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."

8 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 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.

    2. 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. 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 -.-

  4. 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!)
  5. 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

  6. 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."