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."
Turn the decision making over to a computer. I'm sure it can't find the launch codes.
"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
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
If it were more recent they probably would have been backed up on wikileaks.
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
Well duh.
Democrats are unamerican, and strategerizing like that just hurts the thinkbone.
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.
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?
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
"(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.
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.
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.
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