Slashdot Mirror
Who Should Manage the Nuclear Weapons Complex, Civilians Or Military?
Lasrick writes "For the first time since 1946, Congress is seriously debating whether the U.S. nuclear weapons complex should be under civilian or military control. That the article is in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is significant, as it was many of the scientists who founded BAS who argued for civilian control in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They believed that atomic energy was too destructive, and the military too secretive, which would possibly thwart scientific discovery and erect a major obstacle to international control and cooperation. The article talks about how management has changed over the decades and explains the discussion that needs to happen before Congress acts."
me.
~Dr. Evil
Who do you trust less: the military, or a whatever corporation would be set up to run it? Personally, I'd take the one where people of whatever level of management can be held accountable by court-martial.
Outsource!
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
Isn't the military supposed to be under civilian control already? Have they gone rogue and I just haven't heard of it until now?
Isn't the head of the military an elected official?
The military is under civilian control, but the military are better at controlling their own weapons than some private corporation, IMHO.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Who said anything about a corporation? TFS refers to civilians, as in the government.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Major Jack D Ripper : Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Captain Lionel Mandrake : No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
Major Jack D Ripper : He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.
Civilians should institute basic guidlines and limits for the military.
And the military should follow its orders and creed to uphold those. See constitution, bill of rights, and maybe for nuclear weapons further legislation.
Noone. It should be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I agree. I think we should base all our decisions on 50-year old fictional movies.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
They should have to vote on each and every target and its subsequent launch.
Doesn't the government have the habit to privatize these kinds of tasks and have corporations act on its behalf?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I vote for DHS and TSA. At least we'll know that when they cause a catastrophe, they'll be irradiated first.
Personally, I'd trust the military much more than I would Congress, especially now.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It is my belief that the status quo should remain. The system works, though perhaps they should hire better security contractors to reign in recalcitrant nuns.
The military is subordinate to the President (and in some ways to congress). The President is the ultimate command authority. However their day to day stuff? That's all internal. There aren't a bunch of civilian overseers who pass the final ok on everything. It isn't like a general makes a decision and then looks over at a civilian who gives the thumbs up or down to the plan.
So while the civilian government maintains the ultimate control, they can fire or promote military leaders, controls their budget, and can set their agenda, there is little civilian control over the details.
So the question is do we want a civilian government agency overseeing nuclear power, or a military agency?
I don't disagree, but the debate here is about the nuclear weapons stockpile, not about nuclear power plants.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Answer seems obvious.
i can say from experience that neither one is even remotely qualified to manage nuclear weapons. hell, lets be honest, most people people at the management level, civilian and military alike, shouldnt even be managing their own breakfast choices, let alone nuclear weapons, or worse- other people (yes, i consider people much more dangerous than nuclear weapons, but thats just my opinion).
The military hasn't changed that much in the past 50 years in terms of culture, what the movie's about can still happen today, I don't know if the launch key protocol has been changed since in concept, I wouldn't be surprised it hasn't.
:)
Now the fact that somebody on slashdot would down mod dr. strangelove... that's just pathetic, mods should have a requirement to check for hair on balls before assigning mod points
Because Artificial Intelligence beats Natural Stupidity. I propose to call the computer to which we give the control of the nuclear weapons Colossus.
Isn't the military supposed to be under civilian control already?
No, you have that confused with our political syst... oh, wait...
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Military handles security and civilian technical community handles operations. Each one thinks they are in charge.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
the word you want is "oversight".
in theory, the civilians, not necessarily knowing what or how to run a war, simply tell the military "we're at war with X...go get them!", and the military does so.
sometimes they micromanage and screw things up. sometimes they dont have enough oversight and screw things up.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm not sure how this changes the question, but either way the nuclear weapons complex is ultimately under civilian control. My understanding is that a nuclear device can not be deployed without an order from a civilian commander. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the order to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki solely under orders from a civilian?
Another thing to think about: Look at how other civilian government organizations are managed, and imagine a network of nuclear missiles under the same management. Don't world-destroying weapons need military-level discipline to keep in control?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I agree. I think we should base all our decisions on 50-year old fictional movies.
Ohhh, THEM!
Clearly, we should be irradiating as much wild life as possible. These giant mutant creatures would feed millions!
100% of the wars the US initiated have been initiated by a civilian government.
The current structure is that the military is a tool used by politicians to exert pressure on foreign nations. Having a military layer between the civilians and the big red button seems better than no layer at all.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Mod parent funny!
sudo make me a sandwich
Doesn't the military do that anyway?
Better put all in the hands of the military yes ? Those same fuck ass holes that wanted to start world war 3 during the Cuban missile crisis ?
And your basis for this opinion is... what? Something other than movies, I hope?
Those same fucktards warmongers that wanted to invade Cuba ?
If you mean the Bay of Pigs, you do know that that was a CIA operation, and that the CIA is a civilian agency, not a military one, right? If you mean the JCS recommendation during the missile crisis, that was their assessment of what it would take to remove the Soviet missiles. When Kennedy asked for their opinions, should they have lied to him and not given him honest analysis about what they thought it would take to ensure no missiles remained in Cuba?
I trust the government much more than I trust even one military.
Then you know very little about how decisions are made, especially the high-level kind that you're referring to. Military personnel are often more cautious than their civilian bosses, because they have a better grasp of the actual capabilities and risks involved. When the generals urge a stronger response than what the civilians are suggesting (as in the Cuban Missile Crisis), it's usually because the civilians have an inflated perception of what the military can do -- in that case, the JCS recommended an invasion because airstrikes alone couldn't ensure the destruction of the missile sites. Do the thing properly, or don't attempt it at all. Go read pretty much any memoir by a US president, vice-president, or secretary of defense (regardless of party) who had a serious military crisis on their watch, and you'll see this when they discuss the decision-making process. Bob Woodward's The Commanders is also insightful on this. It's not quite the same dynamic as PHB vs. techie, but there are strong similarities at times.
Further, military personnel have a range of ideologies, just like civilians do. John Kerry, George McGovern, Jeremiah Wright, and Charles Rangel hardly match the caricature you're painting.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
I don't say this about many things being the progressive technologist that I am, but this case really seriously calls for it:
DO NOT FIX WHAT'S NOT BROKEN
Just saying, when it comes to managing out nuclear weapons, what we have right now seems to be working just fine, so please please just leave it the hell alone!!
That said, I trust the military in this particular case over the civilian portion of the government. One thing about the military portion of the government is for all the DoD contractors there are (and I don't think that's who has anything to do with this stuff to be sure, I'm pretty damn certain it is the Airforce/Navy directly maintaining the knowledge and responsibility for this stuff in the ranks), the military side has stringent rules it will hold private entities that it contracts to regarding exposure to foreign entities, those same rules are not so in place on the civilian side of the government's contracting management arms.
Seriously this is slashdot.. wasn't this already polled about 100 times about who is gonna screw the pooch and end the world.
Military, Polititians, SKYNET, or Programming Snafu.
I agree. In fact control of nukes should neither be in the hands of civilian government or the military. America's nuclear arsenal should be auctioned off to private owners who can more efficiently manage the cost of maintaining such systems and assume responsibility for their use, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Studies show that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. Over time this tends to lead to lower prices, improved quality, more choices, less corruption, less red tape, and/or quicker delivery. Here are some other arguments to support privatization;
Performance. State-run industries tend to be bureaucratic. A political government may only be motivated to improve a function when its poor performance becomes politically sensitive.
Increased efficiency. Private companies and firms have a greater incentive to produce more goods and services for the sake of reaching a customer base and hence increasing profits. A public organization would not be as productive due to the lack of financing allocated by the entire government's budget that must consider other areas of the economy.
Specialization. A private business has the ability to focus all relevant human and financial resources onto specific functions. A state-owned firm does not have the necessary resources to specialize its goods and services as a result of the general products provided to the greatest number of people in the population.
Improvements. Conversely, the government may put off improvements due to political sensitivity and special interests—even in cases of companies that are run well and better serve their customers' needs.
Corruption. A state-monopolized function is prone to corruption; decisions are made primarily for political reasons, personal gain of the decision-maker (i.e. "graft"), rather than economic ones. Corruption (or principal-agent issues) in a state-run corporation affects the ongoing asset stream and company performance, whereas any corruption that may occur during the privatization process is a one-time event and does not affect ongoing cash flow or performance of the company.
Accountability. Managers of privately owned companies are accountable to their owners/shareholders and to the consumer, and can only exist and thrive where needs are met. Managers of publicly owned companies are required to be more accountable to the broader community and to political "stakeholders". This can reduce their ability to directly and specifically serve the needs of their customers, and can bias investment decisions away from otherwise profitable areas.
Civil-liberty concerns. A company controlled by the state may have access to information or assets which may be used against dissidents or any individuals who disagree with their policies.
Goals. A political government tends to run an industry or company for political goals rather than economic ones.
Capital. Privately held companies can sometimes more easily raise investment capital in the financial markets when such local markets exist and are suitably liquid. While interest rates for private companies are often higher than for government debt, this can serve as a useful constraint to promote efficient investments by private companies, instead of cross-subsidizing them with the overall credit-risk of the country. Investment decisions are then governed by market interest rates. State-owned industries have to compete with demands from other government departments and special interests. In either case, for smaller markets, political risk may add substantially to the cost of capital.
Security. Governments have had the tendency to "bail out" poorly run businesses, often due to the sensitivity of job losses, when economically, it may be better to let the business fold.
Lack of market discipline. Poorly managed state companies are insulated from the same discipline as private companies, which could go bankrupt, have their management removed,
Those same fuck ass holes that wanted to start world war 3 during the Cuban missile crisis ?
..but didn't.
Those same fucktards warmongers that wanted to invade Cuba ?
..but didn't.
I trust the government much more than I trust even one military.
I expect the Government to determine policy - which includes whether to initiate or continue in military action. I trust the military to execute that policy.
So far the record in NATO member countries for the military obeying the dictates of the elected government has been exemplary. Why don't you trust them?
I'm sorry but I'll listen to a general before some political reptile, politicians are the least trustworthy members of society.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
who gets to blow up the world?
Like why have the ability.... unless you are going to use it.
That is a high level policy. The details were the individual cases involved, the over all policy is something that is up to the civilian government.
A small detail thing would be if an individual was being prosecuted under it and the President stepped in and ordered that to stop. He has the authority to do that, but doesn't do that sort of thing in reality.
The individual DATA cases, those were all handled by the military.
The President can theoretically control any detail of the military being the commander in chief. All chains of command end with him. However the President has a lot of other shit to do, so he doesn't, much as a CEO doesn't sit in on every meeting and every decision (and bearing in mind the military is even bigger than a company).
Once you go down from him, well it is all military. There are not civilians interspersed in the chain of command. The decisions are made by military personnel.
Same deal with courts. The military runs their own courts for their own issues. Those courts are subordinate to the Supreme Court, as all courts in the US are, but that is it. The lawyers, judges, juries, all military members. Only if something is appealed to the SC do civilians have oversight on it.
I don't get what that is supposed to accomplish. I can see that if it is a budgetary argument, that we spend too much maintaining them (we don't spend much on it but it always could be less). However if your argument is one of destruction then who cares how many the US has? It is all or nothing, going part way gets you nowhere. It is a silly feel-good measure with no actual use.
We've seen the military purposes to which weapons were arbitrarily dropped on Japan. History teaches nuclear weapons did not end WWII with Japan, only destroying Japan's Emperor form of gov't. So...that precedent speaks to the country of Iran, its form of gov't today and nuclear weapons locked, loaded and ready for duty in the middle east. This is not a military decision nor should it be
The summary could use some work. The article is talking about the the agency (National Nuclear Security Administration) that controls the design, development and maintenance of nukes and related facilities, said agency being created in 1999 and placed under the Energy Department (civilian) control. What's up for discussion is are plans to move it out from under the Energy Department.
this is about Civilian (government) vs. Military (government, specifically the DOD).
Ok, so we are effectively talking TSA airport security vs. the US military and the TSA is already irradiating millions of people without access to nuclear weapons. Is there really any question who you want to be in control?
I may be biased by living in San Diego, but the "civilian" oversight of nuclear energy has failed. We have a nuclear power plant here 60 miles from downtown which is bogged down in endless hearings and oversight. Taking the safety issues seriously is great, but it's obvious the government teams lack the expertise and will to actually help get the reactor running again or decide to shut it down permanently.
Meanwhile there are 3+ perfectly fine nuclear reactors running on aircraft carriers and subs docked right at downtown San Diego all the time. No one seems to mind and no one seems to worry.
Whether that's justified or not doesn't really matter. The Navy can and does build new nuclear power plants and generally has the trust of the public to do that. The DOE does not. These are the results: the military has effective nuclear power, the civilians do not.
I would welcome your solution if we could be certain everyone else would also dispose of their rings too. which leaves us at a bit of an impasse.
It is not so easy because, while the knowledge on how to make nuclear weapons remains we are still are risk of rouge states or powerful terrorist groups eventually creating one. So really you need to eliminate the knowledge of how to make them at the basic physics level because anyone who understands enough basic nuclear physics behind how these things work will be able to figure out a means to make one given enough time and resources. Frodo had it a lot easier - destroying his ring got rid on the only person who knew how to make it in the first place. A better analogy for our case is Pandora's box.
Do you have any idea how completely clueless you make yourself look to those of us who have worn a uniform?
In a macro sense, the U.S. military is a security organization. It is an extreme example of a hierarchical structure and it is designed for the security of the nation, so it is ideally-suited to handle security of all things nuclear. The U.S. military is far from perfect (because it it composed of imperfect human beings) but it actually is far more competent than many other human institutions. Each and every member is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution (not some person, or political party) and it is under the control of the elected civilians in the government (the money is provided by congress, the highest leaders are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Congress, and the orders come from the President; most people do not realize it but even the officer promotions notifications go through to the congress, which generally does not intervene but is kept aware and COULD intervene with laws or budgets if it felt the need). The U.S. military is not allowed to unionize, and its legal system (while appearing strange and sometimes more lax than the civilian system) is actually tailored for security and often results in problems being dealt with quietly before they become big enough to require the intervention of the civilians (who have more important things to worry about than discipline matters that were stopped before they became a problem)
You're not in a position to "guarantee" anything from your mother's basement.
Or maybe you think we should make decisions about NASA based on the film "Mars Attacks".....
Oh, I get it, you think Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and The Onion are actually news. (eyes rolling)
The US Military gets a smaller portion of the US budget now than at any time in the nation's past. We spend far more on checks to senior citizens. Even a large portion of the pentagon budget goes to retired senior citizens who put-in full careers in uniform rather than to the current personnel or their weapons systems
if we are any sort of something-or-other "complex", we are a banking and wealth re-distributing complex that is dedicated to transferring as much money as possible from young workers to old AARP members on a scale never before seen in human history. The geezers built the government systems to provide for themselves while leaving the bills to future generations, then they maxed-out their investment income by demanding corporations maximize profits by transferring manufacturing out of the US, replacing pensions with 401Ks, and globalizing the banks. Now they are using schemes like "reverse mortgages" to make sure they leave nothing to their kids when they die (no previous generation of Americans has ever done all this to the generations that followed them). In the past, a generation might leave a little debt to their kids, but that generation of kids also inherited the assets of the previous generation. Not this time. This time the multinational banks will get the assets.
Depleted Uranium ordnance was created for used on a theoretical European battlefield during WWIII with Soviet tanks pouring into Germany. The Soviets had many more tanks than the US (the US prefers quality over quantity) so the idea was to maximize the ability to penetrate Soviet tank armor. Dust and fragments of rounds was not a major concern because any WWIII scenario was likely to involve a lot more radiation from actual tactical nuclear devices. DU was never really intended to be used in purely conventional war in some third-world dump like Iraq.
"they burn there way through combustible metals by means of controlled-burn nuclear fissions" Really? Where do people get this garbage? Do you hang-out on one of those websites that claims there are ancient ruins of cities on Mars?
DU rounds DO NOT do any form of nuclear reaction when used. If they did, they'd be the world's best, safest, power supply (Nuclear fission in the palm or your hand, without a containment vessel or a chance of meltdown!) Next time, THINK before you post something that crazy The reason Depleted Uranium was used is one of the same reasons bullets used to use lead: with a kinetic-kill weapon, and given two projectiles of the same physical dimensions, you get more punch with a heavier/denser projectile and things get really fun when that density is far higher than the density of the material you are shooting at. It's basic physics.
arbitrarily dropped on Japan
Dude, stop the heavy drug use; your brain performance will improve slowly and you may even qualify to be a janitor someday
The civilian President of the U.S. (not the military) decided to drop the weapons on Japan (not an arbitrary target ... the nation that attacked Pearl Harbor). Even the target cities were carefully selected. Each did have a large population (cities get bombed in "total war", ask the people of London or Dresden) but also had significant military-industrial assets. Tokyo was not targeted in part because although it would have been the city the American civilian population would most want destroyed (after years of fighting, and all the dead American soldiers and sailors) it was the location of the Japanese Emperor and government which were specifically not destroyed (contrary to your bizarre claims). There have been many revisionists who have tried to claim something else ended, or would have ended, the war (as part of an effort by anti-nuclear and/or anti-US agitators to de-legitimize the US actions) but the fact is that the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and demanded a surrender, did not get a surrender, dropped a bomb on Nagasaki, and got a surrender within days. It was a terrible choice and not one I'd want to have made, but there is a very real sense in which the Japanese brought it on themselves by almost the same method that Saddam Hussein brought-on his fate: by toying with a WMD program and with bluffs. First, the US intercepted a German U-Boot (the U-234) underway to Japan with nuclear materials from their NAZI German allies (and given that Japan had previously gotten jet and rocket-plane tech from Germany with more and improved upon it and even more of that was aboard, this was seen as a problem (yet another reason to not let the war drag-on - there was simply no way to know how much they were doing or how fast they were working). Second, the Japanese government had made films (which the US had obtained) of their population (including women and children) being trained in combat AND the US had encountered a suicidal fanaticism in both military and civilians at places like Iwo Jima, so the projections were that the US might lose something like a million men in an invasion of the big island (just look at the mess of occupying Iraq with a much more modern US military and a population 99% of which was not willing to do suicide attacks). What president would be able to face the families of a million dead Americans and tell them that he had two bombs that could have prevented all that but decided not to for some abstract/academic reason? The very sad truth is that had the bombs not been dropped, it is quite possible even more Japanese would have died in an invasion and occupation.
I was based in San Diego, and once lived up near the San Onofre plant (had a good friend who worked there). I would have no worries having my family live right nearby in San Onofre (the neighboring community, for those not familiar with the area). First, the plant has a containment facility designed to handle a direct impact by an airliner or a worst-case meltdown, and also designed for SoCal earthquakes. Second, while I have MANY issues with the horrendous civilian oversight of nuclear activity in the US, my main complaint is that they are far too stringent on things that do not matter and not strict enough to make me happy on some things that do. Having said that, however, the record is that the civilian overseers in the US are sufficiently cautious that no American plant has ever killed anybody. Even three Mile Island where the operators completely screwed-up harmed precisely zero people. Unlike Chernobyl, we mandate adequate containment.
You are correct that the US Navy has an amazing track record with nuclear power. I used to have a buddy who was an engineering officer on a boomer, and he and his associates were sterling. I never cease to be amazed that the US Navy can take a bunch of 18 year-old kids from high school and 22 year old college kids and teach them to be competent, disciplined, and exacting ..... and then put them in charge of nuclear reactors, jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, etc and have such results.
I have long thought that no nuclear plant in the US should be civilian ... working in these plants ought to be a second career we offer to the best members of our nuclear navy when they choose to retire and want a stable family life at a fixed street address. Such people could not only be trusted to be fully-competent and willing to sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens, but also would be competent to defend the facility should that need ever arise.
So far the record in NATO member countries for the military obeying the dictates of the elected government has been exemplary.
if you want to call four military coups in Turkey since they joined NATO exemplary... ^^
I was a programmer that helped put together document management systems for people trying to get some compensation for the rather extensive environmental damages caused by the nuclear weapons industry and I feel a few facts are in order:
a) All nuke stuff is already privatized. It's subcontracted out or has been to players like EG&G, Dupont, and others.
b) Originally, no contractor in their right mind would touch the manhattan project. So the government indemnified them.
c) Layers of secrecy already exist within the privatized world, and unaccountability. And the military has a hand in it is as well, obviously.
Bottom line is, the result is, we got the bombs, the mess that was made is appalling, and the full story may never really be known. The moral is, it doesn't matter who does it, civilian or military, per say, as much as, what is needed is a genuine degree of openness and accountability and that is extremely hard to do when you also have to keep everything a secret. People abuse the system.
This is my sig.