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."

24 of 338 comments (clear)

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

    are offline!

  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 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.
    2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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!
    8. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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 -.-

  7. 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 blair1q · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  8. 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!)
  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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."

  12. 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."