As shown by the 'torpedo' incident and many more like it.

      India on the other had continues to have issues with Pakistan and has a much richer technological infrastructure. They are my bet on 'going first'. Followed by Iran then N. Korea.

      Now each of these countries has the capability to make a small handful of weapons. People like to overreact when they hear about nuclear bombs. Yes, they are quite devastating and can take out decent sized cities. However, the reason people were 'scared of the bomb' was both the Soviet Union (and now Russia), and the United States *EACH* have the capability to bomb every square inch of the globe many times over. Each of them have THAT many bombs. Any country that decides it wants to play nuclear superpower needs to deal with both of these countries.

    12. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Mutually Assured Destruction works if you're looking only at THIS life. Certain people have proven that they are capable of killing themselves, on purpose, to kill others, on the promise of the here after being really fun place with lots of women. In which case, they don't consider it suicide. And that is the scary option most people would rather not think about, because Nuclear Weapons would not be viewed as defensive weapons, but rather first strike offensive weapons.

      While N Korea may not use Nukes as first strike weapons, Iran is more than capable of nuking Israel without batting an eye.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Duradin · · Score: 1

      You might want to talk to the peoples that pissed off Rome back in the day. They may have only been Known World Wars to us but they were World Wars for them.

    14. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      I would assert that it is not North Korea and Iran's power to defend themselves, but the citizens of the opposing countries (read-America) to keep the hawks in their own government from unleashing the full potential of our military upon those countries. We have been "losing" wars since WW2 because of the pesky Geneva convention and our political lack of desire to see napalmed children on the evening news. Targeting civilians in WW2 was a legitimate strategy-eliminate the people who build the war machine to eliminate the war machine. I am NOT advocating for that, but I do think it is a different line altogether. Would our political will change if N. Korea dropped a nuke on us? I am betting it would.

    15. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Number of World Wars prior to the 20th century: 0.

      I think you might have a problem with your statistical sampling.

      Depending on your definition of "world war", taking technology into account, the number could technically be far, far higher than zero. At different points in history, England, France, and Spain owned most of the world, and even fought each other, both directly and indirectly.

      Generally speaking, most agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his sampling.

    16. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Please stop falling for the neocon nonsense and actually do some research. Iran is not going to destroy itself, and the leader of Iran is no, in any way, shape, or form, crazy.

      Iran wants to be a regional power. It wants to essentially control the Shia nations near it...Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. And to keep the US out of that area.

      And weaken the existing regional powers...Saudi Arabia and Turkey and India.

      That's basically it. That's all it wants. It doesn't even give a flying fuck about Palestine, which is Sunni and utterly worthless to them if they have Lebanon and coastal access there. All its talk about Israel is just a sort of 'Muslim bonding' they're trying to do, and, no, they don't make threats about Israel, and any talk you've heard about that is deliberate lies.

      It might care about Sunni Afghanistan to the extent it's literally next door, but as long as the US isn't there, it probably doesn't. It doesn't care enough to even make a play for it.

      The only people ascribing crazy motives to Iran are the people who want to invade it, and the people listening to them.

      Iran does go around undermining democratic governments near to it, but I hardly think the US, of all people, get to complain about that.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    17. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we must have a nuclear war, actually I think it will be a good idea to have a nuclear war in the middle east.

      It will force people to aggressively source for alternative energy as mid east oil will be gone for a long while / not usable / radioactive / infrastucture destroyed / etc.

      It will get rid of most of the problems we have with the muslim countries / Israel friction.

      Of course it will be better not to have a nuclear war at all, anywhere.

      Now I have to wonder if I will be tracked for stating just an opinion. Will keep an eye out for black helicopters :P

      PS : For reference, am born a muslim, but I do not really follow anything as I eat pretty much anything and drink pretty much anything. Am more an atheist then anything else now.

    18. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Even the number of regional conflicts is going down going into the 21st century.

      Sure, you have Iraq and Afghanistan, but Israel isn't at war, NK and SK aren't fighting, We're not in Vietnam, Iran and India aren't fighting, Iraq isn't fighting with Iran, the Soviets aren't in Afghanistan, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide

      Yes, who ever heard of humanity doing obviously self-destructive things? Like going to war?

    20. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I feel like your comment is so misleading that I have to respond even though it's undoing previous moderation. You say "they were immediately replaced" completely out of context. The fact was they were unaccounted for for TWO MONTHS. They were only replaced at the standard 4-month replacement interval at which time the aid was FORCED to admit he had lost them because he had to turn them in for the replacement. It's like a mechanic knowingly letting an F-15 fly around for 2 months with a broken ejection system and when the pilot finds out and freaks the fuck out forcing it to be fixed and then someone saying "What's the big deal? It was 'immediately replaced'."

    21. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the US was considering a pre-emtive strike early during the cold war...

      And the US has launched various preemptive strikes more recently with "conventional" weapons based not on the fear that WMD might be used, but on the (unfounded) belief that they might merely exist.

    22. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US attacks N.Korea China will attack the US

    23. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. It's worse than this actually. See Axe_murder_incident for an example.

    24. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, exactly, is India in the same 'region' as those other countries you mentioned? By any chance, are you one of those morons who thinks that India is in the middle East?

    25. Re:Launch codes are so 1980... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      In case you haven't noticed, India is exactly one country away from Iran. There's just Pakistan in between. It's less than 400 miles away. India is actually closer to Iran than Lebanon or Israel are!

      I don't know what sort of 'Middle East' point you're trying to make, but I didn't say anything about the Middle East. Go ahead, search my post for 'Middle East'. There are not 'regions' where countries are located in and don't influence outside. Egypt doesn't say 'Oh, we're technically in Africa, we have nothing to do with the Middle East', and India doesn't say 'This is the Indian subcontinent, we have nothing to do with Pakistan, the country next door, or anything past that.'. The influence of a country doesn't magically stop at the where we've decided to divide geographical areas.

      India is a rather strong county, and fairly close to Iran. That is the facts. Ergo, they are competing 'regional powers', even if you want to quibble about what to call that region, which I will mention again I didn't call anything.

      And, despite what you said, I in no way implied that Turkey, India, and Saudi Arabia were all in the same region, whatever the fuck that means. They are, however, regional powers physically close to Iran. Sheesh.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  6. I'm sure they changed the codes immediately by Nimey · · Score: 1

    That's the sort of thing that'd be changed daily as a matter of course, and there must be other authentication factors besides just codes.

    Not much to worry about here.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:I'm sure they changed the codes immediately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were changed every 4 months and they only checked to make sure he had the correct ones once a month.

    2. Re:I'm sure they changed the codes immediately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't the actual Nuclear Codes, it was the combination lock to the "Football", which is the briefcase system that can be used in conjunction with the challenge/response codes to initiate a nuclear launch.

  7. "Whoops" by Securityemo · · Score: 1

    We are all as worms. With really big guns.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
    1. Re:"Whoops" by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Neebo, is that you??

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  8. Probably a good thing. by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 1
    There are already too many ways for us to destroy the planet.

    Who cares if Clinton or Putin didn't have access to the codes? At least half the planet would survive.

    --
    I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
  9. This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would Clinton really nuke anybody anyway? He didn't retaliate after the WTC, the US Embassy, or USS Cole attacks.

    1. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >He didn't retaliate after the WTC, the US Embassy, or USS Cole attacks.

      [citation needed]

    2. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by CronoCloud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He most certainly did retaliate...with anti-terrorism activities. You don't send divisions of soldiers to fight terrorists, you send cops, spies and agents who knock on their doors in the middle of the night and make them disappear...without fanfare. You don't give terrorists press, you don't let them know you're coming with armored brigades tearing up the wilderness.

    3. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes he did! he lobbed some million dollar cruise missiles at training camps. scary, that.

    4. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Duh! He didn't retaliate because he lost the codes. By the time he found them in his other pair of pants, he had been impeached already.

    5. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by bonch · · Score: 1, Insightful

      His "anti-terrorism activities" sure stopped Bin Laden from beginning the plans for 9/11 in 1998.

    6. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He most certainly did retaliate...with anti-terrorism activities. You don't send divisions of soldiers to fight terrorists, you send cops, spies and agents who knock on their doors in the middle of the night and make them disappear...without fanfare. You don't give terrorists press, you don't let them know you're coming with armored brigades tearing up the wilderness.

      Right.

      You do that, maybe launch a few cruise missiles, maybe even go out of your way to create procedural barriers to interagency cooperation against terrorism (got the nards to Google "Gorelick's wall"?), and thereby you give the impression that's all you'll do when a few airliners are hijacked and used to kill thousands.

      Ooops.

    7. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course that was after he informed a couple of countries sympathetic to OBL so the terror camps were given plenty of warning before the strike.

    8. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He also ordered missile strikes against training camps and alleged chemical weapons factories. The Republicans complained that he was playing politics however and demanded that he stop.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Clinton administration had plans which were promptly ignored by the new Bush administration.

    10. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by flaming+error · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well duh.

      Democrats are unamerican, and strategerizing like that just hurts the thinkbone.

    11. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Bubba couldn't find Osama any better than W or Obama can.

      The one time we got decent intel on his location, we sent half a dozen cruise missiles and levelled the compound.

      Unfortunately, Osama was leaving just as the missiles were launching, so he didn't die.

      Don't ever kid yourself thinking that Liberals don't fight. It's how this country was founded, it's how all of the wars we won were won, and it's the only thing keeping Conservatives from thinking they can institute martial law whenever they're elected.

    12. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      You mean, he didn't bomb an aspirin factory to get a blowjob off the front page?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>WTC, the US Embassy, or USS Cole attacks

      Don't forget Oklahoma City. The FBI was never able to prove their case, but even today they still suspect Bin Laden was funding and providing technical know-how to Timothy McVeigh. After all the bomb was near-identical to the one used in the WTC, and using the same tactic (a van blowing-out the foundation/pillars).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Clinton administration had plans which were promptly ignored by the new Bush administration.

      Completely untrue! Blatant lie.

      Clinton is on record as basically saying, I wash my hands of this as this is the next administration's problem. Clinton's administration basically said, "These guys are a problem. You need to keep an eye on them." Depending on who's account you accept next, basically the response was, "okay", to, "we are." They were commonly included in security briefings. The only gray area stems from the exact significance placed on them in the security briefings received by the next administration.

      Basically Clinton's administrative policy was to ignore them as much as possible while as many people were murdered. Only after repeated attacks and complete lack of response by Clinton, did Clinton actually allow a pathetic retaliation which only embolden them to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

      Basically you statement is a complete contradiction of all facts on record.

    15. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incorrect.

    16. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The WTC bombers were arrested and jailed. I don't remember what happened after the US Embassy incident, but bombing a Navy ship is an act of war, not terrorism. If they'd blown up a cruise ship it would be terrorism; terrorism is an act of violence against civilians for political benefit. War is an act of violence against armed forces for political benefit.

    17. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by downhole · · Score: 1

      Sending cops and spies against terrorists works great when the nation and the general population they exist in doesn't support them. That's not at all the case in the middle east - all of the terrorist organizations there are supported by governments and by a substantial portion, if not a majority, of the population. Thus, all of the cops and spies in the world won't make any difference. They'll be lied to, run around in circles, scammed every which way, and they won't be able to do anything about it. Divisions of soldiers aren't a perfect solution either, but you can either take over the country or influence the government strongly. Either way, you can prevent terrorists from organizing on a large scale and carrying out attacks overseas. You also then have a shot at trying to change the opinion of the general population, and with a little skill and a little luck, you might just get them on your side and against the terrorists, which is when you really win.

      --
      I don't reply to ACs
    18. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bubba couldn't find Osama any better than W or Obama can.

      Billy Waugh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Waugh) had the means, opportunity, and ability to eliminate UBL several times during the Clinton Administration and was consistently unable to get permission to do so.

    19. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by chrb · · Score: 1

      Clinton is on record as basically saying, I wash my hands of this as this is the next administration's problem... Clinton's administrative policy was to ignore them as much as possible while as many people were murdered.

      That is actually quite different from what he is on record saying. Watch the video - Clinton comes across as being quite angry about these Republican claims that he failed to respond to terrorist attacks.

    20. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      That is actually quite different from what he is on record saying. Watch the video - Clinton comes across as being quite angry about these Republican claims that he failed to respond to terrorist attacks.

      Where I had already said:

      Basically Clinton's administrative policy was to ignore them as much as possible while as many people were murdered. Only after repeated attacks and complete lack of response by Clinton, did Clinton actually allow a pathetic retaliation which only embolden them to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

      So to be angry about his lack of response after the fact, and after it had already piled on his plate is disingenuous at best. It doesn't matter what party you wish to associate, his response borders on inept and was shamefully inadequate. Anyone who feels differently, either wishes to blindly hold the party line or has yet to understand the actual time line and associated chain of events. To then further suggest only Republicans are shaking a finger at him is to completely ignore reality. The difference being, the Republicans simply capitalized on his ineptitude. That hardly invalidates his ineptitude.

    21. Re:This is Clinton we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really cannot prove a negative. Please cite your sources showing that Clinton did retaliate.

  10. So what? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are these the cards you keep in your wallet, picking one of the sequences (which one not being indicated on the card) to confirm your identity in case you're called upon to satisfy the two-man rule for authorizing a nuclear strike?

    First, someone would be guessing randomly as to which sequence to use.
    Second, someone would have to convince the guy at the other end of the phone--or in person--he was the right person. In DC, that can be tricky, because everyone knows everyone.
    Third, You'd need a SECOND person to help.
    Fourth, when it goes missing, surely you could call NORAD and say "Yo, I'm missing my card."

    Oh, I skimmed the article. The problem isn't that they were missing, it's that President Clinton's aides were afraid to say they'd lost them. They should have been fired or arrested, putting their pride ahead of a fairly important--though hopefully unneeded--element of national security like that.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:So what? by ppattis · · Score: 1

      What would NORAD have to do with Nuclear Weapons?

    2. Re:So what? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      What would NORAD have to do with Nuclear Weapons?

      They are in charge of making sure the missiles don't accidentally hit Santa Claus.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would NORAD have to do with Nuclear Weapons?

      If they can track Santa I'm sure they can find a measly index card.

    4. Re:So what? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that they were missing, it's that President Clinton's aides were afraid to say they'd lost them.

      True. The President's codes are useless unless they're delivered by the President. And Clinton wasn't starting any nukular wars anyway. He's no Bush.

    5. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone in Russia to Air Force Global Strike Command: "Oh dear, I've lost the codes! *cough* *ahem* Please cancel the validity of the current launch codes at once and send new ones by the end of the week!"

  11. Not a comedy of errors by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Informative

    TFA heavily implies that the aid knew the codes were lost but covered up the mistake until the mandatory code change rather than cop to it and get the codes replaced. It seems to me this would be a court-martial offense at the very least.

    That the people checking on such an important document did not communicate with each other or follow up with the President is also appalling.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:Not a comedy of errors by memojuez · · Score: 1

      I agree. The aide should been thrown in jail.

      --
      Signature applied for, Patent Pending
    2. Re:Not a comedy of errors by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because then it would of got out, and even thought they aren't really needed, the risk of a confrontation escalates. The cold war is about that game.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Not a comedy of errors by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      But... it *did* get out. Just now.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Not a comedy of errors by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 1

      I find it highly doubtful that the President was unaware the codes were missing. They are HIS codes. I don't know what would be worse, that the president knew the codes were missing and asked his aids to cover, or that the President himself didn't care enough about the launch codes to KNOW where they were at all times. Either way, somebody should have been court martialed.

    5. Re:Not a comedy of errors by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that occurred to me also, but I was not going to accuse Clinton of losing the launch codes. There are all kinds of tawdry jokes one could make about that, but hell, he's out of office, he'll never be President again, and we're all still in one piece. Let it go.

      But aids, especially military ones, tend to stick around between administrations, and I find that thought a little frightening.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:Not a comedy of errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst... the cold war kinda ended a few years back. Might wanna look into updating your Atlas too... just saying.

    7. Re:Not a comedy of errors by sco08y · · Score: 1

      TFA heavily implies that the aid knew the codes were lost but covered up the mistake until the mandatory code change rather than cop to it and get the codes replaced. It seems to me this would be a court-martial offense at the very least.

      That the people checking on such an important document did not communicate with each other or follow up with the President is also appalling.

      My first inclination is that Clinton's aides couldn't get him to meetings and speeches on time, so why am I not surprised?

      But to be fair, that's the trouble with rules that state "if you lose this, you are in super big trouble." You get two choices: a. admit it and be fired, b. hope no one finds out. If you go with b and they do find out, you're fired, but at least it wasn't guaranteed.

      And, from my experience, if you're stuck with the job of keeping track of something sensitive, and you ask, "so what's the procedure if something is lost?", the answer will be "don't lose it!" It doesn't matter that everyone who has been in for a few years has seen responsible people lose things, the higher-ups just deny the possibility and then when something is inevitably lost, that person is slammed.

    8. Re:Not a comedy of errors by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > But to be fair, that's the trouble with rules that state "if you lose this, you are in super big trouble." You get two choices: a. admit it and be fired, b. hope no one finds out. If you go with b and they do find out, you're fired, but at least it wasn't guaranteed.

      Yes. And setting it up that way, it's a sure bet that something exactly like this will happen. How it *should* work, is "If you lose this, you will immediately follow that procedure. If you lose this and you *do not* follow that procedure, you're in super big trouble."

      > And, from my experience, if you're stuck with the job of keeping track of something sensitive, and you ask, "so what's the procedure if something is lost?", the answer will be "don't lose it!"

      Agreed. This is a guaranteed fail.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:Not a comedy of errors by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Psst. The cold war ended two years before Clinton's first term. Losing the launch codes is still rather a faux pas. Admitting same is still embarrassing and somewhat dangerous.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  12. Human Error? by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    If you lose your library card, that's human error.

    If you lose a nuclear strike card, we need a new term.

  13. Not really an issue... by topham · · Score: 1

    Not really an issue, they were probably the default codes anyway; i mean, why not, that's what they used at the minuteman silos anyway.

    1. Re:Not really an issue... by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      The lost code was:

      1 2 3 4 5

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:Not really an issue... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Not really an issue, they were probably the default codes anyway

      And that's the problem, isn't it? People need to be educated to always change the default!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Not really an issue... by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised my slashdot password didn't show as ***** like it does for me.

    4. Re:Not really an issue... by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

      hunter2

      doesnt look like stars to me

      --
      sudo eat my shorts
  14. Safer than the 60's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you saw the film The Fog of War, you may remember Robert McNamara admittion that when he attempted to force the military to implement a secure command and control system, they set the code to 0000 0000 and left it that way, against orders from the Commander in Chief. The code was an open secret within all the 'Top Brass' allowing anyone with the appropriate rank to fire at will.

    By comparison, would have felt safer believing that no one had the ability to arm and fire nukes for a period of time than believing that any one of the top bullet-heads were able. I have little faith that military minds accept the notion that nuclear warfare should be considered utterly off-limits.

    To me, the nuclear ATM card sitting at the bottom of Clinton's sock drawer is little more than a humorous historical anecdote, if it's true at all.

  15. Well, they better fix this... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our government better fix this and fix it quick. As a U.S. citizen I demand our elective officials overblow this issue into some kind of national security problem and require anyone flying, driving, walking, bicycling, chartering a bus or taking a taxi while entering, leaving or just site seeing our country to be detained, strip searched, beaten (especially if you one of those pesky journalist) and have your personally belongings seized.

    And due to the fact that this lost nuclear activation card can be scanned and uploaded to nefarious websites, we need to completely shut down the internet, restrict television and radio to RIAA and MPAA approved content and revoke all library cards immediately.

    The government needs to be reminded that us citizens are in control, dammit.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Well, they better fix this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was actually funny, in a morbidly terrifying I-just-shit-my-pants sort of way.

    2. Re:Well, they better fix this... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Please stop giving them ideas.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Well, they better fix this... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Christine O'Donnell, is that you?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  16. So what the worst that could have happened? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Troll

    The codes were found by some idiot wannabe cowboy in Texas? Wait, the supreme court did exactly that in 2001, and we still survived.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:So what the worst that could have happened? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry, while Bush is an idiot, he is starting to look brilliant compared to Obama. Quite an impressive feat if you ask me.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:So what the worst that could have happened? by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Sorry, while Bush is an idiot, he is starting to look brilliant compared to Obama. Quite an impressive feat if you ask me.

      You mean, because Obama has to clean up Bush's messes, like 2 wars; the alienation the rest of the world; the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression; the largest deficits in history; poisonous, extremist domestic politics; and almost no progress on any issue in 8 years?

      As soon as Obama adds anything comparable to that list, let me know.

    3. Re:So what the worst that could have happened? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's always easier to look smart, than to actually be smart. Smart people see that the world is complex, and know they don't have all the answers.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:So what the worst that could have happened? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Two Wars? I thought leftwinger didn't protest Afghanistan, only Iraq. I actually think that we should never have done Afghanistan, only carpet bombed the Taliban into their caves and then sealed them in with a bunkerbuster.

      As for Iraq, we should have just bombed all of Sadaam's houses and palaces. There is no need for ground forces once air superiority is achieved.

      Bailing out Wall Street was stupid, buying GM was even more stupid. It was done for the sole purpose of keeping the Union vote. Continuing the policies of Bush and putting tax cheats in charge of the economy was brilliant.

      Alienation of the whole world? Obama instead is alienating much of the citizens he's supposed to represent. And who cares what a bunch of petty dictators say? Obama's running around the world on the apology tour hasn't paid any dividends, and may have actually done more harm than good.

      And the housing market collapse is as much the fault of the left as it is Bush's. The rules for issuing loans all came from Barney Frank's mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

      Bush's Deficits are nothing compared to Obama and the Dems.

      And lastly, if you call the Stupid "Health Care Reform" bill passed by congress and Obama as progress, you're nuts. It is nothing more than another Socialist Wealth Transfer Ponzi Scheme that cannot work. Meanwhile Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt. Lets see Obama tackle the existing problems before piling on with new ones.

      Bush was an idiot, Obama is making him look smart. Exactly what I said.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  17. Good. by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Troll

    I always thought it was foolish for the US to counterstrike, and extinct the human race.

    Obviously it was meant as a deterrent, but the wiser course if Russia attacked would be to say, "Oh damn," and do nothing. The eastern half of the world would fall to Communism, but Homo sapiens would still be alive. And no government lasts forever. Even if it took 500 years eventually the communist empire would bankrupt itself, collapse (as happened with Rome), and a new civilization would arise to fill the gap.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Good. by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every president supplies (maybe supplied?) sealed orders for the nuclear submarines under the north pole ice as far as what to do if the US is nuked into oblivion. Allegedly, at least a few presidents' orders were to stand down in such a situation, and a lot more were to seek out any surviving allies. So at least a few people in positions of power probably agreed with your assessment.

    2. Re:Good. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but you can never, ever, state that opinion, to anyone. Otherwise the house of cards falls down and a real risk of launch can occur. I mean, if you know your enemy won't retaliate there isn't much to stop you. But if both party knows that, and both parties know the other know that both parties know. Then you have a situation where you build them, and every knows there won't be a launch. But if you don't build them, then someone else will and the house of cards collapses.

      It's weird.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we blow ourselves with nukes, what exactly makes you think it won't happen the second time, or the third. How many fuckups do you think the species will survive? Until we colonize some other worlds, humankind is slowly but steadily heading for extinction.

    4. Re:Good. by Raenex · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck that. By the way, that position is the one all the girls held in class when the college professor posed the question in my political science class.

    5. Re:Good. by Chriscypher · · Score: 1

      Every president supplies (maybe supplied?) sealed orders for the nuclear submarines under the north pole ice as far as what to do if the US is nuked into oblivion. Allegedly, at least a few presidents' orders were to stand down in such a situation, and a lot more were to seek out any surviving allies. So at least a few people in positions of power probably agreed with your assessment.

      Citation needed.

      The slashdot story I think you are partially remembering was about British submarine policy, not USA.

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
    6. Re:Good. by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Or, the USSR could have just surrendered. That makes about as much sense as what you suggest and had about as much chance of happening.

      Also, if the U.S. was not willing to counterstrike, then there would be no deterrent. A weapon based deterrent is only as strong as one's will to use the weapon. If one has no will to use the weapon(s), then there is no deterrent.

    7. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately people in power do not think that way -- and this is how they get in power in the first place!

    8. Re:Good. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but you can never, ever, state that opinion, to anyone.

      Nope. Even if I were president, and I had no intention of ever nuking Russia into oblivion, I'd still tell the Soviet Leader that I will destroy them completely. It's just like poker. Make the opponent believe you have a better hand then you really do, so then they will not act.

      But I agree with C64love that a communist Europe is preferable to a whole world destroyed. The US might be rubble, but the survivors in "the old world" and S. America can rebuild, and not have to worry about irradiated landscape.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    9. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you don't believe in punishing criminals.

    10. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. "

  18. You need to be at defcon 1 before you can launch by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    You need to be at defcon 1 before you can launch

  19. Absurd idea to begin with by sosaited · · Score: 1

    The whole idea of having a "football" accompanying a person who can order a Nuclear strike anywhere is just stupid to say the least. When it comes to a weapon that can destroy whole cities without any regard for innocent lives that will be lost, there should be a well planned out and thorough discussion among other Government officials, majority of which should not be military men. In some rare cases, where they think that immediate nuclear strike was the only way to go, it is pretty much a given that the person with the most power will be emotionally distressed and his decisions would not consider anything beyond his mere order.

    1. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cities are irrelevant. The "football" scenario is a surprise ICBM strike against our nuclear response capability.

      The response is not wiping out cities, the response is wiping out civilization and possibly humanity.

      It's he "AD" part of MAD.

      Who do you think should be making the choice to potentially wipe out humanity or just accept being wiped out ourselves? You have minutes to decide before you no longer have a choice to make. Leave it to a career military guy? Or the elected President?

    2. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by sosaited · · Score: 1

      First of all, there is such a small chance of a scenario being created that posits "being wiped out ourselves", and using this assumption (which will most likely be made out of fear/hatred and not facts) to even consider wiping out humanity seems to have some Hollywood-inspired thinking.

      Second, considering that we don't live in a binary world, we always have choices that don't end killing millions, to save yourself or a few hundred. But considering the human psyche, and decision making in a hurry, the easy route, despite being an inhumane one, will be used by the person under the pressure or emotional stress. You remove the choice itself, and you are bound to think and find other solutions to your problem

      And lastly my whole point was that one person, President nor a general, should have the authority to make a decision that will have long lasting and terrible consequences, to other countries and to your own as well.

    3. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      The "football" was the launch authentication system. The reason for allowing the president to launch a nuclear strike is because there will not be time for a "thorough discussion among other Government officials" because in the event of a nuclear launch against the United States, there will be less 30 minutes to gathers said officials, brief them, get them to come to a consensus, provide notification their decision, and then actually implement said decision.

      Your idea of how nuclear war would occur are ignorant of the real-world facts.

    4. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by sosaited · · Score: 1

      What exactly are "real-world" facts about nuclear war that you are referring to? Considering that the only country that used Nuclear weapons was US, and that certainly was not in response to a nuclear attack on US first. Fear of something that might never happen, but which you have presumed might happen influences your decisions, even before they are even necessary.

    5. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      In which case there's no MAD, and the other side can just launch their nukes at you knowing that you won't nuke them back. Given you don't have anyone to make the actual decision.

      There is no "save yourself" in the first place, you're already dead since the other side has launched. The millions have already been killed.

      The idea is that there isn't a choice to make, it's already been decided that the response is to launch everything we have at them before our laucnh capability is destroyed. The decision being made is "is this really happening or is it just a huge mistake". You only have minutes to decide. And in a democractic republic the elected President gets to make the final call (well in theory).

      Hence the loss of the codes isn't a problem at all, it is really irrelevant whether you launch of not since it doesn't change that you are dead. You just need the other side to believe you have the capability and will to retaliate, and a stupid "football" serves that purpose just fine. There are spies and espionage going on, so if you are just pretending and the "football" does nothing at all, then only the very top of the chain will know that so from out perspective (not being at the top) nothing changes.

      MAD is a very stupid situation to be in. But once you are there you are stuck...

    6. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by sosaited · · Score: 1

      The nuclear football is not the only method by which US can launch counter-attacks (or first attacks), so other side would have to be from pre-WWII era to think that they won't be nuked back. And the extreme case imaginable being that every nuclear country launched at US, it still won't be able to take out the launch capability, would it?

      Not everyone is as trigger-happy as Will Smith from Bad Boys. There should be someone, or more than a few people to give you some perspective. And that can't be done if you have all the authority and power to take action at an instance. The President is surely elected to make decisions for the country, but a decision like this should not be made by one person alone.

    7. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's not the only method. But keeping the President in the loop on such a critical piece would seem to me to be an important part of being a democratic republic.

      I would have assumed it wouldn't be possible to launch a first strike via that mechanism in the first place. But both sides played faster and looser with their nuclear head butting than I was comfortable with back when I was young enough to actually worry...

    8. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      The default choice is to launch and wipe out humanity or MAD no longer applies and your enemies can nuke you at will.

    9. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      The 30 minute timeline is based on the ability of ICBMs to reach target in that time frame. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you lock you car? Do you protect your identity and banking information? Why? Because of "fear of something that might never happen, but which you have presumed might happen".

    10. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's he "AD" part of MAD.

      There are many Active Directory sites I'd like to see blow up...

    11. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know what MY choice would be. Not responding and saving humanity is the only sane and logical thing to do. Anything else is blatant revenge, exerted on people who had no more say in the firing of the weapons than did the population that put me in power to make this choice. Responding with our own nukes is not going to save me or my already targeted people. This is one of the consequences of the absolute destructiveness of abundant, earth-as-we-know-it-destroying nuclear weapons.

    12. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave it to a career military guy? Or the elected President?

      The president. He has been chosen by the people that are about to die in the millions in that scenario and he is at least supposed to represent their values as well. Besides, there's no career military guy that can claim experience in nuking cities and even if the president doesn't have a military background, he certainly understands the implications better than the military guy.

    13. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by sosaited · · Score: 1

      Keeping your door locked is a heck lot different than keeping a powerful bazooka like weapon capable to destroying a whole neighbourhood. And if you have it, there is more chance you will be tempted to use even if a cat broke into your home.

    14. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Who do you think should be making the choice to potentially wipe out humanity or just accept being wiped out ourselves? You have minutes to decide before you no longer have a choice to make. Leave it to a career military guy? Or the elected President?

      If at all possible, that choice should be automatic, not a choice. Strangely enough, as others have pointed out here, this is the best method for ensuring that this scenario never unfolds.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    15. Re:Absurd idea to begin with by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      Your reasoning is false because the criminals also have "a powerful bazooka like weapon capable of destroying a whole neighbourhood" and they are willing to use it. You act like they do not have and/or are not willing to use nuclear weapons, and that is patently false.

  20. Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by dtjohnson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously Clinton had decided he would never push the button and didn't much care about the button's whereabouts. If Russia had decided to launch 500 nuclear warheads at the U.S., there wouldn't have been much point in pushing the button anyway, other than, perhaps, for some sort of twisted revenge. Nuclear weapons are the kind of weapon that gives Iran's Ahmadinejad an Islamic hard-on...just thinking about nuking Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and...perhaps New York and Los Angeles...and...even better...thinking about the massive amount of fear that the the intended victims will experience in the time leading up to the actual nuking. Fear...it's all about fear. Clinton was not someone who wanted anyone to be afraid anywhere...more of an anti-fear President.

    1. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by FencingLion · · Score: 0

      Ahmadinejad, as president of Iran, is not in control of the armed forces. He would not be the one with his hand on the button. Even if he was, what makes you think he want's to nuke Israel and the US? You've been watching too much CNN, I think.

      --
      Just keep swimming.
    2. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make Love, not war.

      With anyone and everyone.

    3. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by epdp14 · · Score: 1

      Even if he was, what makes you think he want's to nuke Israel and the US? You've been watching too much CNN, I think.

      Umm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel Pretty sure he wants to wipe Israel "from the pages of history"... granted that may or may not include nuclear weapons.

    4. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand where people get these mad ideas about Iran's nuclear ambitions ("weapon that gives Iran's Ahmadinejad an Islamic hard-on"). It's true that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran became a European democracy, it would be pursuing a nuclear weapon. It is a national aspiration of a pround regional superpower.

      Iran knows that nuclear weapons will give it immunity against Israel and the U.S. and boost its sway over the whole region. They will also strenghten the status of Shiites, who are being persecuted and slaughtered in the Sunni-dominated countries. But Iran has never shown any signs of military expansionism (unlike, say, Israel and the United States).

      Iran is best left on their own devices. The corrupt Iranian government is threatening only their own people, who after what happened in Iraq don't even dream of being "liberated" by the Americans. Let them have their weapon. And the Israeli regime, who's earned its right to be paranoid, should use the few remaining years to make up with the Palestinians no matter how much it hates the prospect of peace.

    5. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      After the early-warning alarms most of the leadership would be in bunkers. If they ever want to come out and go live in Paris or Johannesburg or wherever is left they would certainly have to launch a counter-strike.

      Neglecting the nuclear deterrent only shows a defiance of "fear" by making the feared possibility into reality. It is not beyond the KGB-FSB to have arranged this "loss".

    6. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      500 nuclear warheads, while devastating, would not destroy the USA, much less our allies.

      In which case the rational act, as I believe, would be to nuke Russia back. It might seem strange, but it's been the basis of our peace for the last 60+ years.

      It's scary, yes. But a single nuke has nothing on the death toll another conventional WW would cause.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by Minwee · · Score: 1

      As always, "Yes Prime Minister" has the answers to your political questions.

      Sir Humphrey Appleby (Mr. Hacker's permanent secretary): With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
      Jim Hacker (Prime Minister of the UK): I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe!
      Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent.
      Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it.
      Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t.
      Hacker: They probably do.
      Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know.
      Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t.
      Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would!

      Mr. Hacker also learns about when to push the button and what a nuclear deterrent really means. Thirty years later it isn't any less true.

    8. Re:Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button by moortak · · Score: 1

      Iran has had conventional strike capability against Israel for decades and hasn't made direct use of them lately. The leadership of Iran may be many things, but suicidal doesn't seem to be on of them.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  21. This is UNIX... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this!!!

  22. Not a good thing, but nobody was in danger. by gimmebeer · · Score: 1

    Those are just part of the authentication process to initiate something like a launch. Still, it looks bad on those who lost them.

  23. It's not really that dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't just call someone up read them the codes and then they all launch.

    Also, you don't actually need them to launch. If you think about it, it makes sense. Otherwise you could conventionally kill the president, then we wouldn't be able to retaliate.

    There are many checks an balances, and it is a well trained and tested process with no single point of failure.

    The worst part is that FE Warren sucks.

  24. Not lost by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just mixed up with all the phone numbers on cocktail napkins and bar coasters.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  25. This just in from President Clinton by Ancantus · · Score: 1

    I did not sleep with that woman holding the launch codes.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
  26. Oh piss off by linumax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If North Korea and Iran were to use any WMDs they would have used chemical weapons which they both had for decades. Hell, for eight years, Iran didn't use chemical weapons against Saddam even in retaliation. Maybe if you stop watching Fox News, you'd notice the leaders portrayed as demonic figures bent on bringing hell on earth are actually very pragmatic people and that's exactly why they manage to stay in power.

    1. Re:Oh piss off by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      You're conflating several things here. The true leaders of Iran are zealots. The people are pragmatic and do not want the zealots. Ahmadinejad is little more than a figure head. He does weld some power but its strictly at the whims of the zealot clergy.

      The clergy walk a careful line because they know it would not be too difficult to trigger a serious uprising, costing them their leadership to the pragmatic population. Just the same, that should in no way be conflated to say the leadership is pragmatic. Furthermore, Iran has many ties to extremists groups, directly funding many of them. In fact, much of the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan directly and indirectly leads back to Iran. Its easily within the realm of plausibility that a nuclear device might find its way to some of these groups which would not hesitate to use it on a mutually offensive group.

      Under no means should Iran be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

    2. Re:Oh piss off by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between 'believers' and 'zealots'.

      The actual leaders of Iran do indeed believe everything they say...but you'll also note that they are the ones saying that nuclear weapons are against Islam.

      That's not to mention that Iran is Shia, and would hardly be supporting the Sunni Palestinians. They support Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is attempting to run Lebanon and Syria, and would hardly nuke them.

      Iran is the most absurdly overblown 'threat' to the middle east peace, ever. Iran doesn't give a damn about Israel, and is essentially mouthing whatever they think sounds good on that topic. Iran cares about Syria and Lebanon, and there's no way that nuking anyone could result in control of them.

      It also cares about the US not invading it, as the US has been, rather illegally with no justification under international law, threatening to do. They've realized we apparently don't invade places with nukes.

      If an extremism group get a nuke and blow up Israel, it will be from Pakistan, handed off to some crazy Palestinian group. (And I mean 'crazy'. You can't blow up Israel without blowing up Palestine.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Oh piss off by sco08y · · Score: 1

      If North Korea and Iran were to use any WMDs they would have used chemical weapons which they both had for decades. Hell, for eight years, Iran didn't use chemical weapons against Saddam even in retaliation. Maybe if you stop watching Fox News, you'd notice the leaders portrayed as demonic figures bent on bringing hell on earth are actually very pragmatic people and that's exactly why they manage to stay in power.

      The main reason the Iranians didn't use chemical weapons is because biological and chemical agents are very difficult to employ. If your people don't have good protective gear, and neither the Iraqis nor the Iranians have it, the use of dispersed agents can backfire if the wind changes. Further, the actual result is not that a large number of casualties are caused (most people will survive if they get up high and into the sunlight, since wind and sun disperse and break down the agents) but that the area becomes contaminated and unusable. So, again, without protective gear, they are not useful tactically beyond covering your withdrawal.

      Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, used them explicitly as weapons of mass terror, even against his own people. They are fairly effective if you're trying to kill a significant number of civilians and, since the area becomes contaminated, make everyone in the area instantly homeless. (Yes, thank you President George W Bush, it is amazing how much better the region is doing now that Hussein is dead.)

      Ahmadinejad, who has been president since 2005, certainly isn't as bad as Hussein was, but he's still a very dangerous character and it's incredibly irresponsible for us to pretend it's safe for him to have nukes.

    4. Re:Oh piss off by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you stop watching Fox News, you'd notice the leaders portrayed as demonic figures bent on bringing hell on earth are actually very pragmatic people and that's exactly why they manage to stay in power.

      Well, yeah, *that* and election fraud.

      p.s. I actually get most of my news from NPR, with some CNN, BBC, CSM and others thrown in. Somehow I doubt you actually take in the "other sides'" 'news' sources and just wallow in your own intellectual filth.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    5. Re:Oh piss off by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The actual leaders of Iran do indeed believe everything they say...but you'll also note that they are the ones saying that nuclear weapons are against Islam.

      You need to review your statement. These are the same people building nuclear facilities.

      Iran is the most absurdly overblown 'threat' to the middle east peace, ever.

      History says otherwise. Iraq/Iran have always been central themes/threats to stability in the region. That's not to say there are not other players, but these two have been the heavy players. Now that Iraq is down and out, Iran becomes the single, significant player.

      If an extremism group get a nuke and blow up Israel, it will be from Pakistan, handed off to some crazy Palestinian group. (And I mean 'crazy'. You can't blow up Israel without blowing up Palestine.)

      Not true in the least. Check your facts on nukes.

    6. Re:Oh piss off by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You need to review your statement. These are the same people building nuclear facilities.

      No, they aren't. There's no evidence they've been building anything but nuclear power.

      Which they're doing in secret, because other countries apparently think it's fucking acceptable to bomb them. (Which is, of course, trying to make war, which is a war crime.)

      History says otherwise. Iraq/Iran have always been central themes/threats to stability in the region.

      Really? Why don't you list the countries Iran's invaded, then?

      Why, the last one appears to be India. In 1738. Which logically makes England a greater threat to stability in the region, considering that England conquered India after that.

      Just saying 'central themes/threats' like that doesn't magically make them 'threats'. And neither does including Iraq in there, which has been a major source of instability in the region...ever since we stuck Saddam in charge and encouraged him to fucking invade anywhere he wanted.

      Iran has always been an important country, it has always been a major player central to the region, and it continue to do so. It's just not a threat to anything but our control of the region.

      The US is, by any objective measurement, a much stronger force for instability in the region. We overthrew Iran's government, we supported Iraq when it invaded Iran, we support the wildly insane government of Pakistan, we armed the Taliban, we encouraged Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon, etc, etc.

      Iran just sits there and tries to build influence in nearby countries. Granted, some of the groups it funds are not the nicest people, but just because the US tries to claim Hezbollah are terrorists doesn't actually make that true. (Hezbollah is a 'militia', if you're wondering.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  27. Too bad it was 2004... by mjs_ud · · Score: 3, Funny

    If it were more recent they probably would have been backed up on wikileaks.

    --
    return EXIT_SUCCESS;
  28. The real reason Monica was on her knees by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    she was helping him look for the launch codes

    Shamelessly stolen from Fark

  29. fact? by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.

    I think you're right about Iran. The nuke program is more about prestige and internal politics than about an actual desire to use 'em. But we're certainly well into the realm of speculation about matters of human motivation and judgement, and pretty far afield from facts.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  30. One day in the oval office... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill: Here sweetie, take my number, feel free to call me for anything.
    Monica: Sure, Bill. But isn't this piece of paper important? It looks like there are some passwords on here and launch instructions...
    Bill: Don't worry, baby. Say, come over here and I'll show you a launch.
    Monica: ...

  31. Timing of the book is suspicious by youn · · Score: 1

    obviously it's not a good thing the codes and it's a bit freaky codes were lost... but why now? the story is very old... and how come this book is coming out around time of elections, depicting a democrat in a bad light?

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  32. That kind of failure is acceptable to me by erroneus · · Score: 1

    This kind of failure errs on the side of non-destruction. It's better than a system that requires the periodic entry of codes to keep a system from being armed ain't it?

  33. Euro 100,000,000,000 For The Return Of Lost Codes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or else.

    Yours In Crime,
    ( Former ) President-VICE Richard B. Cheney.

  34. Obama by Boronx · · Score: 1

    And people laugh at obama for wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Obama by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you can't launch 'em, why have 'em?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  35. How is this a problem?!?! by lisany · · Score: 1

    How is this a problem?? We couldn't nuke the planet for a few months? That's a fucking selling point folks.

  36. Overreaction by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Konami code Easter Egg would have worked if needed.

  37. Game-changer by srussia · · Score: 1

    FTFS:This confirms a similar allegation, made in 2004 by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a military aide who frequently carried the 'nuclear football' during the Clinton presidency.

    I demand a video review. They refs should have called a fumble.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  38. I know where they were! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were in Monica Lewinsky's purse the whole time!

  39. Changing the the key phrases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they have to change the key phrases I suggest "antiquing". Now that Rahm Emanuel is gone its probably safe to use "ass".

  40. Didn't someone else lose something by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Did he leave it at Gourmet Haus Staudt?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  41. Spot on. by jamrock · · Score: 2, Informative

    Turns out a group mentality can culminate into an irrational act like nuclear war.

    You're exactly correct. In the years leading up to World War I, the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm II was an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist state seeking to make a mark in global affairs, their "place in the sun", as the Kaiser put it. England and France put aside their ancient enmity to face this new threat as allies, with France particularly thirsting for revenge after their humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

    [ Bismarck had orchestrated the war in order to unify the various German kingdoms into an empire under Wilhelm I, King of Prussia. After a bloody, destructive invasion of France, Wilhelm was crowned Kaiser in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, a humiliation the French never forgot. That led to them imposing harsh reparations on Germany under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles after the German defeat in WW I, which ultimately ruined the Germany economy and fueled the ultranationalist movement in Germany, culminating in Hitler's rise to power. The seeds of World War II were sown in the War of 1870.]/digression.

    People forget that the general public in Britain, France, and Germany were clamoring for war, and at the outbreak of hostilities, when Germany mobilized after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, cheering crowds filled the streets of London in celebration, prompting Foreign Secretary Edward Grey's prophetic statement: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."

    As German forces streamed westward, it began to dawn on the Kaiser what he had unleashed, and he ordered his General Staff to immediately recall them, only to be told that it was far too late, and that Germany would be at a severe military disadvantage if they were to turn aside. The wheels were already in motion and England and France were eager for war; they would not accept any negotiations at such a late stage. Thus Wilhelm could only watch helplessly as the genie he released from the bottle swept across Europe and irrevocably shaped the history of the 20th Century.

  42. Monica.... by mrops · · Score: 1

    ...isn't this the same time frame as the Monica Lewinsky thing. I mean I too would loose nuke codes if I had a cigar and Monica at my desk.

    1. Re:Monica.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps rolling a cigar using the nuclear codes as paper would make one feel a very big man and Lewinsky one very happy lady. After all, how many ladies have been helped with a cigar rolled from nuclear launch codes for thousands of really big missiles?

    2. Re:Monica.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Perhaps rolling a cigar using the nuclear codes as paper would make one feel a very big man and Lewinsky one very happy lady. After all, how many ladies have been helped with a cigar rolled from nuclear launch codes for thousands of really big missiles?"

      Let's not forget..Monica was a pretty BIG and hefty girl.

      If you were playing hide the launch code with her...well, it could easily get lost...even if you did later use a bag of flour, if you know what I mean.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  43. Soooo...... by human-cyborg · · Score: 1

    They were behind the couch the whole time?

  44. What has happened to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It used to be a place of reason. Now it's a den of excuse making.

  45. It wasn't LOST... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You see, Bill wrote some girl's number on the back - and had it tucked away from Hillary.

    That was the 90's - you know, before he could just add her to his Mobile.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:It wasn't LOST... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      before he could just add her to his Mobile.

      I thought you meant his blackberry.

  46. you guys! by cheap.computer · · Score: 1

    He just kept it where he kept his cigars...

  47. So what does this mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Presumably, since very few of us really knows how this works, and those that do are probably under strict guidelines not to tell, it is hard to know how much of an issue not having this card is. I am sure we can all think of movie plot dire disasters that would result from the loss of this card, but how many of these are realistic? I am much more concerned with the Oath Keepers in the active military who are on record as being unwilling to fullfil their constitutionally required duties. If the president does ordera nuclear strike, how many of these would rather let the country be destroyed than run by someone is is not one of them.

    In any case, this glosses over the issue that nuclear arsenal was build by the lowest bidder and has not been practically tested in a generation. The computer models should be accurate. testing at the component and subsystem should lead to high level or reliability, but who really knows? How much incentive is there in a free market system to achieve high quality when you know the product is never really going to be used?

    The nuclear arsenal is a shadow game, with secrecy and bluffs going a long way to prevent wide spread destruction. And when are we going to use them? People from Saudi Arabia planned the attack on 9/11. but Riyadh stands there radiation free? Is it when the terrorists invade England, when the armada crosses the Pacific, or when they are attacking New York or California, or not until they make it to Iowa. It is a threat, and as such it requires only a facade capable of fooling out friends.

  48. Republican Propaganda by mbone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is total BS, but it is convenient it appears just before the mid-term elections (the mention of Carter is a dead give-away here). I have much too much respect for the people in the DNA to give this any credence. It may be something was lost, but I don't think for one instant that this jeopardized our nuclear deterrence in the slightest.

    I don't know where to start, except to say that the story as written implies a security system for the frakking nuclear force that wouldn't pass an elementary security review. Tokens may always be lost or compromised, and must be replaceable at will. Presidents go jogging, swimming, fishing, etc., meet foreign leaders (and even take them to places like Camp David); it must be assumed that the "biscuit" could be compromised at any time and thus must be replaceable at any time. Further, if the President is in the White House, on Air Force One, at Camp David, etc., there is an infrastructure around him that includes plenty of people that could vouch for him. If SAC commanders have an ability to launch if communications with the National Command Authority is lost (and they do), then I don't believe for an instant that the President in the White House situation room couldn't give any necessary orders. Further, it is not reasonable to expect that even the most conscientious leader will always have the biscuit on him. (In the bath ? While scuba diving ? Horse back riding ? Or, clearing brush at some Texas ranch ?) Again, I do not believe that our deterrence will fail because no one figured that the President might be a few miles from his coat when the crisis came.

    So, I call BS on this. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

    1. Re:Republican Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You seem to think that the American president and military heads don't really take all this nuclear stuff and total-destruction-of-civilization all that importantly, do you? An always-present aid to the president is given the secret codes to launch nuclear weapons, and it's no big deal that the codes were misplaced or lost? If we could just as easily launch without them, I would assume that they were not necessary to begin with, then it would be pointless to make sure the president always has the nuclear football at hand. But they ALWAYS do. (Supposed to, unless you surround yourself with incompetents.) But then again, is seems as if our nuclear deterrence was designed with the idea of the president always having access to these launch codes. Hmm. Problem? Nah. After all, you don't need keys to your car and house, right? You could just break out the windows to get in, yes? That works just as well, and my guess is (from your train of thought) that you must get really wet when you drive home from work when it's raining. Yeah, who needs them? You can probably find them on eBay, right? The president could just make a bunch of calls to get the nuclear ball rolling, hoping that everyone involved is at their phone with nothing else to do. Oh, wait, the enemy will try to jam communications, most likely. Eh, who cares? Silly person. Do us all a favor; please never run for any elected office.

  49. Re:You need to be at defcon 1 before you can launc by mbone · · Score: 1

    Don't bet on that.

  50. Kargil War by careysub · · Score: 1
    Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries at each other's throats for decades after they gained their independence, yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased.

    Not quite. The Kargil War was fought between May and July 1999, after both nations had conducted nuclear tests and declared themselves nuclear armed.

    Similarly, the Yom Kippur War in 1973 was an attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt at a time that both nations knew Israel was nuclear armed, and the Falkland Island War was fought against a nuclear armed UK.

    What these all have in common is that they are limited wars. Kargil was small (~50,000 soldiers engaged combined) and fought over limited terrain. The Yom Kippur War huge, but the objectives of the attackers was limited, they were seeking to recover some (in the case of Egypt) or all (in the case of Syria) of their national soil lost in a war only 6 years before. The Falkland War was a colossal blunder mostly by one man (Admiral Jorge Anaya), rather than a well planned operation, but one indicates that the UKs nuclear forces were entirely discounted.

    Nuclear weapons make the world safe for limited war, but that is enormously preferable to the unlimited kind.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  51. Not lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had my copy. All they had to do was ask.

  52. Yes! and I still cheer on the computer! by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Its supposed to be a shocking tragic situation with a dire ending as a warning to the audiences of the day but I thought the ending was a happy one.

    1. Re:Yes! and I still cheer on the computer! by gagol · · Score: 1

      I perceived the whole movie, and especially the ending as a profound reflexion on the destiny and purpose of humankind. And I still have not answered that conundrum.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  53. That explains everything by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Monica was just helping to look for them

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  54. Please consider by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Consider combining this Slashdot story with the next one about Bible.com. The obvious conclusion is that the lost launch codes are hidden in the Bible. I KNEW it! Clinton is off the hook.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  55. BFD by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    The lost code book means nothing. Hell, you can command the launch from pay phone in a whore house. The procedure is totally controlled using sealed authenticators and messages in special formats.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,101361-3,00.html

    I had the combo to the outer SAS safe.

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  56. Happened before by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    It's happened before. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football

    Carter left it in his suit and had it sent for Dry-cleaning. Clinton was at a public event and when he left, the colonel who was carrying the football was left behind at the field.

  57. Codes aren't replacable? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't you think that there would be a procedure in place for deprecating and replacing the codes with new ones in case the they get lost or Glen Beck steals them?

    1. Re:Codes aren't replacable? by pavon · · Score: 1

      RTFA. Yes there is a procedure in place to replace them if lost, but that does no good when the aid who lost the codes doesn't tell anyone and lies when asked about them.

  58. robspe by robspe · · Score: 1

    So what's the statute of limitations for treason anyway? Funny none of this came out at the time. A real news media would have at least brought this up. Oh, but I forgot, our first black President is a Democrat. And if it had happened around the time of the impeachment trial, just think what a nice article that would have made. Just think what kind of leverage this information would have given the Chinese if it had happened at the time of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade or to a nuclear armed Muslim power like Pakistan at the time of the bombing of the aspirin factory in Sudan or the mini-war against Saddam, which, including the no-fly zone bombings, never ended for Clinton's whole term. Of course a slick cool guy like Willie could never be held responsible for something like this. What if he told his aide to lose the codes on purpose because he didn't believe in using nuclear weapons - on orders from Hillary, no doubt? But even if he knew nothing about it, he's still responsible. Oh, but that's an obsolete concept, I'm sorry! "I was only acting on orders" has been replaced by "the buck never got here."

  59. Lewinsky had them all the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to worry.

  60. Outsourced Launch by WED+Fan · · Score: 0

    Nah, just outsource it.

    Call Center: Hi, my name is Gupta...er...Steve, who am I speaking to?

    Customer: General Mayhem at NORAD.

    Call Center: Very good, General. We appreciate your call, your business is very important to us. How may I assist you today?

    Customer: We'd like a nuclear strike on North Korea.

    Call Center: Very good, you want a nuclear strike on North Korea. I can authorize that in just a few minutes. While we are waiting, can I take a minute to tell you about some of our other warfare options you may not know about?

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  61. I expect Marceaux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to say that he will fine everyone 10 $ if they don't carry nuclear launch codes in their pocket.

  62. On the part about intoxication of Blair by thrill12 · · Score: 1

    Que the famous Dr. Strangelove movie with this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWP_rEWG2xk

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  63. You can be sure this didn't happen in Russia... by Megane · · Score: 1

    ...because in Soviet Russia, nuclear codes lose YOU!

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  64. Re:My question is... by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    You mean this torpedo incident? You may like to check the Chinese and Russian versions of the analysis. The version you seem to consider correct is about as watertight as Cheonan during her final minutes.

  65. comedy of errors? by proudhawk · · Score: 1

    OMG. I always knew the clinton administration was like a circus full of clowns. or perhaps they were keystone cops. who knows?

    --
    Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
  66. It does not increase my thrust in the system, by drolli · · Score: 1

    that they are not able to handle such a situation by changing and regenerating the codes (e.g. a certain number of persons could have a distributed key to decrypt the codes only if more than 3 of them agree). I also would have hoped that the codes them are only decrypted when used on the appropriate terminal, and that this encryption can be changed. Trusting that the card is save against theft, loosing it, or damage is not very wise.

  67. Re:My question is... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    I'm fully aware of the alternate explanations. Sadly, all that I've read have far, far, far more holes than the official explanation. Furthermore, the damage inflicted is typical of a modern torpedo design.

    You need to keep in mind, some have even suggested it ran aground; which is even more absurd given the depths at which it sank.

    Bluntly, until there is credible evidence to discount the official story, which is at least comparable in strength and credibility, there isn't anything else to consider. That's not to say the official story is the only possible explanation...its just the most likely based on readily available, credible information.

  68. Re:My question is... by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    True. However also remember there are subjects with strong interest on the upkeep of the tension in the region. Also remember previous incidents with official explanations, from the Tonkin Gulf to the battleship Maine.

  69. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are the Puppeteers?
    President Clinton lost his nuclear codes.
    President Bush lost his nuclear warheads.