Slashdot Mirror


US Nuclear Commander Suspended Over Gambling

mdsolar writes "The No 2 officer at the military command in charge of all US nuclear war-fighting forces has been suspended and is under investigation by the naval criminal investigation command for issues related to gambling, officials said on Saturday. The highly unusual action against a high-ranking officer at US strategic command was made more than three weeks ago but not publicly announced. Air force general Robert Kehler, who heads Strategic Command, suspended the deputy commander, navy vice admiral Tim Giardina, from his duties on September 3, according to the command's top spokeswoman, navy captain Pamela Kunze. Giardina is still assigned to the command but is prohibited from performing duties related to nuclear weapons and other issues requiring a security clearance, she said."

149 comments

  1. Bulffing with nukes by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    Just don't take real people out of the loop and hand over control to joshua

    1. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Just don't take real people out of the loop and hand over control to joshua"

      Joshua was the password, you moron!

    2. Re:Bulffing with nukes by phrostie · · Score: 1

      M.A.D. was always a gamble

    3. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      and the unofficial name of the system.

    4. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Goldie, how many times have I told you guys that I don't want no horsin' around...

      ooooops, wrong movie.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    5. Re:Bulffing with nukes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Whopper was the computer (spelled differently with abbreviation periods).

    6. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just don't take real people out of the loop and hand over control to joshua

      That'd be a WHOPR of a mistake. ;)

    7. Re:Bulffing with nukes by shentino · · Score: 1

      To the idiot mods: Don't you know about WarGames?

      Turn in your geek card.

    8. Re:Bulffing with nukes by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

      No worries. United States Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper is in control.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:Bulffing with nukes by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      "I'm not horsing around, that's how it decodes..."

      (The first draft of the film script had Goldberg reveal the code as "L.S.M.F.T...")

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    10. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 5, Funny

      In this case, the Vice Admiral's title was quite a tell.

      --
      Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
    11. Re:Bulffing with nukes by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Right movie, wrong story. ;)

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      More precisely, the acronym is W.O.P.R

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    13. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But it's WOPR, they're just spelling pedants.

    14. Re:Bulffing with nukes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone else looked it up. I knew what it was, but it's better with a cite. Thanks.

    15. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      No worries - I just remember it because that's what we named our first VMWare farm installation. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:Bulffing with nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am relieved that my bodily fluids are protected

  2. Chips by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  3. SO... by fyngyrz · · Score: 2

    "Push the button.... don't push the button... Lemme just flip a coin!"

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:SO... by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      Lucky sevens! No nukes today!

    2. Re:SO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double 0. House wins. Everyone else loses.

  4. I love it when the chips are down by jennatalia · · Score: 0

    Especially the Kettle brand ones with the Spicy Thai. Too bad you're paying for overpriced air when you buy a bag...

    1. Re:I love it when the chips are down by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Too bad you're paying for overpriced air when you buy a bag...

      Drumroll...

      That's how I felt after reading your post!

      Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week. Tip your waitress.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:I love it when the chips are down by jennatalia · · Score: 0

      You mean you didn't know you were paying for overpriced air until you read my post? You are most certainly welcome young one.

    3. Re:I love it when the chips are down by lgw · · Score: 1

      Too bad you're paying for overpriced air when you buy a bag...

      The weight of the contents are printed right there on the bag for you. I like it when chips come in a bag that's inflated a bit, adds a little padding during shipping.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:I love it when the chips are down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should try Pringles.

    5. Re:I love it when the chips are down by godrik · · Score: 1

      You would not want them to chip!

    6. Re:I love it when the chips are down by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      No brand or flavour would be edible if it were not for the packaging.
      - The 'air' is pure nitrogen, it keeps the contents fresh for months rather than hours.
      - The inflated bag protects the contents from being crushed during transport.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. Wargames? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only winning move is not to play...

  6. Gentemen, by Zanadou · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you can't fight in here: this is the war room!

  7. Gambling?! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    What was he betting on? The outcome of WWIII? Well, I certainly hope he put his money on the right team.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Gambling?! by tokencode · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you $40 I can hit this part with a hammer without it going off... any takers?

    2. Re:Gambling?! by billstewart · · Score: 2

      He was betting that he wouldn't get caught trying to play with counterfeit chips, and that whoever provided him with them wouldn't try to blackmail him later. He definitely lost the first bet...

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  8. Pay Scales by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Also, here's the current military pay scales:

    http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/militarypaytables.html

    The guy is making around 12K a month.

    That's got to be a serious habbit to resort to using fake chips.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Pay Scales by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gambling, hookers, and blow all scale to however much money you have.

      This is basic security clearance stuff. It you're doing anything that gives someone leverage over you (outside of your job), you don't get to know anything important. Seems reasonable to me.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Pay Scales by PairOfBlanks · · Score: 1

      One wonders how much greed is needed to cheat for more with that kind of salary. Would it be enough greed to drop a secret or two? Greed itself sounds like the biggest thing to remove him for.

    3. Re:Pay Scales by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Jeremy Michael Boorda commited suicide for much less. Hope they are watching this guy...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Michael_Boorda

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Pay Scales by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      So no girlfriends or wives then?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:Pay Scales by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      So no girlfriends or wives then?

      You can have either, but not both.

    6. Re:Pay Scales by jkroll · · Score: 1

      Actually, Vice Admiral is an O-9. Based on his bio, he has over 34 years of service, so base pay alone is $16.4K/month. Probably lives in base housing, so with BAS and sub pay it totals close to $17K/month.

      If found guilty in the investigation, he will probably be retired at a lower rank. In addition to whatever civilian penalties are incurred. Assuming that there are no instances of military misconduct found, otherwise all bets are off.

    7. Re:Pay Scales by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      drop a secret or two? under the Uniform Code of Military Justice you can face death by firing squad for that.

    8. Re:Pay Scales by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      If found guilty in the investigation, he will probably be retired at a lower rank.

      Unlikly. A reduction in rank would require an Article 15 as a minimum, and at his level, it's not going to happen. Retirement certainly. And he'd better do it now.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    9. Re:Pay Scales by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty much. The simple rule is this. If you have secrets than you can not be trusted to keep the nations secrets.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Pay Scales by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      It's very reasonably and they will actively look for it. They have the authority to get bank account records, credit reports and traceable purchases such as land or cars and other indicators. If there is any hint investigators will go ask everyone in a command about everyone else.

      When the government spies on it's self it's just good clean fun.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    11. Re:Pay Scales by schnell · · Score: 1

      My understanding (sorry can't find a source to cite) is that in the current US military, no general officer has an "real" rank higher than G-2 (Major General / Rear Admiral Upper Half). You only get appointed to jobs that require a G-3 or G-4, but if you didn't hold those jobs you would be treated as your "real" rank. If you retire while holding one of those jobs, then your retirement is treated at that rank level.

      Can anyone more knowledgeable than me confirm/deny or improve this explanation?

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    12. Re:Pay Scales by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Not the case.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    13. Re:Pay Scales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay! I'm more entertained then ever before!

    14. Re:Pay Scales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much. The simple rule is this. If you have secrets than you can not be trusted to keep the nations secrets.

      Or, more accurately, you can keep secrets from your loved ones, but not your employer.

      Back in the day the NSA didn't care if a man kept it secret that he was gay from his wife, they did mind if he tried to keep it secret from them.

    15. Re:Pay Scales by girlintraining · · Score: 0

      Can anyone more knowledgeable than me confirm/deny or improve this explanation?

      Google, can you help this man?

      Yes.

      Thanks again, Google.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    16. Re: Pay Scales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. If you can keep your mouth shut with your secrets - I can trust you with mine.

    17. Re:Pay Scales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be morman?

    18. Re:Pay Scales by Decker-Mage · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually this goes beyond your security clearance. To be around and handle nukes you are subject to the Personnel Reliability Program. There are a whole manual's worth of things that can get you knocked out of PRP but don't mean anything concerning your Nuclear security clearance. A gambling addiction? Yeah that'd get you knocked off. Being treated by steroids, or any drug that has psychiatric effects will do it too. As I well know from personal experience. Still have the clearance, can't work even under the two-man rule.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    19. Re:Pay Scales by Full+of+shit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think this is about his boss? This is about the favors he might have to do to pay off a six figure debt that he built up because he couldn't quit when he was down.

      --
      The problem is not the TSA or the NSA. The problem is the USA.
    20. Re:Pay Scales by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're completely out of your depth here, as you apparently aren't aware of the numerous and nasty cases of service members walking around with TS clearances who got into financial trouble and decided it was somehow a good idea to attempt to sell classified materials to foreign powers to make up for their losses.

      I'm speaking as someone who served, and someone who was in service when a particular submariner was caught doing exactly what I just described. He's far from alone in his transgressions, and such offenses have occurred on both the enlisted and commissioned sides.

      Stop talking about things you have no experience with.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    21. Re:Pay Scales by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Hi, former Navy guy here. Unfortunately, the US military hasn't executed anyone since 1961, although plenty of service members have committed capital offenses since then. I say this as someone who is a staunch opponent of capital punishment in the civilian sector, but has no patience or forgiveness for those convicted of espionage or treason while wearing a uniform.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    22. Re:Pay Scales by dbIII · · Score: 2

      That reminds me. Wasn't North in the Navy? Didn't he sell a huge quantity of weapons to Hezbolla less than a year after they killed over a hundred US Marines? I really am astonished that he's still got an actual job with the government instead of rotting in prison or in a grave. Snowdon, Manning etc are saints in comparison.

    23. Re:Pay Scales by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Worse, he was a USMC Lieutenant Colonel.

      I will note for the record that I draw a heavy line between Manning and Snowden. The former I would like to see executed, the latter I'd like to have a beer with. Anyone interested in the civil liberties of US citizens would understand the fundamental distinction between the two named persons.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    24. Re:Pay Scales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That pretty much confirms what I thought. Everybody has secrets...

    25. Re:Pay Scales by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's not usually the case. If you keep the fact that you're gay secret from your wife, then there's something that you can be blackmailed over. That makes you a security risk. The security clearance process that I've been through (in the UK) didn't care if you were gay or had a string of mistresses, as long as these weren't things that you wanted to keep secret.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Pay Scales by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      So no girlfriends or wives then?

      You can have either, but not both.

      fair enough. I'll limit myself to wives only.

    27. Re:Pay Scales by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      12K a month is not really that much money.

      144k a year is enough that you can live very comfortably if you are responsible. And small enough that you can burn through it very quickly if you aren't. We have a lot of profs here in the 130 range and you can see it all the time. Some rush out and buy big houses, expensive cars and they try and pour on the renovations etc. Or they try and send their kids to expensive schools. And others buy modest houses and modest cars and ... aren't broke.

    28. Re:Pay Scales by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Unfortunately, the US military hasn't executed anyone since 1961"
      unfortunately? That's actually a good thing.
      Not that it will stop you jingosim from making excuses.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:Pay Scales by i · · Score: 1

      Manning released information that shows US military committing war crimes - ordered ultimately by US government. Which is the same as the country.

      War criminals have no right to judge anyone else.

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    30. Re:Pay Scales by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      If all he'd released was the evidence you've cited, I'd have virtually no issue with Manning. Unfortunately, he released a shitload more than that. Try again.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    31. Re:Pay Scales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      possibly related http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/526

    32. Re:Pay Scales by pclminion · · Score: 1

      So pay off the guy's debt for him and put him in treatment.

  9. Yeah... by painehope · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We really want a guy who owes the Mob 200K in gambling debts being leaned on to turn over top-secret information to erase his gambling debts. It's pretty easy for someone with an addiction like that to snowball from handing out a floor-plan to an office containing harmless stuff to handing over access codes or whatever. One of the things about being in a position where you're entrusted with the safety and lives of your countrymen is that no one should be able to have leverage over you. It's one thing if someone threatens to kill your family if you don't give them XYZ information - you can go to the appropriate agency for protection or whatever needs to be done and it will get handled, no matter how high and hard it needs to be escalated.

    It's entirely different if it's over gambling debts. Especially if you've caved before. Your career is over and you might go to prison. Some people, especially the kind that are gambling addicts, simply cannot see the long-term ramifications or can justify damn near anything to themselves. That makes them extremely dangerous in any position that has the word "nuclear" and "commander" in it's title.

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    1. Re:Yeah... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Informative

      We really want a guy who owes the Mob 200K in gambling debts being leaned on to turn over top-secret information to erase his gambling debts.

      There is no evidence that he is "owes the Mob 200K". There *is* evidence he used counterfit chips.

      Also, if you think "the Mob" still has any control over legitimate licenced gambling establishments (such as those in NJ and NV), you really need to get out of the basement and take off the tinfoil, get a bit of sun.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who have control over gambling establishments are, by definition, "the mob"

    3. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm wondering whether you just used "NV" as in "new vegas" instead of "las vegas"..

    4. Re:Yeah... by ThatAblaze · · Score: 1

      Nevada

    5. Re:Yeah... by dbIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also, if you think "the Mob" still has any control over legitimate licenced gambling establishments

      Oh that's right - they are only "shareholders" now and the company changed it's name so there's obviously been no mob involvement since that last court case about it, how long ago? Maybe two years ago?

      Want to buy a bridge? You look like the type I can sell it to.

  10. Lest we forget... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    P.O.E.

  11. nuclear deterrent... by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

    ...is based on the assumption that, for the rest of eternity, no one group of people with access to nuclear weaponry will get trigger-happy.

    Hilarious.

    1. Re:nuclear deterrent... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually it is based on the assumption that anyone that works hard enough to gain the level of power that grants access to nuclear weapons loves themselves and their power more than anything else. Which probably an extremely good bet.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:nuclear deterrent... by i · · Score: 1
      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
  12. Highly unusual? Hardly. by VinylRecords · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The highly unusual action against a high-ranking officer at US strategic command was made more than three weeks ago but not publicly announced."

    This is only "highly unusual" because it is being reported throughout the mainstream media. But anyone who has been through an FBI/CIA interview knows that gambling issues are something that they probe for quite a bit. I doubt he was the first person fired or reprimanded that week for gambling.

    Want to work in the defense industry? Then don't gamble or bet on sports because it is a red flag that often disqualifies people from employment or association. The higher up you go the more they'll pry into your personal life. Asking friends from college or even high school if you ever gambled (or had a drinking problem, used drugs, etc.).

    1. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A little gambling is fine. I have a clearance, and many of my coworkers gamble on occasion. A gambling addiction, OTOH, is a problem. It opens you up to bribery or blackmail. Someone with a serious gambling problem and mountains of debt could more easily be persuaded to divulge secrets if someone offered to clear up the debt.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      It's not that you can't do it, it's that you can't do it to a level that would allow anyone to have leverage over you.

      --
      I hate sigs.
    3. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You and your coworkers who regularly gamble have proven that you're willing to take stupid risks

      A stupid risk is hopping into the cockpit of a helicopter without any flying lessons. Gambling, unless you are addicted to it or just careless, can be a claculated risk. Take for example sports betting: if you can pick the outcomes of 3 games at 6:1 odds or 4 games at 11:1, it is not very difficult to pick correctly, especially if you follow the stats. Now, if you are going for the big 20:1 odds or are betting large sums of money (especially sums you cannot afford), then yes, it's stupid. To modify a line that is said often in EVE Online, if you cant afford to lose it, don't bet it. But plenty of people find it enjoyable to gamble a little every now and then, myself included (craps is fun, and so is playing poker with your buddies). Dropping a couple hundred bucks gambling in a casino maybe once a year, or maybe $20-50 a week during football season does not mean you are taking stupid risks or are a security risk.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^ this

    5. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    6. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont want you to take _any_ unnecessary risks (and we very likely define "careless gambling" very differently). calculated or not. on my behalf. as a taxpayer i expect the system to hire people who are beyond approach on these matters, anything else is an unnecessary risk.

      CAPTCHA: disarm (i kid you not)

    7. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      For my "run of the mill" TS, they contacted people I had forgotten I even knew from high school (I'm 49). They knew about increadibly minor things I did 35 years ago and had long since forgotten.

      If the money were not as good as it is, I would have skipped the extended anal probe, specially because I get to do it all over again every few years.

      After the second time, I requested and recieved (via FOIA) a copy of the report that I keep and review when ever a "reinvestigation" comes up.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your coworkers who regularly gamble have proven that you're willing to take stupid risks, and that shows that you simply are not trustworthy.

      My uncle and aunt go to Vegas every so often. He sets a budget for gambling for every trip, usually $50 or $100.

      He walks up to the roulette table and places a bet on red or black, and the wheel is spun. He either wins or loses, but either way, after the result he walks away and continues other activities.

      It's a bit of fun, he can say he gambled, and he doesn't risk too much for the entertainment value.

    9. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gambling, unless you are addicted to it or just careless, can be a claculated risk.

      It's a calculated risk, because you can work out the expected return. It's a stupid risk if the expected return is below 100%, and you go ahead anyway.

    10. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Petraeus left the CIA not long ago. Allen left the Army as well. The "unusual" claim seemed strange to me as well.

    11. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Basically anything that can get you blackmailed will disqualify someone for security clearance, as well as large financial debts. So in this case a big gambling problem is a double blow here; gambling addiction is good blackmail material for an enemy agent, who may also offer to pay off the bookie in exchange for some info. But a once a year trip to vegas won't disqualify anyone. Ie, keep the debts in check and demonstrate restraint.

    12. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Oops. Allen left the Marines, not the Army.

    13. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by marcroelofs · · Score: 1

      It's not as "highly unusual" as suggested.
      Lately numerous high officers in the US chain of command have been suspended or fired because of some 'scandal'. These scandals all suddenly became public after a a large series of interviews conducted by the CIA and DHS that were rumoured to revolve around the dilemma of being available for attacks against the US population. If this is one of those I think it's worriesome.

    14. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Inda · · Score: 1

      You type a lot of sense, but you're not quite right with the odds.

      I play the exchanges, which means I am the bookmaker, and there is a phrase to follow: Bet high, lay low.

      Placing three-fold bets at @7.00 (6:1) is never a good idea. Like you say, you'll win easily, but only 5 times out of 6. That sense of winning will stay with you and you'll win most of the time. You'll feel like a winner but, in truth, for every £10 you bet, you'll only ever see £9 in return. Longterm punters will recognise this pattern. Be a winner every week, but keep quiet about your loses.

      Expect to lose most of your lays. They'll be the favourites. Expect to lose most of your bets. They'll be outsiders.

      One @21.00 (20:1) win, every once in a while, will take care of the losses.

      Only bet what you can afford to lose.

      Betting is a mug's game and there's only one winner - the taxman.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    15. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Hm wonder how may family connections to UK off course bookies pre legalization would go do down in the USA :-) You dont often hear the term "mostly legal" at a funeral.

    16. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Yeah I spend far more on my model solders than I do occasionally playing poker in pubs even though i think we broke the law on the stakes £10 rather than £5

    17. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by Dr.+Zim · · Score: 1

      Hire people who are beyond reproach? Hell, you might as well demand they hire unicorns. If the government could only hire people that are beyond reproach, we'd have no government. Hell, even Jeebus knew this! "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." If that's not to your taste, read this http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/no-one-is-innocent.html

      --
      (name withheld by request)
    18. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      what is highly unusual is that the person who was suspended is high ranking. It may not be apparent to someone without military experience, but the higher the rank the more that gets overlooked. If you get caught with marijuana it makes a real difference whether you are a private or an officer (and the circumstances of the catch). NCOs cover for each other, which some take advantage of.

      Not to say that officers are immune. There was wholesale misappropriation of funds at one deployment and a low ranking officer blew the whistle. Heads rolled, but it was not publicized in any way.

    19. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      The gist of your post that gambling as entertainment isn't bad is fine. I don't gamble, ever, unless its a sure thing. In which case it isn't gambling. But I know people who do. I got drug into a casino for someone to lose money on the slots. I spent money on entertainment as well (arcade games for the kids while mommy/daddy lose their earnings), though it was rather less. OTOH I spend rather more money on other forms of entertainment. As long as it is just a budgeted expense there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with it.

      Funny thing was my companion went on afterwards about the money they'd won. I was surprised, but in talking further it transpired that the $15 won was for spending $50. That's right, it wasn't a loss of $35, it was a win of $15. Hmmm... something doesn't add up.

      This psychological imbalance is part of what lays the foundation for a gambling addiction. Once you throw in a dose of desparation it becomes clearer why and how some people get addicted.

    20. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      But plenty of people find it enjoyable to gamble a little every now and then

      This is spot on. You can spend as little as $50 for a night at a blackjack table hanging out playing cards and being served "free" drinks (free as long as you play...). Unless you're into high-stakes games, the only thing you're really gambling is how long that $20 bill lasts you. You can certainly spend a lot more having a lot less fun at bars or clubs.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    21. Re:Highly unusual? Hardly. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      You both have good points. What it comes down to is how prone the individual is to addiction. It's fun to go out and play cards for a bit (how many people have poker nights with their friends?). Some of the fun comes from sitting around drinking, chatting and playing games, some of it comes from winning. The majority of people acknowledge that on average, they come out behind. It really comes down to knowing why you go out there. If you're playing high stakes games with money you need to survive, well you obviously have a problem. If you're out playing craps or cards with buy ins that you've allocated in your entertainment budget, that's perfectly alright.

      That's the gist of the story, the commander involved here pretty clearly had an unhealthy relationship with gambling which absolutely can be used against you if you've been entrusted with serious responsibilities.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  13. news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News for nerds?

  14. I'll bet you $40 bucks... by tokencode · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can hit this part with a hammer and it won't go off... any takers?

    1. Re:I'll bet you $40 bucks... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can hit this part with a hammer and it won't go off... any takers?

      I wouldn't risk it. This is the government we're talking about. That hammer is probably worth (well, cost) $15,000.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  15. He ought to emulate Admiral Boorda... by couchslug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and commit suicide.

    Yes, really. That's the only way to atone for that level of disgrace.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:He ought to emulate Admiral Boorda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boorda died honorably, one of the last true officers we've had.

    2. Re:He ought to emulate Admiral Boorda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and commit suicide.

      Yes, really. That's the only way to atone for that level of disgrace.

      Amen, for the Holy Bible demands it. This man has turned away from the grace of God and ignored the Holy Scriptures that are the foundation of our country.

      Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ loves you, couchslug, and your Holy condemnation.

  16. I don't believe it by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    I don't believe gambling is the reason. I think it is more likely he is being suspended for another reason, but they don't want this "other" reason to be made public.

  17. Yeah, "Gambling" by Tau+Neutrino · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's just the cover story. He's really been cooking meth.

    --
    Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
    1. Re:Yeah, "Gambling" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cooking meth is a calculated risk. Sure, stupid if you have a meth addiction... but if you know what you're doing, you can cook meth safely, and use it effectively to enhance your military career. A lot of guys in the military cook meth. Some are at the higher levels. They're not addicts, they just have high-pressure jobs and everyone needs to blow off steam once in a while. Hey, you nerds smoke dope and drink beers, so you're no saints.

  18. Six silos ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... one live missile. Spin the selector and push the button.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Even Cpt. Picard didn't gamble till the end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now deal me in.

    1. Re:Even Cpt. Picard didn't gamble till the end... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also said he should have joined them much sooner.

  20. Bud Selig says no Hall of Fame for you! by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    If it's only been actually cheating while serving your team, like Bonds, McQuire, Rodriguez or the other cheats, then you could be in. But gambling? No HoF for you.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  21. MAD x Straight Gambling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gambling sometimes pays off, for a while.

  22. Nuke wasted at admiral level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame they likely wont put him two months in CCU and then on a toilet scrubbing billet afterwards. All those fun times are only reserved for enlisted. Am I right?

    1. Re:Nuke wasted at admiral level by couchslug · · Score: 1

      It would be quite the deterrent!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  23. Re:Actually, it's based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You said the "Judeo-Christian Bible" so I assume that you're including the old and new testaments. So, you somehow don't believe that executing children who hit or swear at their parents is an instruction to do violence. Let's also not forget that: "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Not suffering witches to live is also nice and non-violent. I suppose executing people who break the sabbath is just good sense as it is with executing any many who giveth his seed unto Molech (because, um, yeah...). Also "ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword." Also the stranger that cometh nigh [to the tabernacle] shall be put to death." Also "when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:". You're also supposed to kill anyone who tries to get you to convert to another religion, even if they're your wife or child, or just kill them if they don't share your religion.

    There's just so much of that sort of thing in there, it boggles the mind.

  24. Sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but you are full of shit. Better get some sleep, school starts early tomorow!

  25. Gambling is a terrible vice by sandbagger · · Score: 1

    Obviously, he needs to be removed from his super-duper secret duties if the possibility of blackmail is significant but let's hope the poor fellow gets straightened out. Gambling is so terrible because first you go through disposable money, then the milk money and finally the money to which you have access but is not yours. My grandfather lost a house thanks to cards and horses; a friend's marriage broke up because her husband's business partner was a gambler. One day the fellow went to work and found his own office padlocked because his partner's gambling debts.

    I hope it works out for the guy.

    --
    ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    1. Re:Gambling is a terrible vice by Full+of+shit · · Score: 1

      Or alternatively, Fuck him. Why should anyone have any sympathy for him? He's an irresponsible jerk, Fuck him.

      --
      The problem is not the TSA or the NSA. The problem is the USA.
    2. Re:Gambling is a terrible vice by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I can't agree. But then I also know the difference between gambling it all away and a little bit for fun is all in a particular person dopamine level.

      IT is also why Casino game designers read BF Skinners work.
      Certain drubs can, literally, make it so you can't stop laying slot machines, for example.

      So I can't say 'fuck him'. Yes, pull away his responsibilities, but the man needs help.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Gambling is a terrible vice by yurtinus · · Score: 0

      Yer full of shit!

      --
      +1 Disagree
  26. Admiral of Vice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That explains it all, really.

  27. Secrets vs. Security Clearances by billstewart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yup. I was a defense contractor back in the 80s. While you couldn't be gay in the uniformed military, you could still have a security clearance and be a contractor or in the NSA or CIA - but you couldn't be in the closet, because that might be used for blackmail, especially in states where it was still illegal to be gay. So there were some famous researchers who'd had to come out to their families.

    They asked about a lot of other things; they didn't mind that some of my coworkers had used drugs back in college and then stopped, but they really freaked out when one guy said he'd smoked dope, liked it, and might well do it again :-) (It took an extra six months for his clearance to come through.) And they really cared a lot about people who had relatives in Communist countries, not because they were worried that Cousin Ivan might have corrupted you into being a Commie, but because the KGB might threaten to kill your grandma if you didn't give them the secret plans. In my case, they asked a bunch of questions one year about my involvement in the Libertarian Party, because some of them weren't quite familiar with the concept that there were more than two political parties (plus the Commies, and they'd kind of forgotten about George Wallace.)

    A friend of mine in the Air Force had a buddy who'd put down that his previous job experience included working at a candy store back home in the Bronx, and the guy who ran the place said he'd never heard of him. Had to have his dad go tell Cousin Luigi that it was the Feds checking on his security clearance for the service, not anybody checking into the numbers game that might or might not have been running out of the back room.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Secrets vs. Security Clearances by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes bill it can be very strange. From the top of Australian anti commie efforts (spy) was the command for staff to be upstanding in all they did - no drink or other habits while defending the nation. The problem was the leadership was really totally drunk and the staff knew it :)
      As for this story - the making of counterfit chips seems almost like a form of tech honeytrap but set internally or externally?
      With Snowden, stories around other top US mil staff, the lack of traction on Syria - someone, an agency or a country is really working overtime on top US personal.
      A soft coup/cleanout via the tame US press?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Secrets vs. Security Clearances by dbIII · · Score: 0

      involvement in the Libertarian Party, because some of them weren't quite familiar with the concept that there were more than two political parties

      Wrong, take a look at some of the extremists that have applied that label to themselves and you'll see why they are worried. It's a popular label adopted by people ranging from total anarchists to the sort of people George Washington would have shot as Royalists (all hail King Koch!), even if other people using the label consider them the opposite of libertarian.

    3. Re:Secrets vs. Security Clearances by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      one of the few cases of someone I know having been denied a clearance was due to lying about smoking dope. They don't really care if you once smoked, but they do care if you lie about it.

      They care if you are hiding something so it can get tough if they think you are. Which is what your experience sounds like. It was mine as well and, when you they won't say what they think is going on it can be hard to convince someone that they're wrong and you aren't hiding anything. But it can be done (and I finally figured out what they thought was wrong -- my background was "too clean", they just didn't believe that someone as goody two shoes as I was could exist).

      For extra bonus points I know people who received clearances despite rather more extreme past activities that would normally bar someone from obtaining a clearance. The "trick" is to convince investigators that it was in the past, you have moved on, and it has no hold over you. And pass a poly. Definitely have to be able to do that. (Not that doing so is particularly tough, but not everyone knows that.)

      To get a clearance follow the cardinal rules: don't lie, don't omit.

    4. Re:Secrets vs. Security Clearances by lgw · · Score: 0, Troll

      The voodoo witchdoctor poly is the reason I'll never apply. From what I've heard, if you say you've never smoked weed, and you're actually telling the truth, that's a control question so they'll assume you're lying about basically everything.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Secrets vs. Security Clearances by billstewart · · Score: 2

      Hardly; I was getting questions about "one of your coworkers said you were involved in a libertine party?" (Hey, if people were having libertine parties, nobody was inviting me :-)

      I know the LP and their range of crazies quite well; most of the anarchists are also pacifists (though some are gun nuts), the Kochtopus had funded much of the 1980 presidential campaign (I forget which one of them was the VP candidate) and were funding Cato, and a lot of them were still leftover Barry Goldwater fans who opposed the Vietnam draft, or hippies who believed in the free market. We hadn't had the quasi-Republican takeover that's happened since 9/11 (too many people freaked out about Muslim Terrorists Attacking America, sigh.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    6. Re:Secrets vs. Security Clearances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, there are really /. mods vigorously defending polygraphs now? What has this place come to? What's next, embracing astrology or intelligent design? Wow.

  28. Tails ... by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Tails I'll nuke, heads I don't.

  29. Gambling isn't illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you (the house) are taking a cut of the money from other gamblers, it's not illegal. At least not where I live.

    1. Re:Gambling isn't illegal by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      ...or if you're gaming in a legal establishment with counterfeit chips.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  30. Or is this a way to take over nuclear decisions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seeing as the public no longer shows an interest in privacy...why not start eroding key players for control of the next big rip off....security.

  31. This is why China didn't need Snowden by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of ways to get the information at wholesale price. The guy in TFA was caught by the sort of oversight that is almost impossible to arrange for the sprawling outsourced agencies that Snowden described.

  32. Lewinski Cigars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when the number one commander in the nuclear chain got caught cheating on his wife and lied about it. This means he was compromised and could be blackmailed. To bad they couldn't impeach him....

  33. But, lottery tickets are perfectly okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, gambling is bad, kids, except of course if you're gambling in the State-sponsored casino. That's perfectly okay.

  34. Re:Actually, it's based on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you understand what a "man who giveth his seed unto Molech" means.
    Not arguing any religious points here, just pointing out some apparent ignorance.

  35. Senator McCain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sen. McCain admitted to playing poker for money on Federal property, which is also a crime. Nothing happened to him except he got laughed at for losing.

  36. Strategic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't gambling something you want a guy in charge of strategy to be good at?

  37. Polygraphs by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Back in the 80s, you didn't need a polygraph for a vanilla Secret or Top Secret clearance, and I didn't have any of the spooky clearances or DEA clearances so I don't know what they did. I don't think the nuke people needed them either, but we didn't do nukes. I think the only particular lifestyle restriction I had was that I couldn't travel to communist countries without notifying the Feds first.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  38. Did he bet on war? by Curate · · Score: 1

    Look, I don't see a problem with him gambling. *Unless* he bet on war. That would be just a no-no and would go against all established tradition. If this scumbag bet on war, then he deserves a lifetime ban on war and any war-affiliated events. He should also be permanently barred from induction to the War Hall of Fame.