Slashdot Mirror


Power Failure Shuts Down 50 US Nuclear Missiles

Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that a power failure at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming took 50 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), one-ninth of the US missile stockpile, temporarily offline on Saturday. The 90th Missile Wing, headquartered there, controls 150 Minuteman IIIs. According to people briefed on what happened, a squadron of ICBMs suddenly dropped down into what's known as 'LF Down' status, meaning that the missileers in their bunkers could no longer communicate with the missiles themselves. LF Down status also means that various security protocols built into the missile delivery system, like intrusion alarms and warhead separation alarms, were offline. The cause of the failure remains unknown, although it is suspected to be a breach of underground cables deep beneath the base, according to a senior military official."

338 comments

  1. All your base by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    are offline!

    1. Re:All your base by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Sure, everybody make jokes. So I forgot to pay the cable bill last month. We got cut off, but then I paid for it and we were reconnected right away.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:All your base by Rei · · Score: 1

      Isn't information that could provide tips to an enemy on how to disable huge numbers of their foes' nuclear missiles one of those little things that you DON'T TALK ABOUT?

      --
      We couldn't decide whether to bury or cremate grandma, so in the end we let her live.
  2. Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by scourfish · · Score: 4, Funny

    Our stockpiles are ruined! how can we protect ourselves with only 5463 warheads?

    1. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by corbettw · · Score: 1

      50 / (1/9) != 5513.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Meh, I guess we'd have to leave Antarctica out when we launch the rest.

    3. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      It's called a MIRV.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Funny
      Scratch that link. It's called a MIRV. Stupid Google preview faked me out with the disambiguation. :( BUT THE POINT REMAINS!

      (Why does Wikipedia have an article on the stupid band, anyway? *grumble grumble deletionist nazi sentiments go here, grumble*)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    5. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I don't get it - is this some geek culture reference?

      The article says 50 missiles, 1/9th of our arsenal, which implies a total arsenal of 450 missiles.

      I realize that each missile can carry more than one warhead, but I don't think they each carry 12.14 warheads. I thought that the maximum was 10 or 12 and I thought that some treaty cut that back to 1 or 2?

    6. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by treeves · · Score: 1

      True, but (X/9) != 50.
      Hell, two Ohio class SSBNs have (the capacity for) almost 50 nuclear (Trident, MIRV) missiles.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Our 450 land based Minuteman III each have one warhead

    8. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by moonbender · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to Wikipedia, the START II treaty would have banned the use of MIRVs on ICBMs. However, START II was never activated, so I guess there is no legal limit. The Minutemen III ICBM can carry 3 MIRVs.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    9. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by treeves · · Score: 2, Informative

      Each SLBM (which they must be totally ignoring, since we have 14 SSBNs, each of which can carry 24 Trident D-5 SLBMs) can carry 8 MIRVs.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    10. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by cgenman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, the far more frightening thing is that someone can take out a base full of nuclear missiles with a backhoe and a bottle of Jager. My server room at least has a UPS, and the fate of the free world doesn't depend on that.

    11. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      The minuteman 3 currently only carries a single warhead (although it was designed to hold MIRVs)

    12. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First it wasn't a power failure the caused the problem, it was a cable problem. I imagine those cables have intrusion protection, which if it's anything like the old 4-wire secure telephone lines they have a lot more false alarms than they have missed alarms. It would be like your server room's network shuts down any time a ping detects a signal reflection change to foil a man-in-the-middle attack or a snooping device.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It's the supposed number of warheads we have. I don't think he realized that they are not all kept sitting on missiles at the ready...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You are assuming (most likely incorrectly) that every warhead we have is sitting at the top of a missile...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    15. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Not all of them are missile-based, anyway. We still have a lot of free-fall bombs with nuclear warheads.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      400 nuclear missiles ought to be enough for anyone.

    17. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      A non-shooty failure mode is, I think, desirable in that situation.

      That's one reason why there are plenty of spare nukes.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Math is hard; let's go hating America!

      (Disclaimer: nobody needs - or should have - 450 ICBMs, not even us.)

    19. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be fair, the far more frightening thing is that someone can take out a base full of nuclear missiles with a backhoe and a bottle of Jager.

      Now we know what those Chilean miners were really up to.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    20. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Magada · · Score: 1

      Actually, TFA is assuming that.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    21. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fate of the free world

      ah ah, thanks for the laugh

    22. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 / (1/9) != 5513.

      Gateway error?

    23. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me guess: "free world" equals the United States?

    24. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by GreatNull · · Score: 1

      Oh, naiveté of some people nowadays is so heartwarming. What did you think it meant, pumpkin? Please, do carry on.

    25. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't know that? What planet are you from...

    26. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by atrain728 · · Score: 1
    27. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      I believe, where the launch of nuclear missles is concerned, "free world" might as well mean planet earth.

    28. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A non-shooty failure mode is, I think, desirable in that situation.

      YES! I would hope that these sites are designed in such a way that any disruption of power or control systems is interpreted as a potential loss of control, and makes the missiles not go whoosh.

    29. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means his little corner of his little country. They have fascinating local cheeses, their GDP rivals Zappos' annual revenue, and their national defense strategy can best be summed up as "Sure, we'd fall like a house of cards, but our neighbors and allies might be alarmed enough to do something about it. In the meantime, feel free to influence our local elections."

    30. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think 'free world' is a subset of all nations with nuclear missiles pointed at them.

    31. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      We also have a bunch of SLBMs

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    32. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by McTickles · · Score: 0

      The fate of the free world? Since when does "the free world" depend on America?

    33. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Too bad they scratched Atomic Annie. Otherwise we could have another nuclear piece for the times when you need to take out something 7 miles away o_0

    34. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by molo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US nuclear umbrella covers NATO, Japan and Korea. That is a pretty good portion of the free world.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    35. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      The last non-proliferation act stated that there's only 1 warhead per missle.

    36. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      No! Now we only have enough firepower to destroy all life on earth 90 times over instead of 100! What are we going to do?

    37. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Right, 450 missiles; and while I doubt that we're really only loading one warhead per missile, surely we're not loading an average of over 12.

      However, not every U.S. warhead is on an ICBM.

    38. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not. It says 50 missiles is 1/9 of our missile stockpile; it says nothing about our total number of warheads. (In fact TFA claims that some of the ICBM's have multiple warheads. I don't know if that's true in the current configuration; others have pointed out that it isn't supposed to be.)

      Saying we have 450 missiles is still vaguely inaccurate. 1/9 of our ICBM stockpile would (I believe) be correct, but those things on subs that aren't coutned in the 450 are, in many cases, also missiles.

    39. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      No, he means Canada. They're our first target, and if these missiles were down, they wouldn't have been able to hit that third caribou on the left in Saskatchewan. He's been looking a bit shifty, and we've got to make sure he isn't up to something.

    40. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please lay out a global strategic plan for nuclear deterrant and defense to set an upper bound on the number of ICBM's "anyone" needs. Don't forget that some nukes will probably be duds, and in many threat scenarios some will be taken out in their silos. ...Oh, you're not a military strategist? Then why are we listening to your estimate of how many missiles "anyone" needs?

      Before you start, I'm also not a military strategist - hence I'm not citing a number of ICBM's I think we need. However, while the Cold War is in the past, it would be a foolish assumption that we'd never have a stand-off with another concentrated nuclear power.

      You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

    41. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: "free world" equals the United States?

      AND their lackeys! :D
      Hmmm, second-hand freedom... delicious!

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    42. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Right, exactly.

      Except the ICBM complexes have far more failsafes than just the UPS you have. And (headilne and summary notwithstanding) it wasn't a power issue (nor had anything to do with a backhoe or a bottle of Jager), so a UPS is beside the point. And the missiles weren't unusable even during the brief outage, so the "free world" was at no elevated risk.

      But apart from those minor details, you're spot on.

    43. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      Canada. They're our first target

      As they should be! I don't trust those Canadians, with their beady eyes, and flapping heads...

    44. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      I'm expecting this to be the first 50 pages of a new Tom Clancy novel.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    45. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow i feel much safer when they dont have an UPS..
      just shut down those dangerous devices.

      It doesnt balance, it does kill when used.

    46. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      I am not a military anything, therefore I am more qualified to speak than anyone in the military. By definition, someone in the military is a murderer. Therefore, their best interest isn't our best interest.

      I can tell you exactly how many missiles any country needs: ZERO.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    47. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by edward2020 · · Score: 1

      START II was never ratified.

      --
      Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
    48. Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! by edward2020 · · Score: 1

      You're not too smart, huh?

      --
      Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
  3. WOPR tried to hack in and must over loaded somethi by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    WOPR tried to hack in and must over loaded something likely taking a fuse with it.

  4. This is just embarrassing. by the+linux+geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand the wish of some to reduce or eliminate the US nuclear arsenal, but while we have it, whoever is in command really needs to take care of it better. We had the loss of launch codes in 2000, completely removing the ability to launch for several months. We had the notorious "let's load live warheads on to low-security cruise missiles slated for destruction" incident a few years back. And now this. At this rate, is the nuclear arsenal even serving as an effective deterrent?

    1. Re:This is just embarrassing. by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Troll

      At this rate, is the nuclear arsenal even serving as an effective deterrent?

      Seriously? Are you serious? I can't tell if you're just being sensationalist or if you're an idiot.

    2. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now honestly; do you really believe they lost the launch codes in 2000 and completely lost the ability to launch missiles for a few months? Really? REALLY? Do you really think it takes them that long to change the launch codes in the event they are compromised or lost?

      Get real. Seriously.

    3. Re:This is just embarrassing. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Its called a biscuit. Bill must have been hungry.

    4. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Deterrent against who? Against the terrarists? No, not really, you cannot really strike back at them with a nuke.

      Against Putin? No, because Putin is not really interested in having a shooting war with the West right now, at least until his family lives there.

      Against the Chinese? No, because international trade seems to be the better way to have each other by the balls.

      Against the Japanese? Nah, not really, US has bases over there, and their prime minister resigns as soon as he hints about something Americans don't like.

      Against Iran or North Korea then? How are they even a threat that would merit deterrent?

      So nope, it looks like US nuclear arsenal is definitely not serving as an effective deterrent.

    5. Re:This is just embarrassing. by braeldiil · · Score: 5, Informative

      We never lost the launch codes. President Clinton's authorization card was lost (I'm not following it close enough to know by whom), but all that meant is that he couldn't authorize launch. There are many other people able to authorize a launch, beginning with VP Gore. There's a whole designated chain, and there's quite a few people at the top of the list with authorization cards. It's all designed to maintain a National Command authority in the event of a decapitation attack. In addition, it would only matter in the event of a massive suprise attack with no buildup. In the normal course of events, tensions would rachet up for weeks or months, and its likely the President would be in a command center when the order needed to be given. At the very least, he's be able to give a verbal order to someone with a card who was in the room, and launch would be approved.

    6. Re:This is just embarrassing. by funkatron · · Score: 1

      Is there a difference?

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    7. Re:This is just embarrassing. by PatPending · · Score: 2, Funny

      But-- but-- what about the Mine Shaft Gap?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    8. Re:This is just embarrassing. by treeves · · Score: 1

      That biscuit doesn't happen to look like a diaphragm, does it?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    9. Re:This is just embarrassing. by cgenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Gore, I don't care about the penguins. Order the damned launch."

    10. Re:This is just embarrassing. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Embarrassing maybe. It's absolutely still an effective deterrent.

      You could have the rest of the military running around like morons with 9000 warheads as if they were in Sgt. Bilko, but all it takes is ONE.

      Just ONE missile in the hands of ONE competent military group controlling ONE functional system gives you the same level of threat as the other 9,000. Even if all of land based systems were taken offline, we have still have plenty of nuclear submarines out there sitting quietly.

      The thing is, all of the nuclear countries, which are pretty much run by level-headed not-insane people, are going to view the damage from one MIRV warhead as no different than 20 hitting their country. North Korea, where the true bat-shit-insanity is, is small enough of a country that one missile would pretty much to do the trick anyways.

      The real threat here is are we getting so stupid and lackadaisical with our nuclear stockpile that it could be detonated before they were even fired? From the article it sounded like they lost all communications with over a hundred missiles. At that point, I would be far more worried about what is going on with those missiles, on our soil, than whether or not the remaining thousands are still scary to other people.

    11. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      At this rate, is the nuclear arsenal even serving as an effective deterrent?

      I'm starting to think it's like a revolver being waved around by a drunk guy. There's a stark realization that he really could pull the trigger, but the gun might not be loaded. So you think to yourself "Do I feel lucky?"

    12. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Deterrent against who? Against the terrarists? No, not really, you cannot really strike back at them with a nuke.

      Against Putin? No, because Putin is not really interested in having a shooting war with the West right now, at least until his family lives there.

      Against the Chinese? No, because international trade seems to be the better way to have each other by the balls.

      Against the Japanese? Nah, not really, US has bases over there, and their prime minister resigns as soon as he hints about something Americans don't like.

      Against Iran or North Korea then? How are they even a threat that would merit deterrent?

      So nope, it looks like US nuclear arsenal is definitely not serving as an effective deterrent.

      Is it deterring a massive strike from a bitter enemy with thousands of such weapons at his disposal? No, not so much. Is anyone else bothering to build even a fraction of our stock of the things? Nope: because to achieve even a fraction of the threat that the Soviet Union once posed would be far too costly. So I'd say you're wrong: the United States' nuclear arsenal is deterring anyone else from building anything similar: the barrier to entry is too high. I don't see that as a bad thing.

      And if I'm wrong, well, then so are you. The global situation is changing and the current status quo will not be maintained forever. We may need them some day.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      But-- but-- what about the Mine Shaft Gap?

      The mine collapsed a few weeks ago. It was in the news.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:This is just embarrassing. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      At this rate, is the nuclear arsenal even serving as an effective deterrent?

      Is Rupert Murdoch our King yet?

      No?

      Then it's working.

    15. Re:This is just embarrassing. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Clearly the search was not thorough enough.

    16. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Is it deterring a massive strike from a bitter enemy with thousands of such weapons at his disposal? No, not so much.

      Yes, my point exactly, and an answer to your original question.

      Is anyone else bothering to build even a fraction of our stock of the things? Nope: because [nukes are] far too costly.

      Precisely. The nukes have cost many times over their value as a deterrent. So many were made not because they were an effective deterrent, but because some got very, very rich on them.

      The global situation is changing and the current status quo will not be maintained forever. We may need them some day.

      Or you may end up like Putin, sitting on a large pile of nuclear rust some day.

    17. Re:This is just embarrassing. by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Yes, a combination of land-based missile silos and nuclear-armed submarines (which theoretically may or may not be nuclear-powered submarines, and vice versa). Bombers too.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    18. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Peace by elimination of the problem.

      It will work for the US just as well as it worked for Hitler.

    19. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or you may end up like Putin, sitting on a large pile of nuclear rust some day.

      Better that than swimming in a lake of molten glass. And, if you Google our force reductions, you'll see that we realized a long time ago that we didn't need the Cold War buildup, after the Soviet Empire collapsed. We've reduced both our nuclear and conventional forces considerably since then. That may ultimately prove to be a mistake, time will tell. But we no longer possess the same nuclear capability we once had.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    20. Re:This is just embarrassing. by mirix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well perhaps you're forgetting the provisions of plan R, sir.

      Plan R?

      Plan R is an emergency war plan in which a lower echelon commander may order nuclear retaliation after a sneak attack if the normal chain of command is disrupted. You approved it, sir. You must remember. Surely you must recall, sir, when Senator Buford made that big hassle about our deterrent lacking credibility. The idea was for plan R to be a sort of retaliatory safeguard.

      A safeguard.

      I admit the human element seems to have failed us here. But the idea was to discourage the Russkies from any hope that they could knock out Washington, and yourself, sir, as part of a general sneak attack, and escape retaliation because of lack of proper command and control.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    21. Re:This is just embarrassing. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      With no nuclear deterrent the US is not capable of "shooting wars". If Russia wants to take back its Alaskan oil fields the US would have no choice but to agree. And China could demand we send over all our maidens to re-balance its gender ratio. Our only hope would be EU protection...but that is just asking for disappointment so we would probably end up as a satellite of China, which could use our land and resources and is a more comfortable master than our Cold War archenemy.

    22. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You seem to assume US was ever under a threat of attack.

      Care to furnish proof this is so? When was continental US ever under a real threat, especially post WW2, and by whom, even assuming no nukes? Please, enlighten us.

      Specifically, when were the Russians even willing to take on Alaska?

      When have the Chinese ever contemplating attack on the US, or turning her into "a satellite"?

      Russia developing nukes wasn't so much an aggressive move, as a defensive one. They have seen what US did when she were the only power with nukes.

    23. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      You didn't need the build up even before the Soviet Empire collapsed.

      The buildup was mostly a result of the Russians responding to US weapons program at first, and then of propaganda of small, well-connected and, self-interested circles on both sides of the Iron curtain, not military reality.

      If you knew your history, you'd know the US reduced its nuclear posture long before the end of Cold war -- have you heard of the Detente -- and for the same reasons the Soviets did - nukes, past the first few hundred, are mostly expensive toys.

    24. Re:This is just embarrassing. by luciferxe · · Score: 0, Troll

      umm you sound like the USA won the war. i think you need to look a bit deeper. we lost the war. look at the country since and the way it has gone. what better way to take over than to act as tho you lost. then the people will fall to your will easily as they think they are the victor. we lost get over it. that is why our freedoms are going away. just do a bit of research and you too will see. we lost. no hitlers brain/skull etc. why? because hes still alive and in power. sorry but this had to be said

    25. Re:This is just embarrassing. by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      So long as we have our arsenal, it is generally understood that anyone using a nuke stands a good chance of being nuked themselves. If we eliminated our stockpile, anyone who feels safer with that deterrent suddenly needs to actually build a deterrent of their own. Anyone not happy with the new nuclear program across the border also needs a program of their own.... the important thing here is the effectiveness of the deterrent isn't important, only a belief that it is effective. I heard this theory from the department of defense (I didn't make it up)- on one hand it adds credibility as if anyone can explain the use of our arsenal, they can; on the other hand if anyone has bias to want to perpetuate the nuclear program, they do.

      Sure, the above scenario won't necessarily play out, but I feel the risk involved (small) is greater than the risk currently posed by the US stockpile (almost zero).

    26. Re:This is just embarrassing. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but I don't think the issue is so much a matter of an effective deterrent as it is avoiding losing the durn things or having them stolen while we do have them.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    27. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to my understanding, the launch codes are all 1s

    28. Re:This is just embarrassing. by moonbender · · Score: 1

      That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    29. Re:This is just embarrassing. by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Dude. If they took good care o the missiles, they would do it with our tax dollars. Have you seen what the air force spends on a toilet seat? Can you imagine what they would charge for a wash and wax?
      Seriously. the last time they took some missiles offline, they had techs from outer space fly in in their flying saucers to do the job. Do you know what the mileage charges alone were for that little boondoggle?

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    30. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      They were all 1s (or some other easy pattern). They were changed around the time that information went public.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    31. Re:This is just embarrassing. by peragrin · · Score: 0

      you do realize that a major portion of the reason why the soviet union collapsed was because they were spending money trying to match us Weapon for Weapon. Our economy was flexible enough to allow it, however theirs was tightly controlled and couldn't stand the strain.

      Without that build up the soviet union might still be around. Without the massive drain that a large military provided it might have continued onward. Look at China. Instead of massive technological military they went for shear numbers of troops. only 10 years after the collapse of the soviet Union did China start with more high tech designs, and now are progressing rapidly gaining what they had before ignored. china will have duplicated the majority of our knowledge and weapons by the end of this decade.

      Of course China doesn't have to fire a shot to kill us either. They can simply cancel all the loans. The loans that george bush used for stimulus, to pay for foreign wars, etc.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    32. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Well, I was responding to a rather hysterical comment, which implied that a relatively small glitch was somehow a big deal.

      In effect, just the ability to nuke the top 5 cities of any country even after the US has suffered a nuclear attack is a deterrent that is already good enough for anybody who matters, at least until we're all Earth-based.

      And I don't think US will ever lose that capability.

    33. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did win the WW2 by almost any standard, Hitler wasn't given a grave for one purpose, not to let the german populace believe he was a martyr. See an old book named the bible for an example. Most germans believed they were wining the war till there government collapsed, thats the power of propaganda. Were losing our rights in this country due to apathy more then anything. Not to mention technology is shifting the balance of power, in 1776 people had the power due to the most advanced weapon was a rifle, now a days how many people you know that own tanks or nukes. How do you fight for a new revolution when the government has access to vastly more powerfull weapons then the people. Also no matter what government comes to power, it has only a limited life span when you consider the whole of human history(70,000+ years). Any one who thinks any current government that will be standing a few centuries later is an hopelessly optimistic. Very few people are aware of human history in the long run, and most of it is speculation past a certain point, now where did I park that damn Tardis.

    34. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your assessment that nukes are more a hindrance than a deterrent. Plenty of countries that don't have nukes that are still around today. However, your analysis of Japan is, well, a joke:

      "Against the Japanese? Nah, not really, US has bases over there"

      The main reason _now_ is that the Japanese and the US are massive trading partners, economically tied to one another, and the Japanese don't have the military capacity to strike the US presently. Nor do they want to or we them. We actually quite good friends on the government level. The Japanese economy is now the 3rd largest in the world last I heard (down from 2nd given China).

      "their prime minister resigns as soon as he hints about something Americans don't like."

      Where the hell do you get your news, because that sure as hell isn't how it went down.

      I don't have a great grasp of Japanese government and interworkings, but it sure seems the other way around. He largely got elected because he promised to shake up the status quo, which included separating more from the US and embracing deeper and more regional ties with countries like China and Vietnam. He garnered votes when he wanted separation of the Japanese economy from the US because of the US's massive recession. He won because he promised to get things done for the Japanese people even if (not because) it went against the US, including military ties with China.

      And then the Japanese people saw him break promises, and woke up to the realization that being in bed with China is not the greatest idea, given how China had been and still is flexing militarily. The Japanese people sort of like their peace, and don't want to be some future Hong Kong annex of mainland China.

      When he didn't deliver on his many election promises, when he saw the problems were more entrenched than he had the capacity to fix them, he lost the confidence of the people and his coalition and was out. It didn't help that he alienated members of his own coalition. He ran a good campaign, but couldn't run once in government. Some of his ideas sounded good, but when you ran the numbers, were impossible to deliver on. Those promises had squat to do with the US not "liking" him.

      Some, like the shrinking workforce, are because the Japanese population is shrinking. I don't think the US is responsible for telling the Japanese people to have more or less babies. And the Japanese are responsible for their immigration and visa policies for workers, not the US. Even some of the ideas, like visas tied to language performance tests native language high schoolers have trouble passing, didn't make sense either, particularly in certain technical fields. Those were his failures.

      For example, you can't promise to move a military base to the new location near immediately or an a hugely accelerated schedule, when there was already an accelerated timetable for the move. Hell, the US government was largely in agreement to move. Problem is, and it's simple to understand and reflects how the ex-PM was talking out of his ass, the construction of the new base needed a land extension, which takes years to complete and hadn't even begun. That's just logistically impossible, and that lies at his feet for making an absurd promise.

    35. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he left it in the somewhat stained blue dress. :)

    36. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The number of warheads in the US peaked in the 60s, not the 80s, so a big part of what the Soviets were trying to catch up with was our technology, not just our numbers. And yes, they used more warheads as a way to counteract our better technology. This is why they completely freaked on the SDI (star wars) system, as it would make all their warheads obsolete, in theory. Our stealth technology and other weapons likely played a bigger role in pushing the Soviets to spend more during the 70s-80s than the nukes did.

      And I agree, had we not had the military buildup we had (all types) then the USSR might still be here today. China, on the other hand, is a very sticky situation. They appear to be at the beginning states of an economic war with us, and we just don't realize it. And they don't need 1000s of warheads as a deterrent, just 50-100 is plenty. Our greatest asset is that we tend to be better at creating the technologies, while China has a history of being good at copying technology. Oh, and now China has decided to quit exporting rare earth minerals used in advanced technologies.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    37. Re:This is just embarrassing. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it was not so, it can never be so. A common fallacy that afflicts many in our civilized Western nations.

      You and everyone else need to read some Russian language or Chinese language, to see what they're saying when they're not speaking English. Taking back Alaska is a common theme. I see newspapers every day when I walk past the newsstand, the front page photo that recently stands out in my mind was a US carrier with a Chinese missile headed towards it.

      And the Russian nukes thing is just silly. The Soviets had moles all over the Manhattan Project, the thing leaked like a sieve. The "People's Glorious Republic of Soviet only got nukes because despicable capitalists had nukes first" sounds like something that Boris and Natasha would say. Seriously, look at 50s agitprop and you'll see the same line.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    38. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deterrent against who?

      There is only one country that has ever dropped one of those things(in war)...

      They where built to defend against an enemy that dose not exist any more, and the US was never at war with... Come to think of it, has there even been an invasion of the US? It seems that the only war that even happened on US soil was civil...
      And seriously, the US is only country that glorifies war, every other countries, especially the one that have been subject to war or invasion, understand it's something to be avoided at all costs, not turned into a segment of the economy and way of life a good chunk of the population...

      And anyway, from most accounts they don't even work any more(try find some fuel for those suckers)...

      From the perspective of anyone not living in the US reality distortion field, Nukes are at the very least an accident waiting to happen, but more likely a political sabre for the reckless to rattle... just before they blow us all to that place Christians don't want to go...

      Remember it called M.A.D. for a reason; Mutual Assured Destruction, that means we all die...

    39. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      They appear to be at the beginning states of an economic war with us, and we just don't realize it.

      I tend to agree, only I think we're very much aware of it, we just don't seem to be willing to take the steps necessary to avert it (or win it.) In fact, we're doing everything possible to help China win it.

      What's going on there, I don't know. But I'm not entirely convinced that all of our government is exactly on our side. Not anymore.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    40. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 0, Troll

      Major portion of the reason why SU collapsed was the collapse of oil prices in the 80s, which made it impossible for them to defend geopolitical commitments they have made in earlier decade.

      Arms race had relatively little to do with that.

    41. Re:This is just embarrassing. by plague911 · · Score: 1

      "Against the terrarists? No, not really, you cannot really strike back at them with a nuke." Says who?

    42. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ultimately? Are you nuts? It has already been shown to have been a huge mistake! We were able to mobilize over a million men for the 1991 Gulf War, but analysts worried about being stretched too thin when deploying 1/10th of that for the 2003 Iraq war. They are still worried about the strain on the units, especially the NG & reserves, due to constant rotation. Given that we have adversaries now that have several million "excess men", the West's nuclear capability is needed more than ever. The fact that the leaders are refusing to modernize these weapons, but are planning on reducing them instead is absolutely, positively, "I don't give a fuck about my nation's survival", batshit insane!!!!!

    43. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 1

      North Korea has nukes. Iran is clearly trying to get them. How are they not a threat that would merit deterrent?

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    44. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What's going on there, I don't know. But I'm not entirely convinced that all of our government is exactly on our side. Not anymore.

      Where have you been?? Ever since Comrade Obama took over, I've been convinced that NONE of our government is on our side anymore...

      Yes, well, I was feeling generous. There have to be a few honest public officials left in Washington. Doesn't there?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    45. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Ultimately? Are you nuts? It has already been shown to have been a huge mistake! We were able to mobilize over a million men for the 1991 Gulf War, but analysts worried about being stretched too thin when deploying 1/10th of that for the 2003 Iraq war. They are still worried about the strain on the units, especially the NG & reserves, due to constant rotation. Given that we have adversaries now that have several million "excess men", the West's nuclear capability is needed more than ever. The fact that the leaders are refusing to modernize these weapons, but are planning on reducing them instead is absolutely, positively, "I don't give a fuck about my nation's survival", batshit insane!!!!!

      Well, when Clinton began spouting about the world being safe for Democracy (which it wasn't, and isn't, and in any event we aren't a democracy) I started getting worried. I really wonder if our past couple decades of political "leadership" (using the term very loosely) isn't the result of some Russian or Chinese sleeper program. I mean, the level of malfeasance in office and outright treason is just beyond belief, and the utter lack of consequence for those actions even more so.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    46. Re:This is just embarrassing. by arkenian · · Score: 1

      Oh, and now China has decided to quit exporting rare earth minerals used in advanced technologies.

      Feel obliged to point out here: Rare earths are not particularly rare. They're perfectly available other places than China, china just used its abominable environmental and labor practices to undercut the rest of the world temporarily.

    47. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever hear of the cuban missile crisis, or studied the history of communism? there were definite reasons to perceive a threat, to think otherwise is to be ignorant of history.

    48. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Prune · · Score: 1

      The US has significant amount of rare earth metal deposits, but it has little currently developed mining infrastructure. This is because of significant health hazard issues, and because of economic reasons (importing them from China has been cheaper). As the need arises, mining for rare earths in the US will resume in full force.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    49. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill knew exactly where they were, but just didn't want to admit to it. Let's just say it wasn't just cigars he was playing around with in the oval office.

    50. Re:This is just embarrassing. by kemapa · · Score: 1

      The continental US was under a real threat of attack, I would argue, during the Cuban missile crisis. This was post WW2, by the way. I'm not sure what you'd classify as a "threat of attack," but I'm pretty sure if you'd have been alive at the time this would qualify. For more info:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

    51. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was continental US ever under a real threat, especially post WW2, and by whom, even assuming no nukes? Please, enlighten us.

      You may have heard about the Cuban missile crisis. It was this little scuffle where the Soviets decided to build nuclear missile silos in Cuba back in the 60s. It almost lead to a nuclear war.

      Russia developing nukes wasn't so much an aggressive move, as a defensive one. They have seen what US did when she were the only power with nukes.

      Pfft. Nonsense. The Germans, Americans, and Russians were all developing nuclear weapons more or less simultaneously during the second world war. Russia's development of nuclear weapons was in no way a reaction to the bombing of Japan.

    52. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      When was continental US ever under a real threat, especially post WW2, and by whom, even assuming no nukes? Please, enlighten us.

      Read up on Able Archer 83. The Soviets thought that NATO might be hiding an actual preemptive strike behind training exercises and readied themselves for WW3.

      Granted, this one was mostly our fault, and the threat was created by the existence of our respective nuclear arsenals, but it's the closest the world's come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how close we got helped spur Reagan to open up diplomatic talks with the Soviets to make sure such a mistake never happened.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    53. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Just ask Bruce Willis

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    54. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come to think of it, has there even been an invasion of the US?

      Well, the British burned Washington, D.C., during the War of 1812, although the US initially declared war against Britain. And there's Pearl Harbor, although that wasn't technically an invasion.

      And seriously, the US is only country that glorifies war, every other countries, especially the one that have been subject to war or invasion, understand it's something to be avoided at all costs

      No, actually, there are lots of countries in recent memory that have directly instigated wars with little or no US involvement. Iraq invaded Kuwait; Egypt and other Arab states attacked Israel; Argentina attacked the UK in the Falklands; Iran and Iraq had a pretty big war; India and Pakistan.... The list goes on and on. And that's to say nothing of the numerous terrorist/guerilla groups thirsty for blood and power in conflicts around the world.

      http://nobelprize.org/educational/peace/conflictmap/conflictmap.html

    55. Re:This is just embarrassing. by satcomjimmy · · Score: 1

      Between treating them the same as the former Soviet Russia after it's collapse and the utter lack of security clearance apparently required to know the status of the US nuclear arsenal, it's really not very effective. How is this general knowledge? I guess traitors don't get punished anymore. Long....live...er...please survive, US? I think It's time to invest in assault rifles and train the kids on survival techniques.

    56. Re:This is just embarrassing. by crashandburn66 · · Score: 1

      What they both lack is a delivery system, i.e. ICBMs or long-range bombers.

    57. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurry! Ask Christine O'Donnell if the Chinese are coming ...

    58. Re:This is just embarrassing. by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      Toilet seats are expensive for good reason. When the military buys a toilet seat, they buy replacement screws, replacement toilet seats etc, for the life of whatever it is they are putting the toilet on. The cost of planes has replacement parts and scheduled maintenance included.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    59. Re:This is just embarrassing. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      My gosh, do you understand how close we came to being nailed with nukes during the Cuban missile crisis? Russia and the US both had factions that were pro-war and anti-war. Had the pro-war people ever prevailed on either side, it would have been bad for all of us. Fortunately they didn't.

      --
      Qxe4
    60. Re:This is just embarrassing. by GumphMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So I'd say you're wrong: the United States' nuclear arsenal is deterring anyone else from building anything similar: the barrier to entry is too high. I don't see that as a bad thing.

      The "barrier to entry", as you put it, to building a US-sized nuclear arsenal would exist even if the US had no missiles. Nukes are expensive - end of story. The real question is, if the US had no missiles would the incentive to try to build a US-sized nuclear arsenal, or even a fractional one, still exist?

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    61. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Minecraft is educating our citizens wrt the benefits of living underground as we speak!

    62. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Cuban missile crisis happened because the Russians responded in kind to an aggressive US deployment of nuclear weapons in Turkey.

      Khrushchev's response along the same lines had Kennedy shit in his pants and undeploy those rockets.

      Have you got anything else, that was unprovoked by the US?

    63. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      Well, strictly speaking, it all was just a consequence of absolutely corrupted, inefficient, idiotic and "not-working-even-in-theory" economic model of SU. And arms race had much to do with that - best scientist, engineers, technicians and other specialists were working on the military contractors, and civilian sector was fed with worst leftovers of their achievements. So it was arms race, oil prices, total lack of any political will in SU's government (and simple reason at the same time), and some other factors - each of them played it's role.

      By the way, after the Olympic Games of 1980 in Moscow there was a huge disappointment all over the country - people thought that it was a promised "communism", but after the Games it ended as promptly as it began. It was a true "crisis of faith" even for most "hardcore communists", and it all went downhill even faster from there.

      Why your post was modded Troll, anyway?

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    64. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      +6 Funny, man :) I think that "Taking back Alaska is a common theme" would become a running joke for all of my friend for couple of days, thanks for sharing it with us.

      Now, if you would excuse me, I have to go feed my pet bear with caviar and vodka, or it would stop running in the wheel that powers my Internet connection.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    65. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ammoQ · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Germans were not developing nuclear weapons. Some German scientists had the idea of an a-bomb too, so much is true, but Hitler didn't believe in it and there were no large-scale efforts to enrich uranium etc.

    66. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is and always has been far more of a liability than a deterrent. Israeli insistence on keeping a nuclear arsenal is one major reason the US does not pursue a serious reduction or elimination of such weapons.

    67. Re:This is just embarrassing. by RingDev · · Score: 1

      No, not so much. Is anyone else bothering to build even a fraction of our stock of the things? Nope

      Exactly. If you exclude Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and a handful of other less likely nuclear wanna-bes.

      So absolutely, having a stock pile of weapons is definitly deterring countries with out nuclear ambitions from building nuclear weapons. /sarcasm

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    68. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Says I. Care to explain how, step by step, are nukes going to work against the terroristas? Maybe I can use that against that Anonymous bastard from /b/ who tried to DDoS my wall wart server.

    69. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      Nope: because to achieve even a fraction of the threat that the Soviet Union once posed would be far too costly.

      Why would you need that many nukes? As long as no-one posesses an effective anti-ICBM device, even 10 nukes of sufficient yield (pure fission device go up to 500 killoton, well enough to wipe out a city) will be enough to deter anyone from attacking. No US president is gonna say "Well, we kind of want to attack $country, and since they can only nuke washington, new york, LA, san francisco, chicago, miami, san diego, detroit, denver and Vegas instead of EVERY city, we'll go ahead and nuke their sorry asses"

      You dont need total destruction for MAD to work, hell, you dont even need hydrogen-bombs for that

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    70. Re:This is just embarrassing. by master_p · · Score: 1

      China is also good at playing long term strategy games. Its 5000 year history has plenty of examples. If the Chinese decide that they want to be the world's super power, the US nuclear arsenal plays no significant role against that, simply because the Chinese will fight you with ways you will not understand until it is too late.

    71. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I'd say you're wrong: the United States' nuclear arsenal is deterring anyone

      Yeah they really helped save NYC WTC towers.

    72. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'They where built to defend against an enemy that dose not exist any more, and the US was never at war with...'
      Not so. The Soviet Union had good reason to expect US invasion at any time.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    73. Re:This is just embarrassing. by profplump · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. The president has to physically enter the launch codes on the ground-test keyboard. If he's not there to enter the codes in person the entire Earth will be destroyed.

      Then after the crisis he marries the whale lady and they produce a progeny with an uncanny ability to stay on-message in the A, B, and C plots no matter how boring that makes an already-preachy show. But thanks to his previous merger with god/borg/etc. he somehow manages to keep the mess on-air for the better part of a decade anyway.

    74. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      when you have allies you want to protect right next to the threat, that long range capability isnt needed.

      Nortk korea could nuke south korea with something like a scud (provided they miniaturize their nukes enough), hell, they could flatten seoul with conventional artillery before the US could even begin to prepare a counter-move to that. The reason they dont is because they know what will happen if they do.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    75. Re:This is just embarrassing. by voss · · Score: 1

      Philippines before 1946 was a US territory and was invaded and occupied by the Japanese for 2 years during WWII.

    76. Re:This is just embarrassing. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      "Our economy was flexible enough to allow it, however theirs was tightly controlled and couldn't stand the strain."

      Seems your economy was flexible enough to survive some extra 30 years...

      "The loans that george bush used for stimulus, to pay for foreign wars, etc."

    77. Re:This is just embarrassing. by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Judging by the bureocracy of other countries, I'd guess that there are lots of honest public officals in Washington. But their decisions are constantly reversed by their (political) superiors.

    78. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget Japan's summer vacation.

    79. Re:This is just embarrassing. by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Says I. Care to explain how, step by step, are nukes going to work against the terroristas? Maybe I can use that against that Anonymous bastard from /b/ who tried to DDoS my wall wart server.

      Easy

      Step 1. Find terrorist
      Step 2. Provide WMD (with extreme prejudice)
      Step 3. Terrorist and all his friends within a 3-5 mile radius are no longer a threat.

    80. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      President Clinton's authorization card was lost (I'm not following it close enough to know by whom),

      No, he temporarily lost the entire football (bag), after departing a little bit too hastily from a NATO summit meeting.

      It was Jimmy Carter who lost just the authorization card, by forgetting it in his suit pocket when he sent that suit to the dry cleaner's...

    81. Re:This is just embarrassing. by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Some level of redundancy is nice. 10 individual weapons seems like not enough to guarantee on demand nuclear capability. Having multiple redundant weapons systems including land based installations, SSBNs, and 'dumb' bombs makes some sense simply from a fault tolerance perspective.

      That said, you're right in that we don't need the massive arsenal that we have just to serve as a deterrent.

    82. Re:This is just embarrassing. by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Plus it's not like they're contracting for a $5 toilet seat from Wal-Mart.

      The apochryphal $XX,000 toilet seat includes design and tooling costs for a very limited run of specialty seats designed for a very unique environment. Never mind the costs imposed by having to call for multiple competitive bids for said seat, and document the expenditure to whiny tax payers.

    83. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You're simply an idiot with an obvious anti-American bias. There was the Revolutionary war, the Mexican-American war, there was Pearl Harbor, Native American wars, ect. The US didn't exist before 1776 so we didnt go through the entire Medieval and later European wars, not to mention the US is isolated from Europe anyway. You may as well talk about wars on Australian soil and bash them for not having as many as Europe. The US as a whole does not glorify war, and its not the only country with a subset of people that do glorify war. Get off your high horse and stop being such a douche.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    84. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      There are alternative sources for rare earth metals. The Chinese would be shooting themselves in the foot as they seem to be burning bridges everywhere these days.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    85. Re:This is just embarrassing. by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Also China is not shipping the RAW material. They want to process it and sell the refined material to rake in a bigger profit.

    86. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      What because their Chi is superior to ours? The Chinese are no better than anyone else, they just have no respect for their workers and have a totalitarian government. You also have to remember that they have had more revolutions, both Dynastic and political than most other countries in the world.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    87. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is good at copying technology?

      I've serviced a number of their motor scooter and ATV exports - cheap copies of 1970's Japanese technology. I'm not too worried about their nukes actually working.

    88. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real threat - Cuban Missile Crisis.

      Please ask someone that lived in Eastern Europe at any point between 1945 and 1990 about the USSR's supposed non-aggression.

    89. Re:This is just embarrassing. by GreenTom · · Score: 1

      Well, there have been no all-out major power wars in 65 years (57 if you count the Korean War, but note that China was not a nuclear power then). There have only been two ground conflicts between nuclear powers, both of which were fairly limited border conflicts. There seems to be historical support for the idea that nuclear weapons lead belligerants to de-escalate.

      As far as deterrent against who, that's a long-view question. Could you have predicted the current geo-political situation 10 years ago? It's foolish to think we have any real idea what the world will look like in 10, 20 or 50 years.

      There's also the 'umbrella effect.' It's not hard to think of a dozen countries that would have had valid strategic reasons for developing their own nukes if it wasn't for the U.S. arsneal.

    90. Re:This is just embarrassing. by GreenTom · · Score: 1

      They appear to be at the beginning states of an economic war with us, and we just don't realize it.

      I tend to agree, only I think we're very much aware of it, we just don't seem to be willing to take the steps necessary to avert it (or win it.) In fact, we're doing everything possible to help China win it.

      Many Chinese people I kow cite this sort of thing as an example as to why their system is better then democracy. The claim is that democracies are incapable of making hard decisions and demanding sacrifice from their people. Take, say, balancing the federal budget/closing the trade deficit--any politician with a plan for that is either (1) using some sort of supply-side magical thinking with no basis in reality or (2) unelectable. Can you imagine any elected official who took measures to limit consumer credit so Americans had to live within their means staying in office?

      To Obama's credit, I think his initial economic policies were pointed in the right direction. But, put good policy up against an opposition that was more than willing to harm the nation to prevent him from succeeding and astroturf groups that are exquisitly skilled at derailing any real discussion on any topic, and good policy looses every time.

      What's going on there, I don't know. But I'm not entirely convinced that all of our government is exactly on our side. Not anymore.

      We get the government we elect. As long as Americans are willing to vote for candidates who tell us what we want to hear and don't vote for candidates who are willing to state hard truths and suggest real solutions, we're not going to have a government capable of leadership. This is how empires fall.

    91. Re:This is just embarrassing. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The real question is, if the US had no missiles would the incentive to try to build a US-sized nuclear arsenal, or even a fractional one, still exist?

      Almost certainly, yes. Nuclear ICBM's are simply too useful a tool of statecraft.

    92. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      my point wasnt that the US doesnt need this size arsenal, my point is that a potential adversary doesnt need to have USSR level stockpiles to be considered MAD-dangerous. If north korea gets ten sufficiently powerfull nukes (say big enough to take out the center of a major city), and has the potential to deliver them somewhat accurately, that effectively shields them from becomming a target themselves.

      But yeah, 10 nukes grand total doesnt make for a fool proof deterrent, but if you can convince the other side you can use them at will.. in 99% of the cases that will be enough

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    93. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Of course China doesn't have to fire a shot to kill us either. They can simply cancel all the loans. The loans that george bush used for stimulus, to pay for foreign wars, etc.

      Get over it already. Enough Bush hating. Obama has added $3 trillion in debt since he became president. That's more than 3 times the debt than Bush created, and is, in fact, more than the first 34 Presidents combined. And don't accuse me of supporting Bush's spending. I was against his spending habits too.

      Let's look at Obama's spending habits. Even if his budget projections are absolutely correct, and that's very doubtful as Obamacare is much, much more expensive than he promised it would be, he's planning on at least $1 trillion deficits for the next decade. That means he plans on doubling the $10 trillion dollar deficit he inherited in only 10 years, and the previous US Presidents took more 200 years to create the first $10 trillion.

      Just think what our economy will be like then. It will be so debt-ridden that we will all be living like 3rd world countries.. But then that's no surprise as distribution of wealth is his entire point of being, and he's using his massive spending sprees to guarantee that as a huge chunk of our gdp will go paying the interest on our debt thus guaranteeing that we will be exporting our wealth faster than we can create it..

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    94. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you're really a moron if you think we create our own technology without the help/copy of some others country.

    95. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Step 1 has been very elusive to the US government for quite a while now.

      Step 2 is a clear proliferation and, as such, illegal. Besides, given the return on your conventional weaponry investment in Afghanistan in the 80s, I'm wondering what you'll reap if you invest some nukes.

      Step 3 is fine and dandy, unless the terrorist happens to be within a 3-5 mile distance of some important NATO asset in Afghanistan or Yemen.

      I'd say that's a rather sophomoric approach.

      F+ for the effort.

    96. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seems to be historical support for the idea that nuclear weapons lead belligerants to de-escalate.

      No, there seems to be the theory there is such support. In fact, the overwhelming evidence is there has been no "winnable" scenario without nukes after WWII either.

      To fight a major war, you need someone willing to finance it first. Financing a war calls for reasonable expectations for profits from it and for someone to actually bet money on those. How was that possible post WW-2? Who had money?

      Each major power after the war ended up in economic tatters. The only exception was the US -- basically because they waited until everyone else has been bloodied enough before joining the melee, and then sold military junk at astronomical prices. Hell, they took over as the major new naval power at the cost of 50 old destroyers.

      Why would the US finance a third world war, when they had it all?

      Also, financing isn't enough though, you also need someone able to militarize and fight it. Who'd that be?

      The European powers were bombed to ruins, and technically occupied - half by the US, half by Russia. By the time they had rebuilt significant military potential and US had reduced military presence to levels that allowed some independence, the Western European nations have already herded themselves into the Economic Communities, which effectively removed risk of major war in Europe (they have also spooked themselves into a huge fear of USSR though).

      The USSR itself, despite the brave posturing, did not have the capacity to fight aggressive wars in any capacity until the late 70s. The only "aggression" they mustered was the Afghan war. The uprisings in Eastern Europe are not so much a proof of Soviet strength, as of weakness. If the SU leaders could have afforded it, they would not have allowed those uprisings.

      The communists in China managed to not only exacerbate the war destruction, but achieve a situation, in comparison to which even the nightmarish Japanese occupation seems rather benign. They started to come out of it only two decades ago, and, despite their posture, they still have very, very serious political and social problems to cope with -- 700 million people there still live like they did when Confucius was alive, except now they have pollution too.

      Japan, the other major power, was ruined, demilitarized and occupied by the US until the mid 50s (parts in the 70s). They've done well economically, but they are no military power who can fight a war.

      So, it was only the US that was both able and willing to finance and fight a war. Did they do so - yep, they did. Korea, Vietnam, Latin and South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and, more recently, Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Could they take on a major power?

      Despite the ruinous state of USSR and China, they were, throughout this period, big and poor enough to make any kind of direct military action of the USA against them an obviously costly initiative without serious return potential.

      So no, not really.

      And that is why we haven't had any wars since WWII. The only thing nukes have achieved is to somewhat lower the already negative payout potential, but it was negative to begin with.

      If nukes were such a good deterrent, why did both US and Russia abolish the MAD doctrine quietly in the 90s?

    97. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Well, strictly speaking

      Yep, a very good summary, but I am too lazy to type it all out.

      Why your post was modded Troll, anyway?

      If I had to guess, I'd say I've angered someone from the "Ronald ruined the evil empire single handed" crowd.

      It feels good to be on the good side, even if it is only a myth.

    98. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing will happen to them. North Korea is basically an extension of China, which has one purpose as far as China is concerned -- keeping the US away from China's border. The North Koreans, being totally dependent on China for everything, will not strike without Chinese approval.

      The US will not use nuclear weapons now any more than it did when MacArthur recommended it during the Korean war. The political cost would be so high to the US, that it would lose much more than it would gain by using a nuke.

      The only conceivable nuclear use that doesn't have this kind of political cost is a retaliation against full nuclear attack. Such attack was never seriously on anyone's table as a deliberate strategy, as it means the end of civilization, and not one of the people who have the keys to the proverbial suitcase want to wake up to a world without luxury hotels, expensive whores and good meals above the ground.

      Not even the mullahs in Iraq, or the rapture fans on slashdot.

    99. Re:This is just embarrassing. by siddesu · · Score: 1

      You should also be very worried about fluoride in your water supply. Have you ever seen a Communist drink a glass of water?

    100. Re:This is just embarrassing. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, strictly speaking

      Yep, a very good summary, but I am too lazy to type it all out.

      Why your post was modded Troll, anyway?

      If I had to guess, I'd say I've angered someone from the "Ronald ruined the evil empire single handed" crowd.

      Nah, it'll get picked up by the meta-moderation system eventually, even if the regular mods don't. I've been mod-bombed more than a few times myself. Part and parcel of the Slashdot experience, I'd say.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    101. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you obviously speak neither Russian, nor Chinese. Nor do you read enough.

      Take it from someone who speaks both natively and reads a lot of press and books in both regularly.

    102. Re:This is just embarrassing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "barrier to entry" doesn't exist: all you need is some fisionable material and a box of black powder and you can screw up a major city for centuries. Neither are all that hard to come by, which is why the US spent some much money in the late 1990s to subsidize unemployed ex-Soviet nuclear scientists and to help control and dismantle the ex-Soviet nuclear arsenal. Even the Russians admit they don't hve the money to correctly maintain and keep secure their nukes.

      Can you say "dirty bomb"? I knew you could...

    103. Re:This is just embarrassing. by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Actually, the cost of the seat is very high because of the enormous usage rate they have. The military is really full of sh*t, and those seats get similar mileage as a congressional jet.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  5. Oh what a shame: by phyrexianshaw.ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "for a few hours, we lost the ability to end the world"

    what a shame.

    1. Re:Oh what a shame: by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      No worries, there are thousands of warheads; ending the world would have been no trouble at all.

    2. Re:Oh what a shame: by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned that the intrusion alarms were offline. I wonder if they bothered to check that the warheads are still there?!?

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    3. Re:Oh what a shame: by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'm more concerned that the intrusion alarms were offline. I wonder if they bothered to check that the warheads are still there?!?

      This sort of thing makes one wonder if there wasn't foul play involved.... the intrusion alarms just conveniently go out of commission for a while?

      Makes one wonder if there wasn't foul play, as in some al quaeda sympathizer mucking around with the programming or RAM chips and injecting malicious code

    4. Re:Oh what a shame: by diablovision · · Score: 1

      No, the stakes are: it was possible for one side to strike a devastating blow with no retaliation whatsoever. That's not what you want in a nuclear war. Without MAD everything breaks down. You do not want that.

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    5. Re:Oh what a shame: by Mojo66 · · Score: 1

      Or as Neil Armstrong would have put it: A small loss of security for the US, a big gain on security for the rest of the world. At least for a few hours.

    6. Re:Oh what a shame: by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      How so? Assuming the US wasn't planning a nuclear strike at that time, the impact was that for a short period of time, the balance of power shifted, In a world where game theory and Mutually Assured Destruction exist, this wasn't a good thing. OK, we're not in the cold war anymore, but unilateral loss of power like this destabilises the balance of power, and does not necessarily improve security for the world...

    7. Re:Oh what a shame: by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      Hardly. There are at least three backup systems that I know of that would launch the missiles in case the primary command and control is disrupted. Besides, the US alone has well over 100 times the necessary destructive power to end the world. Losing 10% of that capability for an hour wouldn't affect our ability to screw the world for good. It's not called "Mutually Assured Destruction" for nothing...

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    8. Re:Oh what a shame: by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Riiiiight.

      First, you're misusing the idiom of calling an occurance "convenient". Before that idiom applies, you need a coincidence of the alarms being offline with some other event such that, taken together, the two might point to a plot.

      Second, to GP's question, yes they did inspect and the warheads are still in place.

      Third, only certain alarms were off-line. Many other safeguards were still active and an attempt to steal a warhead would've been suicidal.

      Fourth, root cause analysis is currently pointing to a mode of hardware failure that's been seen before. There is little reason to suspect malice.

      Do we really need to continue with the reasons your paranoia makes no sense?

    9. Re:Oh what a shame: by mysidia · · Score: 1

      the alarms being offline with some other event such that, taken together, the two might point to a plot.

      There could be another event that was simply not detected

      Presumably, the alarms have a solid unique reason for existing. Being offline, a 2nd event could not be detected, perhaps... (shrugs)

  6. Five 9's is a myth by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    Five 9's is a myth

    1. Re:Five 9's is a myth by blair1q · · Score: 1

      How long was it up?

      How long was it down?

      Does the 5-9's apply to each missile, or to the mission of the fleet?

      You do the math.

    2. Re:Five 9's is a myth by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Nobody said where the decimal was placed...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  7. Remember Kids... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    ...when you fail to check your power systems regularly, the terrorists win.

    Please, take care of your electrical-systems-powering-ICBM-missiles. Please.

    1. Re:Remember Kids... by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...when you fail to check your power systems regularly, the terrorists win.

      If you have to resort to using ICMB's against terrorists, then the terrorists probably have already won

    2. Re:Remember Kids... by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Anyone caught using Inter-Continental Mallistic Bissiles has certainly succumbed to the terrorists.

    3. Re:Remember Kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for that matter, why are white conservatives still allowed to rent trucks after Oklahoma City?

  8. Cause of the failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The cause of the failure remains unknown, although it is suspected to be a breach of underground cables deep beneath the base, according to a senior military official.

    In other news, the Underminer was heard telling other evildoers at a sleazy subterranean bar that "The test run has been a total success" and "Soon, I shall be more notorious than Kim Jong Il."

    His claim was immediately disputed by five carnivorous giant rats. At press time, it was not quite clear who had survived the ensuing bar fight (our photographer, sadly, had not).

  9. Quick! by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Switch the targeting systems for empty boxes while Colossus can't look!

    1. Re:Quick! by eriqk · · Score: 1

      This is the voice of Unity. We saw what you did there.

  10. Obligatory by PatPending · · Score: 2, Informative
    Major T. J. "King" Kong: Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do.

    Oh, wait...

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Obligatory by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      How can we protect our precious bodily fluids with 50 missiles not working?

    2. Re:Obligatory by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do.

      Oh, wait...

      "Yeeeeehaaaaw?"

    3. Re:Obligatory by PatPending · · Score: 1

      How can we protect our precious bodily fluids with 50 missiles not working?

      General Jack D. Ripper: Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    4. Re:Obligatory by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah Kong got some flying in that time. Its one of my earliest memories BTW. Maybe taking a three year old to Kubrick movies wasn't such a good idea...

    5. Re:Obligatory by PatPending · · Score: 1

      Maybe taking a three year old to Kubrick movies wasn't such a good idea...

      Your earliest memory is from age three, eh? And from seeing a movie?

      Well, my earliest memory is nine months before I was born! -- I remember going to a drive-in movie with my dad, and then going home with my mom!

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    6. Re:Obligatory by IMightB · · Score: 1

      What's a "drive-in movie"?

    7. Re:Obligatory by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      A place where people who were much cooler than you in high school visited in order to fornicate.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Obligatory by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Its an open air cinema but with cars instead of people. There are people inside the cars. Every car has a speaker on a cable which you can attach to your window. There is a shop where you can buy junk food. Many drive ins had two screens and you just turned the other way to watch a different movie. Traffic problems were endemic. Houses near the drive in got free vision but not sound. One popular hack was to lock the kids in the boot (trunk) of your car so they got in for free. You pay on the way in at a kind of toll booth.

      They are almost gone in Australia now. I suppose video killed them off, along with high land prices.

  11. Update to the story by pickens · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is now being called an engineering failure not a power failure.

    "According to the official, engineers believe that a launch control center computer (LCC), responsible for a package of five missiles, began to "ping" out of sequence, resulting in a surge of "noise" through the system. The LCCs interrogate each missile in sequence, so if they begin to send signals out when they're not supposed to, receivers on the missiles themselves will notice this and send out error codes.

    Since LCCs ping out of sequence on occasion, missileers tried quick fixes. But as more and more missiles began to display error settings, they decided to take off-line all five LCCs that the malfunctioning center was connected to. That left 50 missiles in the dark. The missileers then restarted one of the LCCs, which began to normally interrogate the missile transceiver. Three other LCCs were successfully restarted. The suspect LCC remains off-line. "

    The missiles were offline for about an hour.

    1. Re:Update to the story by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      So somebody set the clock wrong?

    2. Re:Update to the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just a little test run of Israel's NEW version of the Stuxnet.
      But I'm (almost) sure that Israel will ALLOW the US to launch a couple missiles when the time comes.
      Maybe.

    3. Re:Update to the story by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, Funny

      This sounds an awful lot like a "swamp gas and reflections from Saturn" explanation.

    4. Re:Update to the story by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So one broken LCC can trigger a byzantine fault, a DoS of the entire system, and which LCC is causing the problem can't be identified without shutting them all down.... nice

      I'm just glad the missiles are apparently intelligent enough to respond with error codes, and the system failure didn't lead to an arming sequence and launch at whatever direction they were pointed...

    5. Re:Update to the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darn. I thought
      1) Chinese were burrowing in from the other side of the world
      2) Bad case of Gophers
      3) Toilet had overflowed and shorted something

      4) So is this really a case of cold ware era 'Ping Pong' gone wrong?

    6. Re:Update to the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying all these Nukes run on Token Ring, and the ring started Beaconing? :-)

    7. Re:Update to the story by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So one broken LCC can trigger a byzantine fault, a DoS of the entire system, and which LCC is causing the problem can't be identified without shutting them all down.... nice

      Well, not a DoS of the entire system - just of the just for the missiles attached to that squadron. I suspect this is a side effect of the security and control system, which lets any LCC control the squadron but allows one LCC to veto the launch.
       

      I'm just glad the missiles are apparently intelligent enough to respond with error codes, and the system failure didn't lead to an arming sequence and launch at whatever direction they were pointed...

      Why the hell would you expect the missiles to respond by arming and launching in the first place? (Other than massive paranoia and/or abysmal ignorance?*) This may come as a bit of surprise to you, but the designers have actually thought about the consequences of faults and designed the system so that it is hard to enable and launch, and easy to disable and lockdown.

      *Or at a minimum, terminal cluelessness of the differences between fiction and reality.

  12. Re:WOPR tried to hack in and must over loaded some by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

    "Would you like to play a game?" Sorry, the network cable's broken...

  13. mutually assured destruction by Dayofswords · · Score: 1, Insightful

    50 * 9 = 450 nukes

    anyone think it's funny that we don't allow other countries to have nukes?

    --
    Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
    1. Re:mutually assured destruction by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "anyone think it's funny that we don't allow other countries to have nukes?"

      No. Power and force matter. They trump everything else.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:mutually assured destruction by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

      We have 450 Minuteman IIIs. We have lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of other delivery mechanisms.

    3. Re:mutually assured destruction by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      50 * 9 = 450 nukes

      anyone think it's funny that we don't allow other countries to have nukes?

      I'm not sure what you mean by "funny".

      Should the U.S and its allies encourage proliferation of thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems? I don't think so, personally. We aren't discussing tariffs or trade embargoes here, you know. Understand one thing: fairness doesn't matter. Never having them used in war, that's what matters. Also, lots of other countries have them, you know. We just don't like countries whose leaders are likely to drop them on us, or on our allies, to have them. We also don't like nations who are incapable of securing their weapons systems to have them, or who are so politically unstable that an atom bomb or two might get "lost" during the transfer of power to a new government.

      I might add that we've reduced the sheer quantity of nuclear armaments (as well as conventional force levels, for that matter) considerably since the height of the Cold War. That 450 is a pitiful remnant of what we once believed we needed.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:mutually assured destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US's arsenal is 5500+ nukes.

    5. Re:mutually assured destruction by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No.

      Just because I can kill you, doesn't mean I want to allow you to be able to kill me.

    6. Re:mutually assured destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "anyone think it's funny that we don't allow other countries to have nukes?"

      No. Power and force matter. They trump everything else.

      Yet other countries have them.

    7. Re:mutually assured destruction by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Understand one thing: fairness doesn't matter. Never having them used in war, that's what matters.

      Um. But the USA is the only country ever to use them in war. So perhaps you wish to modify your statement to: "Never having them used against us in war, that's what matters."

    8. Re:mutually assured destruction by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Yet other countries have them."

      I didn't say "deterrence" trumps everything else. Sometimes one has to USE force to obtain the desired outcome or something like it.

      That all wars since WWII have been rather minor affairs argues that mutual nuclear deterrence between RATIONAL ACTORS works.

      An irrational actor may not be deterred, which means the option to defeat or destroy (there is a difference) may be selected.

      For example, Israel deters enemies by the "Samson option". If you are going to lose your country irrevocably to an enemy, there is
      no logical reason not to destroy as many of them as possible. It becomes perfectly reasonable to empty your arsenal into their military, infrastructure, and since in cultural war every enemy human is an enemy, their population centers. Your willingness to do that must exist to be a deterrent, and if that fails, you serve your co-culturalists elsewhere by your sacrifice.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:mutually assured destruction by IICV · · Score: 1

      That all wars since WWII have been rather minor affairs argues that mutual nuclear deterrence between RATIONAL ACTORS works.

      Post hoc, ergo propter hoc anyone?

      The fact that all wars since WWI have been minor affairs might also argue for the fact that we've realized there are other, better ways of getting what you want besides war. After all, why blow all that wealth on fighting someone when you can just sell them stuff?

      A shitload of things have changed since WWII. You can't just assume that nukes (and our stockpile of them, specifically) were the cause of it.

    10. Re:mutually assured destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We actually have, as of 2009, 5113 nuclear warheads, plus some thousands that are pending dismantlement.
      We peaked at 31,225 warheads in 1967.

    11. Re:mutually assured destruction by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      It becomes perfectly reasonable to empty your arsenal into their military, infrastructure, and since in cultural war every enemy human is an enemy, their population centers. Your willingness to do that must exist to be a deterrent, and if that fails, you serve your co-culturalists elsewhere by your sacrifice.

      What the fuck? Every human is a human is a human. The mere thought that bombing (much less nuking) population centers can be in any way, shape or form legitimate is pure madness.

      Please take a step back and think about why someone would want to go to war with you, thereby creating your necessity to defend yourself. Rational people don't do that "for the lulz".

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    12. Re:mutually assured destruction by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      the fact that we've realized there are other, better ways of getting what you want besides war.

      No, I don't think so. Indeed, a lot of war-mongers seem to be forgetting this lesson. The US invaded and occupied Iraq after all.

      In support of couchslug's post, I'd point out that irrational actors usually aren't so great at running a nation. The people that would strap one to their back and run into the enemy territory aren't the people who have access to nukes. The people who do hold the button have a lot more to live for then the guerrilla fighter hiding in caves.

    13. Re:mutually assured destruction by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      I never knew we were at war with the Marshal Islands. Hint: if you're going to be pedantic, learn the vocabulary (i.e. thermonuclear).

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    14. Re:mutually assured destruction by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Understand one thing: fairness doesn't matter. Never having them used in war, that's what matters.

      Um. But the USA is the only country ever to use them in war. So perhaps you wish to modify your statement to: "Never having them used against us in war, that's what matters."

      No, I don't wish. We used twenty kiloton devices against a declared enemy at the end of World War II, and haven't used them that way since. We've certainly been provoked at times, yet we still exercised the necessary restraint. So enough with this "but, but, America is the only nation that ever used atomic weapons in war!" Yes, we know that. Get over it. And, if you're so goddamned concerned about how much damage we did to Japan before they quit, keep in mind that the fire raids that led up to the atom bombings caused many times more devastation than both nukes combined. It's perfectly possible to kill thousands of human beings in perfectly horrible ways without using an atom bomb, and we did. But nobody wants to talk about that because it was just "conventional" warfare: all you hear is "America used nukes in war and is sooooo evil!" So what? Napalm and thermite are a nasty brew, especially when you drop thousands of tons of them on enemy cities made of paper and bamboo. Yeah, so we're not nice guys when we make war on you. I mean, what did you expect ... lollipops? Look, the world is full of badasses: just deal with it.

      More importantly, I doubt you're bothering to consider (because it would weaken your fantasy of the U.S. as a thermonuclear aggressor who needs to be taken down a notch) the difference in yield between the primitive devices used against Japan, and modern fusion weapons. The things simply can't be allowed to proliferate: it was bad enough when it was just us and the Soviets. You may not like the United States, but you would be dissembling if you claimed there aren't countries who would be far, far more dangerous than the U.S. if they were armed with hydrogen warheads and delivery systems.

      Seems like simple nuclear fission just doesn't cause enough mass destruction for some people.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  14. YAY!!!! by Excelcior · · Score: 1

    YAY!!!...
    What, why is everyone looking at me like that? Is it wrong for me to get excited when my home state makes it onto the news? This is a once-in-a-lifetime event!

    --
    A small comparison of interest:
    Windows: Public School. Mac: Private School. Linux: Homeschool. Assembly: Unschool.
    1. Re:YAY!!!! by PatPending · · Score: 1

      The next time Wyoming makes it onto front page news will likely be when the Yellowstone super-volcano caldera explodes. So, yeah, by all means, celebrate while you can.

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:YAY!!!! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The next time Wyoming makes it onto front page news will likely be when the Yellowstone super-volcano caldera explodes. So, yeah, by all means, celebrate while you can.

      Ah, another Emmerich fan.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:YAY!!!! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Why not oming?

    4. Re:YAY!!!! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yea but it only goes off every 50,000 years or so, and the last time was at least that long ago...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  15. Obviously we need to get rid of them by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd recommend over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

    Win Win!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Obviously we need to get rid of them by PatPending · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend over Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

      Win Win!

      PROFIT!

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  16. what if the missiles are intelligent (to a point) by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    ... and assumed the launch control center has been blown away, then proceed to start the launch sequence on their own?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  17. Re:WOPR tried to hack in and must over loaded some by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    "I ain't gonna let some silicon diode tell me what to do!" -- General Beringer

    False alarm, good Amerika peoples. Only Peoples Republic of China installing network taps. Please to go about your daily businesses.

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  18. Stupid hype by fartingfool · · Score: 4, Insightful
    After reading the article, it's full of hype. They corrected themselves; it wasn't a power failure, but just a couple of missiles that started blabbering to the monitoring computers incorrectly so they unplugged them to prevent a cascade. Everyone in the article with a name (e.g. Sgt. Soandso) said everything was fine and they knew everything that was going on. Everyone without a name (e.g. "a general who is high up") happened to suggest otherwise.

    Move along, nothing to see here -.-

    1. Re:Stupid hype by FredThompson · · Score: 1

      Yup, a non-event. I was a missileer at a different base in the 1990s. We had something similar which was caused by an inspector crew who mistakenly screwed up their network credentials (for lack of a better term). The article describes the launch crews trying to "muscle up" their control over the noise then restarting the net, similar to removing power from a computer and givng the capacitors a little time to discharge. There are multiple redundant control and monitoring systems. Control was't lot, it just took a different form for a while as the crews restarted their network. The overwhelming majority of the time missile crew duty is as dull as you can possibly imagine while being conscious, punctuated by periods of extreme panic. The reality is that almost nothing happens, sort of like the Maytag repair man. Something like this gives 10 missileers text they can use on their yearly evaluations to document they accomplished something. Think about it, billions and billions of dollars were spent to create multiple layers of redundancy and security so that...nothing...will happen. The biggest challege a missileer has is not being bored. The systems really are that safe.

    2. Re:Stupid hype by RunsWithMatches · · Score: 1

      ...Everyone in the article with a name (e.g. Sgt. Soandso) said everything was fine and they knew everything that was going on. Everyone without a name (e.g. "a general who is high up") happened to suggest otherwise...

      Isn't that the truth. It illustrates a point I wish I had learned in High School but, embarrassingly, It took much longer -- That unnamed sources in news reporting were simply the reporter's personal opinion.

  19. UPS.....get a werewolves cluster of them by cl191 · · Score: 0

    Good to know that the computers I have at home are better protected against power failure than the ICBMS we have!

  20. Re:what if the missiles are intelligent (to a poin by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This kind of situation is the reason they don't put such 'intelligence' into the missiles.

  21. Lucky it's not like the movies by JoltinJoe77 · · Score: 1

    "If Ikon goes off-line it will assume that there has been a catastrophe and will initiate launch on its own." -General Vostov

  22. Article Summary by HtR · · Score: 1

    For about an hour on Saturday, it was somewhat harder to launch about 50 nuclear missiles, making the world temporarily a teeny bit safer.

    --
    Have you tried turning it off and on again?
    1. Re:Article Summary by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't feel safer knowing that some unforeseen glitch can disable all kinds of security systems. Losing control by the US command chain is one requirement for someone else to get control of them. And overall, defective control systems leave open the possibility of all kinds of other problems.

      Nothing but 100% predictable control of nukes is acceptable.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Article Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only things certain in life are death and taxes.

      There is no 100% predictable control. Your acceptance requirements are impossible. Don't feel safe. Dig a hole. Hide in it.

    3. Re:Article Summary by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, with failsafes and redundancies we can achieve 100% predictable control of even highly complex systems like nuke missile sites. We generally have for well over 50 years now. But indeed I don't feel perfectly safe with nukes in the world.

      Good thing Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot aren't in charge of our nuke security. Or, in light of the failures at this major base, maybe you are. Not a safe feeling. But there's no hole deep enough to hide from the consequences. Instead I'd rather we fix it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  23. Wow this is overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Look, I RTFAd.

    To summarize: one of the ICBM routers went out of control, sending out pings to the missiles before it should. The missiles sent back error codes as they weren't expecting to be pinged yet, and the increase in traffic eventually flooded that segment of the network, and they had to take it down. The local guys lost control of some added security features. They sent in armed soldiers to each silo to make sure they were intact.

    The president still had full control of the missiles via NCA and Kneecap. Neither were operational at the time due to our relatively peaceful defcon status, but every single one of the missiles would have still launched during the "power failure".

    Really, the only reason this is a big story is what the hardware was controlling. As any slashdot reader can tell you, routers can die all the time without warning. They were back up and running within an hour (bypassing the faulty router).

    1. Re:Wow this is overblown by moonbender · · Score: 1

      They sent in armed soldiers to each silo to make sure they were intact.
      Shooting the disobeying missiles was a possibility, so they couldn't send in unarmed soldiers.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:Wow this is overblown by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Do we really need that many routers?

      Can't we route the world over like 9 times by now?

      Think of the children.

    3. Re:Wow this is overblown by blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

      Shooting the interlopers who'd snapped the router cable while drilling into the silo was a possibility.

    4. Re:Wow this is overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My guess is they couldn't tell if the warheads were still attached to the missiles....hence the guns to shoot people deciding to Italian Job the warheads

    5. Re:Wow this is overblown by sempir · · Score: 1

      One missile to another "jeezuz dude...here come the sojurs....act tact"!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    6. Re:Wow this is overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the alarm systems offline, they needed some level of physical security. The quickest and easiest way to handle this is issue some ammo and post guard.

      Anywhere in the US military, if the alarm system for an arms room goes offline, armed guards are needed. It's far from surprising that nuclear weapons deserve at least as much consideration.

  24. Dull Sword by rsborg · · Score: 1

    So Broken Arrow means missing nuke.

    Apparently Dull Sword is the term for a non-functioning nuclear warhead.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Dull Sword by PatPending · · Score: 1

      So Broken Arrow means missing nuke. Apparently Dull Sword is the term for a non-functioning nuclear warhead.

      Yeah, but what does Limp Dick mean?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    2. Re:Dull Sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheney's been shot again?

    3. Re:Dull Sword by imamac · · Score: 1

      There is also Empty Quiver. Very bad.

    4. Re:Dull Sword by imamac · · Score: 1

      Oh and Broken Arrow is simply a nuclear "incident" which *could* include a nuke going missing.

  25. Obligatory Dr. Strangelove Quote by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  26. Clearly UFO's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=157161

  27. New meaning to scared in the dark by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    That has to give a whole new meaning to being afraid in the dark. I bet there were a few hundred people messing their pants on Saturday, and a lot of people who haven't stopped working non-stop since the incident.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  28. Egregious error in description by stephencrane · · Score: 1

    50 ICBMs do not come close to pretending to be 1/9th of the US nuclear missile stockpile, much less the US warhead stock.

  29. If you don't take care of your toys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 2008, Gates fired the Secretary of the Air Force and its chief of staff after a series of incidents suggested to Gates that the service wasn't taking its nuclear duties seriously enough. At one point, a B-52 bomber flew across the continental U.S. without realizing that its nuclear weapons were "hot."

    Ya know, if you boys can't learn to take care of your toys, maybe you should have them taken away!

    1. Re:If you don't take care of your toys... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In 2008, Gates fired the Secretary of the Air Force and its chief of staff after a series of incidents suggested to Gates that the service wasn't taking its nuclear duties seriously enough. At one point, a B-52 bomber flew across the continental U.S. without realizing that its nuclear weapons were "hot."

      Ya know, if you boys can't learn to take care of your toys, maybe you should have them taken away!

      Who's going to do it?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  30. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    You'll be grateful for Bush's foresight when the aliens attack and we lack the ability to transmit a virus to their mothership from our trusty powerbooks.

  31. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by PaladinAlpha · · Score: 1

    What bombs are those? I'm honestly curious, I've never heard of anything like that before.

  32. Looks like the firings didn't work by headhot · · Score: 1

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00960720080606

    The Air Force has been long criticized over its handling of the nuclear stock pile. Missleers used to be a sought after job, but over the last few decades, its been a career dead end in the Air Force.

  33. Dick Cheney Located by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Dick Cheney came to elected office from Wyoming, and claimed he was from Wyoming to avoid the law that prohibits both president and VP candidate coming from the same state (Texas, with Bush). Cheney is the devil, and dwells in the bowels of the Earth. Cheney loves nothing more than WMD like "loose nukes". He's got plenty of time on his hands, and saw on TV that Republicans are taking over again next week.

    I believe we have located the Cheney Bunker. And he's grabbing nukes!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Dick Cheney Located by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Obama was born in Hawaii, and actually won his inaugural election - unlike Bush/Cheney who stole it. You voted for McCain, who was born in Panama.

      Obama protected the US economy from the devastation you voted for in Bush/Cheney twice. Health care isn't at all "taken over", just a little less profitable for the insurance cartel. Bush/Cheney/Paulson made TARP necessary, and then they passed it through Congress - Obama just managed to make it work, and recoup nearly all the money spent on it. Oh, and taxes are lower for everyone but the richest 5%, and overall lower than under Bush, while also lowering the deficit compared to the Bush deficit before Obama.

      You Teabagger Republicans are really stupid. Not just because you repeat those lies crafted in some Republican PR corp, but because you think repeating them in public will fool anyone but fellow Republicans.

      And the "anti-establishment" candidates are trained and funded by Karl Rove and his secret foreign corporate money. Not "anti-establishment" at all, except to fool you fools. And we'll see just how many win anywhere but the usual idiot farms that always elect Republicans.

      You Republicans are autards who never learn anything. Even this post won't penetrate your haze of deluded lies.

      But yeah, his middle name actually is Hussein. Which makes you a bigot. You should run for Congress, Teabagger. Republicans would vote for you. Once they're told to by some Republican corporate sponsor.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  34. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation? Sounds a bit science fiction'ish so some more information would be nice

    As long as it doesn't use Cobalt Thorium-G

  35. ip addess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do the nukes each have an ip address? what happens if I do a port scan? (besides having several 3 letter agencies show up and get a room at Gitmo?

    1. Re:ip addess by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do the nukes each have an ip address? what happens if I do a port scan? (besides having several 3 letter agencies show up and get a room at Gitmo?

      A room at Gitmo isn't enough? What, you want to actually launch something? Greedy bastard.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  36. Wow in the event of an emergency... by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The end of the world could possibly take an extra 5 minutes.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  37. Oh relax.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    It's not like we were using them anyway. Heck, we probably saved on some tritium, assuming it didn't leak out when the power went off.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  38. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    When Clinton took office they had 5 bombs that individually each one could destroy the planet. He had 3 of them dismantled and had the other 2 on orders to be dismantled. Bush came into office and stopped that silliness instead ordering 9 more to be built. Thus we can assume right now that the US has at least 11 bombs that if they work according to theory would completely destroy this planet. YAY

    This isn't a troll, mods ... ought to get a +5 Funny. You must go through a lot of Reynolds Wrap.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  39. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by xaoslaad · · Score: 1

    Agreed. The biggest we've had to my knowledge is a 25 mt bomb - the B41. That's not small, but even a 15mt left people alive at 75 miles. http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/PAGEPUB/CH2.html I don't think a 25 would take out the world...

  40. SHALL WE PLAY A GAME? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?

    WOULDN'T YOU PREFER A NICE GAME OF CHESS

  41. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by tftp · · Score: 1

    What bombs are those? I'm honestly curious, I've never heard of anything like that before.

    Your geek card is in danger. You could think of black hole bombs, for example (The Gap trilogy), or of fun with planet-smashers (Doc Smith's evolved and ethical and genocidal Lensmen), and many more.

  42. Technically... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    Technically, the Electoral College rules prevent an elector for voting for a president/VP from the same state. So they could have both run as Texas residents, but it would have been poor strategy (Bush/Lieberman or the screwy procedures for a Congressional vote breaking an indecisive EC vote)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  43. phones out to cheyene mountain beats that by magarity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know a fellow who cut the phone lines to Cheyenne Mountain back in the early '70s. He was running the drilling machine to make pilings for a new highway overpass when two truckloads of angry MPs hunting communist infiltrators came roaring down the road. Turns out the guy who left the little flags showing where there was an underground cable didn't notice a loop that was put in when the cables were installed and the two ends didn't match up. By complete coincidence the bridge piling was going in right over the looped cable. Hah, took my friend and his crew several hours to convince the MPs they weren't a Soviet sleeper cell disrupting communications as prelude to nuclear attack.

    1. Re:phones out to cheyene mountain beats that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But whatever happened to the poor people at Stargate command?

    2. Re:phones out to cheyene mountain beats that by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      Stargate command wasn't operational until the mid 90's.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    3. Re:phones out to cheyene mountain beats that by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      So... what was in the Cheyenne Mounting in the '70s?

      They didn't move the gate there 'till like, 95 or something, right?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    4. Re:phones out to cheyene mountain beats that by wiredog · · Score: 1

      We get that sort of thing here in NoVa when the people running the tunnel for the subway hit unmarked cables belonging to various local three letter agencies. The Washington Post had an article about that a few months back.

  44. Re:what if the missiles are intelligent (to a poin by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    That's why it's called a fail safe. If it fails, it goes into a safe mode.

    You wouldn't want it to automatically fire the missiles. They are strategically pre-programed with destinations so they can be launched in a hurry. Suppose China or Japan does a sneak attack and they are still aimed at Russia who for some unknown reason is coming to our aid and assisting us in repelling the land invasion. Now suppose the invading army took out the command center and the missiles blew up Russia.

    It doesn't make sense to automatically shoot at unknown enemies. We spent craploads of money putting satellites and sensors all over the globe in order to detect launches and deduce point of origins from travel arc just so we could respond to the threat and not potential allies or neutral countries.

  45. Better count them by PPH · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a typical SPECTRE operation.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Better count them by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Lex Luthor tunneling from below to steal them again, no doubt.

    2. Re:Better count them by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Better count them

      Don't worry, UFO's already did it for us.

  46. It was the aliens.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, don't any of you watch the History Channel.... aliens are doing this, sabotaging our nuclear sites ... it was on the history channel so it MUST be correct!

    Oh and Michio Kaku can travel between universes and break the laws of conservation and symmetry.

  47. Re:Update to the story - lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PING OF DEATH!

  48. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Tzar Bomba was 50 MT, and was detonated.

  49. Underground cable breach? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The cause of the failure remains unknown, although it is suspected to be a breach of underground cables deep beneath the base, according to a senior military official."

    Mole People working for Al Qaeda! How else can this act of sabotage be explained?

    1. Re:Underground cable breach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone else wondering... what are they building???

  50. obviously its been disabled by UFOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    didn't you guys see the CNN news about the UFOs disabling missile silo's.... it was all over usenet.(oops.. wasn't suppose to talk about usenet)......

      I mean one got to keep the children of earth from killing themselves. This was a long term investment from their part.

  51. Fu*cking gophers again by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Fu*cking gophers again, chewing on the wires in the ground because they're warm (all that current) and the ancient paper/plastic coating tastes so good to them.

    Actually the real problem in the 21st century is that 'Mutually Assured Destruction' doesn't work as a deterrent to people who are willing to commit mass murder and mass suicide for some god that they believe in. Say what you want about the commies, they weren't religious fanatics who would be willing to blow up the world in order to get 72 virgins.

      We need to consider putting 'omnicide' (a word that I made up meaning a deliberate act resulting in the destruction of all human life on earth) technology into partial control of a group of rational, civilized people who can make sure that the governments that have omnicide technology don't bumble or get tricked into using it. And that nobody who doesn't have it gets access to it.

        Omnicide technology is not having a few nuclear bombs. That would just make big explosions and create a lot of fall-out. Stupid and envoironmentally destructive, but not in the omnicide category. Having 5000-10000 hydrogen-to-helium converters put you in the OT category, though. So does having the technology to create super-diseases that spread rapidly and have no cure. Or earthquake control technology (which may or may not exist). Or asteroid-directional control technology, which definitely doesn't exist as yet. Or any other omnicide technology that I can't think of at the moment. (Can you think of something that I missed?)

        I'd be surprised if such a group doesn't already exist, possibly with extra-human intelligence oversight.

        Ask Muldar, he knows.

    1. Re:Fu*cking gophers again by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      Can you think of something that I missed?

      Just a few:
      - black-hole creation technology (might or might not work)
      - matter-antimatter devices
      - the ability to create very-very large volumes of a persistent deadly chemical agent

      none of these are very realistic though, but still

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:Fu*cking gophers again by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about the commies, they weren't religious fanatics who would be willing to blow up the world in order to get 72 virgins.

      They're going to be REAL surprised when they find it's 72 fat bearded slashdotters who lived in their mom's basement!

  52. Hmm, I wonder if they also by Compaqt · · Score: 1
    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  53. Re:what if the missiles are intelligent (to a poin by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

    What if they programmed the missiles to roll a D100 simulated maintenance check every month and if they roll a hard one they detonate right there, ON SITE?!?!?!

    I mean, while we're dreaming up ridiculous programming scenarios we might as well make it interesting.

  54. Re:WOPR tried to hack in and must over loaded some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't need to *install* taps. They already built them into the routers.

  55. The website... silo is down!!! by DreamArcher · · Score: 1

    And they get mad at me when one of our customer's website goes down for 5 minutes and they can't sell their shit. sheesh.

  56. why is this on the news? by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a terrible thing to be on the news as far as security is concerned. Did they just say f***k wikileaks, we'll leak it ourselves?

  57. Dark Star Bomb ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    What!?!? No Dark Star references?

    [Doolittle convinces the bomb not to explode]

    Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?

    Bomb #20: Of course.

    Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?

    Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.

    Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?

    Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.

    Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?

    Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.

    Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?

    Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.

    Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?

    Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.

    Pinback wants the bomb to disarm]

    Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.

    Bomb#20: You are false data.

    Pinback: Hmmm?

    Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.

    Pinback: Hello... bomb?

    Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.

    Pinback: Hey, bomb?

    Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.

    Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  58. Earthquake related? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There was a 4.4 earthquake in WY two days ago, with two aftershocks since then. Could this have affected underground cables or the computer?

  59. Re:what if the missiles are intelligent (to a poin by mysidia · · Score: 1

    ... and assumed the launch control center has been blown away, then proceed to start the launch sequence on their own?

    If they ever had it, maybe they were smart enough to turn that feature off, disable it, when the missile wasn't already armed targetted and preparing for launch, or remove it from the programming, when the cold war ended?

    Another possibility is multiple redundant communications networks, and a "fail to disable" if other links are still responsive

    Just hope there is no bug. ICBM launch controls, nuke arming, and targetting are three things that cannot be allowed to have bugs.

  60. Missileers? by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    Are they related to Musketeers? Or Mousketeers? Or Tears for Fears?

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  61. one-ninth by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    50 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), one-ninth of the US missile stockpile, [was] temporarily offline

    So we could only blow up Saturn instead of Jupiter? Dang, we better be nice to the Jovians for a while. Stop making fun of their Great Red Zit and funny clown-stripes.
       

  62. Everything I Know I Learned From Video Games by xdor · · Score: 1

    Operators should be comfortable with the dynamics of SIM City before moving on to Supreme Commander

  63. problem with "we may need them" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is, Hydrogen bombs contain pressurized Tritium gas, a hydrogen isotope. It has a half-life of 7 years, so those weapons need to be regularly cycled through a depot for refurbishment. They don't have a very long shelf life, unlike conventional explosives. And this refurb process ain't cheap.

    1. Re:problem with "we may need them" by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The problem is, Hydrogen bombs contain pressurized Tritium gas, a hydrogen isotope. It has a half-life of 7 years, so those weapons need to be regularly cycled through a depot for refurbishment. They don't have a very long shelf life, unlike conventional explosives. And this refurb process ain't cheap.

      All nuclear devices require constant maintenance. It's the price you pay for being in the game. That's not an issue, if you need them and can afford them. Unfortunately, a lot of people have fooled themselves into thinking we don't need them (given our conventional force reductions, we most certainly do) so the real question is can we continue to afford them. The answer there is: not unless we get off our asses and rebuild our industrial base.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  64. Lights-off haste? by Ruvim · · Score: 1

    So, when the lights came back up again, did they recount the warheads, to make sure that they are not missing one to Ocean's 11?

  65. Nice to know we're so easy to disarm . by Journe · · Score: 1

    Now when China's decided it's time to wipe us off the earth, all they have to do is dig a few really deep holes.

  66. Why is this not classified? by poppycock · · Score: 1

    Of all the secrets that the government keeps, why is THIS one public? Why is ANYTHING having to do with the status of nuclear weapons public? WTF? There are a few things that SHOULD be secret.

    1. Re:Why is this not classified? by Wuhao · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just classified the really good part: when the lights came back on, there were only 49.

  67. Obama Robed of 50 Nukes against US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today marks a turning point in the war by US citizens against the ruthless killer Barak Hussain Obama in his war with his most harted of foe ... the United States Citizens.

    Who will win?

    The U.S. Citizens or the Pervert Barak Hussain Obama?

    Bets are open!

  68. modern electric grid?? by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    I believe that congress was sold on the interstate highways act because we needed a system to move and stage nuclear weapon during the early days of the Cold War. Can incident like this finally convince congress to pay some money for the infrastructure for the 21st century?

    Who am I kidding?

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  69. Obligatory Tinfoil Hat Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of something I saw a few weeks ago on CNN.. something about UFOs doing something at nuclear weapons facilities or something. I forget.

  70. stuxnet? by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Iran is the only one infected who made it public knowledge.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  71. We only have 450 ICBMs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we can only wipe out 450 non-US cities with our missiles. I'm a bit disappointed by our lack of determination to wipe out humanity.

  72. oblig starcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need more pylons?

  73. And the repair tek said... by akayani · · Score: 1

    I'll have it fixed in a minute man.

  74. ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? by alizard · · Score: 1

    That was in 1962 when the US and USSR played a game of nuclear chicken.. You really should have stayed awake in your history classes.

    1. Re:ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and I have heard about the deployment of US missiles in Turkey, which prompted the Cuban deployment and the crisis in the first place.

      I was asking specifically about cases where _someone threatened US_, not about someone responding to US threats, dimwit.

    2. Re:ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They didn't cover the Cuban missle crisis in history class. But then, I was in 4th grade when it happened.

    3. Re:ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? by alizard · · Score: 1

      I was in second grade.

      I assume the AC I was responding to was too young to see it on TV news on a monochrome TV and either failed history or worse, was pretty massively failed by public or private education.

  75. Objectively glad by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

    I'm just glad they failed safe, to be honest.

    --

    Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  76. Problem with the math by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    ...a launch control center computer (LCC), responsible for a package of five missiles...they decided to take off-line all five LCCs that the malfunctioning center was connected to. That left 50 missiles in the dark.

    5 computers responsible for 5 missiles each doesn't total 50 missiles.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Problem with the math by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 1

      "a launch control center computer (LCC), responsible for a package of at least five missiles, usually ten of them". Each computer responsible for 5 to 10 missiles, each missile carrying from 1 to 3 independently targeted warheads = up to 30 warheads per computer. 5 computers down means somewhere between 5 to 150 warheads offline. So who knows exactly how many were affected.

      Besides, this is the media. They are more worried about being sensational than accurate. I'm sure the military didn't give a precise break down as to how many missiles and how many warheads were controlled by the downed computers.

      --
      The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
  77. Absolutely! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    akin to the Crazy Ivan submarine manuever, our enemies have no idea what nutty thing we'll do next!

  78. Bungling fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They better get their shit together for when the resource wars start. Can't nuke some country to steal their oil unless your missiles are ready.

  79. You mean to say by Mattskimo · · Score: 1

    that for a few hours we could only kill the entire population of the world 9 times over rather than 10? Goddammit people! That's the sort of thing that the evil ones who hate our freedoms will take advantage of! 9/11, war on terror.

  80. Well... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I guess we were just fortunate we didn't need to have a nuclear war today.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  81. Not only free world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US fate depends on it too :)

  82. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    i think the parent was asking for existing devices

    except for numerous fictional devices, i also have never heard of a device capable of destroying the planet in a single blast. Wikipedia states that there is no theoretical upper limit to Fusion device yield, so one could make a thermonuclear device with giga-tons of yield, burried somewhere (it would be HUGE, not transportable in any way), but i wonder what kind of yield would be needed to actually destroy the planet

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  83. Not really by wiredog · · Score: 1

    AT&T had their longlines go down in, IIRC, 93, from a self induced DDos like this.

    1. Re:Not really by Good+Sumerian · · Score: 1

      My prof mentioned this yesterday, actually. He worked for AT&T at the time and he said that all the fault tolerance systems flagged all neighboring nodes as in an error state, so they incorrectly all ignored each other.

  84. Oh noes by thousandinone · · Score: 1

    Our base is under attack. Low Power. Silos Needed.

  85. Re:Sorry, they have a bomb for that by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

    The Tzar Bomba was also a down-rated version of the original design, which was specified at 100 MT

    Still not enough to destroy the planet (or all life on it) though

    --
    People, what a bunch of bastards
  86. Shouldn't this be tagged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    andnothingofvaluewaslost

    ???

  87. Purity of Essence by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    You ever seen a Russkie drinking water, Mandrake?

  88. Useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they have 6000 nuclear warheads anyway? 10 of them can cause more havoc than anybody would like to admit. And they cost a lot of money to build and maintan, while the US still claims to be feeling the aftermath of the recession. Well...

  89. RTFA for updated description of the computer fail by billstewart · · Score: 1

    According to the article, it seems that one of the five redundant control computers started polling out of sequence, and the missiles didn't like it so they sent error codes, which the control computers didn't like, and lots of errors were happening in a hurry. So the operators [talked to the bombs about phenomenology] shut the control computers all down and restarted them one at a time, which let them find the bad one, and they haven't yet told the public if they've figured out what was wrong.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  90. "Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" by billstewart · · Score: 1

    You're probably too young to remember Andrei Amalrik's book, but the Soviets had severe internal conflicts and economic problems purely aside from the Cold War. Reagan's military escalation probably hastened their collapse a bit, but they had more problems with the Pope telling Eastern Europeans that they shouldn't be subject to the Soviet Empire. Amalrik was mainly focused on ethnic tensions, and even after the Soviet Union collapsed and divested itself of many of its ethnic groups, Russia still had their civil war against the Chechens and other Muslim minorities.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  91. suspicious by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I am so conspiracy all the time, but this is a little too much, all of a sudden so many bunkers went down, alarms and all.....a bit too convenient. So not enough man power to add personnel for security watch at each station, i imagine they had people waiting at each silo, too see which would have extra security, and the ones that didn't got hit...that or someone over in china was playing the next gen wargames, and brought down all the silos at once using a fake systems diagnostics test, and now knows for next time what works to bring down those missile silos.....OR, (and this is the last one ...promise) someone wanted to flex for the americans and show them just how insecure they really were, either russia, china, or ex militants knowing the systems, and decided a show of hands by shutting down for a few seconds all the systems at once....

    Whatever it was, we definitely will see the movie coming out for it....my bet is it will be another die hard....

  92. And what were we doing? by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    Ah, my nationalistic friend, it can be seen as exactly the reverse. After all, we were racing against them, too. The truth is that they were superior in many areas (airframes and engines, spacecraft--Sputnik caused us to shit our pants), and we in others. It was a two-way race.

    And no, the military build-up did not cause the USSR to collapse. It was their highly-flawed economic system. No matter how little they spent on their military, it would have still failed them.

    Oh, and China does not "a history of... copying technology", they have a history of inventing it. In recent history, they suffered horrible colonial wars, but they're back. Don't let your patriotism confuse you.

  93. Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story is complete BS. I worked in those facilities, and what they describe simply isn't possible...
    There is some other issue they are not telling.

  94. UFOs probably by wasabu · · Score: 1

    A lot of UFO activity lately, and this last month -> http://www.colinandrews.net/UFOs-NuclearOver-ride.html

  95. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who erroneously accepted orders from Swinging Dick Cheney aside, the VP is **NOT** in the chain of command unless the President is DEAD.
    ...and at that point he is no longer the Vice President.

    gewg_