Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Power Failure Shuts Down 50 US Nuclear Missiles

Posted by timothy on from the need-a-bigger-ups dept.

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."

19 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.
    3. 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."
  4. 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 -.-

  5. 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!)
  6. 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

  7. 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.
  8. 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

  9. 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...

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

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.