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."
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?
"for a few hours, we lost the ability to end the world"
what a shame.
"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."
Move along, nothing to see here -.-
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.
The end of the world could possibly take an extra 5 minutes.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
If you have to resort to using ICMB's against terrorists, then the terrorists probably have already won
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.
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...
"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."
Let me guess: "free world" equals the United States?
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.
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.