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.
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!
>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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.