Slashdot Mirror


Nuclear Officers Napped With Blast Door Left Open

Lasrick writes "AP's Robert Burns reports that 'Air Force officers entrusted with the launch keys to long-range nuclear missiles have been caught twice this year leaving open a blast door that is intended to help prevent a terrorist or other intruder from entering their underground command post.' Why is that signifcant? At least one of the officers was napping at the time. Airforce officials said other violations like this have undoubtedly occurred and gone undetected. Yeesh. 'The blast door violations are another sign of trouble in the handling of the nation's nuclear arsenal. The AP has discovered a series of problems within the ICBM force, including a failed safety inspection, the temporary sidelining of launch officers deemed unfit for duty and the abrupt firing last week of the two-star general in charge. The problems, including low morale, underscore the challenges of keeping safe such a deadly force that is constantly on alert but is unlikely ever to be used.'"

156 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. In their defense by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

    It gets hot in there, and Johnson is always farting.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    1. Re:In their defense by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Close the blast doors! Close the blast doors!"

      Boring conversation, anyways...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:In their defense by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      Luke, we're gonna have company.

    3. Re:In their defense by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your other choices?

      Haliburton? Blackwater?

      Oracle?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:In their defense by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You do know that this shady government entity is populated by your fellow countrymen right?

      I always find it funny how people complain about the ineptitude of the government when it is a reflection of the society as a whole. You don't like it, do something about it. Or, you know, act like the people in your government act and just pass the buck while complaining. See, it works out perfectly.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    5. Re:In their defense by hawguy · · Score: 2

      Obama has castrated the military by letting in faggots. I'm surprised they slept without chastity belts on what with the fanny bandits now allowed to publicly flaunt their perverted lifestyle.

      While I hate to dissapoint you, gays were in the military long before Obama took office.

    6. Re:In their defense by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your other choices?

      Oracle?

      Microsoft:
      It will randomly decide to launch, the guidance system will crash, and even if it does get to it's destination there is no warhead because this was only a "premium" version of Weapons of Mass Destruction.... you have to purchase the "Ultimate" version to get the payload. Also, you might as well just go home, it's been exploited several times already and six other countries are currently fighting for control of it since the exploit patch isn't due out until the next patch Tuesday.

      Gentoo:
      Whenever the hell your missile finally compiles without error you have a small window of time to launch where it will get to target milliseconds faster than any other missile giving you bragging rights... Until you realize you forgot an important USE flag and have to revdep-rebuild world.

      Debian:
      Your ICBM may have been built some time in the cretaceous period, but damn if it doesn't just keep humming along rock solid and stable. If you are lucky newer missile tech can be back-ported. You could get gutsy and upgrade to testing to have the newest missile tech while still remaining as stable as your competitors "stable" releases, or you could go with missile "sid" but run the risk of pieces of your missile going missing on your daily upgrade.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    7. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Wow. Another ignorant poster who is somehow under the impression that things have gotten *worse* since Bush left office."

      Wow. Another poster who misinterpreted somebody else's post and goes off on a political diatribe.

      "And that's in spite of a Republican-controlled House that simply refuses to vote on anything that might make Obama look good."

      And what might those things be? What, in your opinion, would make Obama look good? Let's see:

      Bailouts? (It might have been Bush's idea but it was Obama who did it.) Did that make him look good?

      Increased foreign wars, after he had vowed to decrease them immediately? Did that make him look good?

      Inflationary monetary policy? A recession we still aren't out of? Massively increased debt and deficit? Do those make him look good?

      Obamacare? Is that making him look good?

      Increased domestic surveillance, when he had vowed to decrease it, immediately? Does that make him look good?

      Increased intrusion into constitutional rights, when he had spoken out against it in his campaign? Does that make him look good?

      Hmmm. Making a serious effort to be as objective as I can, I would still have to say no, no, no, no, no, and no.

    8. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "You do know that this shady government entity is populated by your fellow countrymen right?"

      Committee members are people. A committee is not.

      Bureaucrats are people. (An especially loathsome class of people, but people nonetheless.) Bureaucracies are not.

      Politicians are people (who also often tend to be lowlifes). Politics are not.

      Of course I know that the government is made up of people (though it is not, itself, "people"). But I don't really give a damn whether it is made of people or ants or gerbils. If it's incompetent, it's incompetent. And in recent years, it has very definitely shown itself to be less than the sum of its parts.

      We know (there have been many studies) that committees generally tend to make worse decisions that individuals. We know that while people may be smart, crowds are stupid. The fact that the government is composed of people does not mean that "it", as an entity, is worthy of the same respect due people.

    9. Re:In their defense by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Nice. What a beautiful poetic logical way to abdicate responsibility.

      Probably makes you all warm and fuzzy inside eh?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    10. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      I abdicate nothing. Not a single one of my representatives, at either a state or federal level, was someone *I* voted for. But just in case you still want to be unjustifiably insulting: yes, I did vote.

      As of today, they haven't been representing ME or my interests. And I'm not responsible for them being there, I voted for somebody else. So don't give me this "abdication" sh*t.

    11. Re:In their defense by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Ah, you didn't vote them in so you have no responsibility for what they do.

      Do you see what you did there?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    12. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "Ah, you didn't vote them in so you have no responsibility for what they do.

      Do you see what you did there?"

      Ah, distorting my meaning.

      Do you see what you did there?

      Let's be more specific: I am not responsible for politicians who have been doing things that I have actively been opposing for all of my adult life.

      Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to continue to try to play armchair psychologist?

    13. Re:In their defense by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      W.O.P.R.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    14. Re:In their defense by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      It gets hot in there, and Johnson is always farting.

      Yea, but you would think they had a switch on the thing to record when it is open, like on my home security system.

    15. Re:In their defense by K10W · · Score: 1

      Obama has castrated the military by letting in faggots. I'm surprised they slept without chastity belts on what with the fanny bandits now allowed to publicly flaunt their perverted lifestyle.

      While I hate to dissapoint you, gays were in the military long before Obama took office.

      Also he is confusing gays with rapists by the sound of it. I can honestly say I've never been raped by gay nor straight friends or colleagues when I've fallen asleep around them. It's not sexuality preference that makes people into sex offenders jeez, secondly plenty of fellas been raped by otherwise "straight" men as happens a lot here for instance in UK organised drug and crime scene as a power and shaming thing.

    16. Re:In their defense by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I know you're not responsible, because you abdicated responsibility.

      Let me elucidate, responsibility doesn't end with your vote. Don't worry, please don't respond. Your raving defense is a classic sign that you know you're in the wrong but it clashes so much with that pretty picture you have of yourself inside your head.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    17. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Let me elucidate, responsibility doesn't end with your vote."

      Do you know what the word "elucidate" means? It means "to make lucid" or "to explain". But you have elucidated nothing. You merely repeated yourself yet again.

      If you want to make an argument, then make it. How do you claim I am responsible for politicians doing things that I actively oppose? Please elucidate, if you can. Actually, this time, rather than simply repeating your claim that I am somehow responsible for the actions of other people I do not know or like.

      "Your raving defense is a classic sign that you know you're in the wrong but it clashes so much with that pretty picture you have of yourself inside your head."

      I'm haven't been "raving" at all. I simply explained, in a way that I was fairly sure you would not misinterpret. It seems I was wrong about that. But somehow I doubt other readers are having the same trouble understanding what I wrote.

    18. Re:In their defense by tibman · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been in any US Military branch. Homosexuals have always been soldiers, airmen, and sailors. It is now legal for a gay soldier to tell their foxhole buddies which side they are batting for. Everyone already knew, just couldn't talk about it.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    19. Re:In their defense by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      Oh stop whining and do some thinking for yourself. If responsibility doesn't end with your vote then where does it end? Does it?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    20. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Oh stop whining and do some thinking for yourself. If responsibility doesn't end with your vote then where does it end? Does it?"

      What are you arguing? ARE you trying to argue? What is your point? All you've done is unjustifiably insult people and repeat yourself.

      Unless you actually have something meaningful to say (and so far I have seen no evidence that you do), there is no point in continuing to take the time to reply to you.

    21. Re:In their defense by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I'm not arguing. I'm trying to make you think, but you don't seem to take very well to it.

      I already knew that from your previous responses and told you to stop responding. It seems you can't listen either.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    22. Re:In their defense by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to make you think, but you don't seem to take very well to it.

      I'm doing plenty of thinking. But from what I understand of your blathering, you probably would not much like what I'm thinking. But I admit that I don't understand much of your blathering, because you say you want to elucidate, but then refuse to do so other than to just repeat yourself. No "elucidation" to be found.

      You really haven't given me much to think about, other than how rude some people are on Slashdot. Even if you're just playing semantic games about "being responsible", you still haven't written anything here that is interesting or original.

      I already knew that from your previous responses

      From what I have been able to gather, you still don't know anything from my responses.

      and told you to stop responding.

      You didn't. You told me to "not bother". Not quite the same thing.

      It seems you can't listen either.

      See, if you're going to play childish semantic games, which is the only thing you really appear to be doing, it behooves you to get your own semantics approximately right, or you lose. As it happens, I can listen just fine. In fact I'm listening to some nice music at this moment.

  2. unlikely ever to be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh thank God, here I thought 12 o'clock was just a matter of time.

    -AC.Falos

  3. Is anybody surprised? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey there troops, listen up! It's your job to sit in this drab, overbuilt concrete coffin, sitting on your lazy asses like the cold war relics you are, until such a time as you are instructed to commit the greatest mass slaughter in human history. Any questions?

    1. Re:Is anybody surprised? by stewsters · · Score: 1

      Yeah, seems like a shitty job. Maybe we should have an AI in charge of the nukes? Here is a first draft:

      if(false){
      for(Missile missile : missiles){
      missile.launch()
      }
      }

    2. Re:Is anybody surprised? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Then you're relying on just one byte to never be changed by memory corruption forever.

      if(false && false && false)
          for(Missile missile: missles)
              missile.launch()

    3. Re: Is anybody surprised? by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shall we play a game???

    4. Re:Is anybody surprised? by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Funny

      More like

      while true
      do
                      sleep 300
                      if false; then
                                      for i in $SILO; do
                                                  launch $i
                                      done
                      # XXX: Add case to check blast doors
                      fi
      done

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Is anybody surprised? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      until such a time as you are instructed to commit the greatest mass slaughter in human history

      To worry, worry, super-scurry
      Call the troops out in a hurry
      This is what we've waited for
      This is it boys, this is war

      Any questions?

      "So you pay for college?"

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Is anybody surprised? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Maybe we should have an AI in charge of the nukes?

      Back at base, bugs in the software
      Flash the message
      "Something's out there"
      /
      Panic bells, it's red alert
      There's something here
      From somewhere else
      The war machine springs to life
      Opens up one eager eye
      Focusing it on the sky


      if(false)

      Signed-off-by: me

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:Is anybody surprised? by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Any questions?

      Uh ya, since alarms and shit are going to sound when I need to bring an end to humanity, why do I have to stay awake until then?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    8. Re:Is anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why you use -O0 specifically on that code in the makefile.

      Also, intersperse some null-waits. Outsmart that compiler AND be able to improve performance for the next release. "Now with fewer accidental launches!"

    9. Re:Is anybody surprised? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Or just use an optimizing compiler that will eliminate the dead code. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Is anybody surprised? by Antipater · · Score: 1

      for i in $SILO; ; launch $i

      "Dangit, I think a cat got into the silo again!"

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    11. Re:Is anybody surprised? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I had drone pilots in mind. Apparently, despite the safety and relative comfort, that job burns people out alarmingly fast. I'd assume that being a nuke-jockey has all the vices, and then some. Almost entirely boredom, sitting around being at readiness for some eventuality dreamed up by a paranoid game theorist back in the day, with the slight chance that you'll suddenly get the call to immolate a million or two people who probably won't even know that the war has started when you kill them.

      That would certainly sap my morale pretty quickly.

    12. Re:Is anybody surprised? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Then you're relying on just one byte to never be changed by memory corruption forever.

      So are you... your code compiles to something like:

      JNE %ebx, 0, 32(%eip)
      JNE %ebx, 0, 32(%eip)
      JNE %ebx, 0, 32(%eip)
      MOV %eax, 16(%esp)
      push %eax
      call missile_launch
      NOP

      When the lower order byte of the jump address in memory gets corrupted anywhere in the program, it is possible that the software will erroneously jump directly into the for loop.

    13. Re:Is anybody surprised? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey there troops, listen up! It's your job to sit in this drab, overbuilt concrete coffin, sitting on your lazy asses like the cold war relics you are, until such a time as you are instructed to commit the greatest mass slaughter in human history. Any questions?

      I do have a suggested alternative.... Have at least 5 or 6 command post stations; with at least 10 different pairs of watchpeople holding the launch keys.

      In the event, that a launch condition is signalled -- a random command post, or a plurality of command posts; is selected to be the command post whose launch keys will activate the launch.

      That way..... when the command posts are ordered to turn their keys Nobody at the command posts actually know which key turns will be the final approval for the launch to commence; hence, they will all have plausible deniability.

      (2) If terrorists compromise one of the command posts; it will be unlikely that just happens to be the right post that was chosen to signal final approval.

      (3) if only one or two command posts turns their keys, then the launch is aborted

      (4) the command posts have security cameras monitoring each other; not in such a way as the other command posts can determine if another one has actually turned the keys, BUT in a manner, that a command post can see if another is under duress.

      (5) An alternate key, and an alternate keyhole is provided for operators to use, in case under duress; a key that "prohibits" launch and neutralizes that post's abilty to approve ----- instead of approving launch.

    14. Re:Is anybody surprised? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Because that all too critical time between when the launch is ordered and when the missiles need to be in the air, it's always best to have groggy, noncoherent individuals performing critical steps.

    15. Re:Is anybody surprised? by tibman · · Score: 1

      Not sure about airforce silo babysitting but soldiers can cat-nap one second and be shooting accurately at targets the next. But you do lose all situation context, which is very important. Instead of reacting to resolve a complex situation, you take one look and go "WTF IS GOING ON?!".

      Imagine waking up, your hands on the steering wheel of a car, heading into oncoming traffic. I think you'll become alert and react VERY quickly : )

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  4. I can't decide... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    ...if nuclear silo duty is the best job in the Air Force or the worst.

    As best as I can tell, you haven't had to do anything since...uh....longer than anyone's been on active duty.

    1. Re:I can't decide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great for getting grad school done and a divorce initiated. Terrible for family life and getting promoted. Oh yeah, don't get promoted twice in a row and you're fired.

    2. Re:I can't decide... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Except perhaps, closing the blast doors while napping.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:I can't decide... by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Except perhaps, closing the blast doors while napping."

      That's what's this all about.

      1. If you sleep, the door must be closed.
      2. If the door is closed, nobody can catch you sleeping, even if you sleep at times when you shouldn't.
      3. Ergo, always close the fucking door.

    4. Re:I can't decide... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Please if they were smart they would do one better....

      1. spill paper clips on floor several feet from door
      2. Sleep on floor with feet touching door.
      3. If door opens, yell "sorry one second" and explain that you were on the floor picking up the paper clips.

      Apparently this is an old trick. Wouldn't work for me as my office door has a full height window next to it (perhaps for exactly this reason); and of course, I snore like a buzz saw.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:I can't decide... by djdanlib · · Score: 2

      Promotion in that position? What's that look like?

      I hereby promote you to the rank of "Corporal Chair-napper over by the nukes"...

    6. Re:I can't decide... by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a horrible, awful job. My father was in the airforce and maintained a lot of that equipment. Think of it this way, you are locked underground with 2 other guys. Everyone has a gun and have been psychologically tested to be sure that they could kill YOU immediately if ordered to, or if you hesitate in following an order. Spend 6 months with those guys and try and have meaningful interactions with them... oh right, you might have to shoot them to... so don't get too attached.

      It's basically a recipe for the worst reality show ever. My father said the second he'd show up to work on stuff the guys would begin yapping their traps non-stop. Being the first human they'd seen in months that had no designs on shooting them in the head, he was their new best friend.

      Lastly, the blast doors aren't the only doors. It's an entire facility. It just takes the blast doors a loooong time to open. So they dont close them unless they absolutely have to. Granted, his experiences were in the 60s and 70s so I'm not sure how much of it still applies. But I bet it's still pretty much the same.

    7. Re:I can't decide... by NouberNou · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your dad has some facts wrong there bucko (especially if he is talking about Minuteman, the facts are a bit different for Titan II). They don't sit underground for months at a time. They go on 24, and sometimes up to 72 hour alerts. So the longest they go with out seeing another person is 24 hours, which I am sure most people on Slashdot do on a weekly basis.

      It does sound like your dad is talking about Titan II, but even then its not nearly as bad as you make it out to be (still pretty shitty though) and better than MM LCCs (the Titan II facilities were much larger... but also built right next to the silo).

      Far worse were SAC B-52 crew alerts. You'd go on on ground alert for days at a time, where you had to eat/sleep/live within running/short drive distance of your bomber and couldn't really leave.

    8. Re:I can't decide... by capedgirardeau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He also has the kill your colleague if they don't follow an order thing wrong.

      All those missiles can be controlled from another launch facility, so if one of the missileers doesn't want to turn their key, control of their silos is just assumed by another launch facility and their missiles are launched anyway.

      The sidearms were for defense of the facility, not to use on fellow officers is my understanding.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    9. Re:I can't decide... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      By your father, you mean 'Wargames'?

      Because I worked in the field at these silos, and you sir, are full of shit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:I can't decide... by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      I know you're being funny, but just for the record, these doors are specifically designed to be slow to open. It gives the guys in the control capsule time to polish their sidearms and radio HQ about the invading force about to appear in the doorway.

  5. Elaborate honeypot? by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    Or they could just be setting up a trap. "Come on into remote location, I promise we're just napping".

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Elaborate honeypot? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Worst... Trap.... Evar.

      Like Molten Core, without a lewtbomb and the end.

      Capt. Ragnaros yells: TOO SOON! YOU HAVE AWAKENED ME TOO SOON, SGT. EXECUTUS! WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THIS INTRUSION?
      Sergeant Executus yells: These mortal infidels, my lord! They have invaded your sanctum and seek to steal your secrets!
      Capt. Ragnaros yells: FOOL! YOU ALLOWED THESE INSECTS TO RUN RAMPANT THROUGH THE HALLOW COMMAND CENTER? AND NOW YOU LEAD THEM TO MY VERY LAIR? YOU HAVE FAILED ME, EXECUTUS! JUSTICE SHALL BE MET, INDEED! [pulls out pistol and shoots hapless Sergeant]

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  6. The worst job on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You'd think about the obvious reasons for nuclear disarmament, but nobody ever spares a thought for the poor sods who have to sit there watching these doomsday devices: if they ever get used it's the end of the world, if they're ever attacked it will be with overwhelming force, and they are expected to be running their AAA-game 24/7/365, no holidays, no vacations.

    (Interesting thought experiment: replace "nuclear weapons officer" with "megabank sysadmin")

    1. Re:The worst job on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is also a morale factor involved. Arguably, US morale is the lowest it has been since the US Civil War:

      1: Most other countries hate US soldiers.
      2: The Air Force veteran bodies found in a landfill.
      3: There is no real "victory" in previous engagements.
      4: The feeling that the younger people are having to work far more than the older brass, but for much less in benefits.
      5: The specter of a RIF at every turn and the work going to a contractor.
      6: The fact that treason which use to be something not considered in way, is something that people will turn to for easy money.
      7: Underfunding. The AF used to get what it needed. Now the contract companies get the funding and run off with it. Real work doesn't get done.
      8: No obvious threat. The 1980s had Russia and the constant horrors of the deeds that Soviet troops did. Now, there are some ghostly "terrorists" who pop up, strike, and are gone, and no real enemy to rally against.
      9: The fact that the government has welched on benefits in the past (starting with the 1980s and Gramm-Rudman.)
      10: Recruitment tends to be people who can't find work anywhere else.

      Morale is extremely low. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any Snowdens or Assanges.

    2. Re:The worst job on earth by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Arguably, US morale is the lowest it has been since the US Civil War:

      Anything is arguable. The post Vietnam War period was worse. You also had in addition your list, widespread drug use and widespread lack of discipline.

      Morale is extremely low. If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any Snowdens or Assanges.

      Neither had anything to do with the US military.

  7. Spys Like Us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "A weapon unused, is a useless weapon."

  8. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

    You're stirring up my cold war nostalgia :'(

  9. Strange... by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you planned to take a nap on the job - Why the hell wouldn't you close the door? It at least makes getting caught a bit less likely.

    1. Re:Strange... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative
      RTA, they spend a long time (days?) down there and it is permissible for one to sleep while the other stands watch. But in this case they are supposed to lock the vault door:

      The written Air Force instructions on ICBM safety, last updated in June 1996, says, "One crewmember at a time may sleep on duty, but both must be awake and capable of detecting an unauthorized act if ... the Launch Control Center blast door is open" or if someone other than the crew is present.

      The blast door is not the first line of defense. An intruder intent on taking control of a missile command post would face many layers of security before encountering the blast door, which â" when closed â" is secured by 12 hydraulically operated steel pins. The door is at the base of an elevator shaft. Entry to that elevator is controlled from an above-ground building. ICBM fields are monitored with security cameras and patrolled regularly by armed Air Force guards.

    2. Re:Strange... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The door is often left open. It gets really hot and stuffy. BTW to get to that blast door you need to go through another bigger blast door. If the Bigger one was left open it either mean they had problems testing the generator, or some screwed up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Strange... by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was an unplanned nap? I like the spontaneous ones best.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    4. Re:Strange... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it was an unplanned nap? I like the spontaneous ones best.

      LOL ... sounds familiar I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.. Not screaming and yelling like the passengers in his car.

      I actually know a couple of narcoleptics who can't drive any more for precisely this reason.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Strange... by neminem · · Score: 1

      Given a comment a few above this one stating that he once had the misfortune to work on one, and they often made him work several days in a row with no sleep... that actually does sound like it's probably the reason, and I can't really blame him for it.

  10. Recent firings of general & admiral by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is a clue as to some of the reasons a couple of high ranking officers have been fired in that command recently. Figures.

    --
    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
    1. Re:Recent firings of general & admiral by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      With the end of the Cold War, the importance of SAC (and it's successor STRATCOM) has declined markedly - and it's gotten even worse with the various battles/wars/whatever in the Middle East producing actual combat veterans who've started getting a leg up on the promotion ladder. Also the second best and brightest* aren't being recruited into the USAF strategic forces anymore. The results are pretty much what you'd expect. Everyone expected the 2007 muck up with the nuclear tipped ALCM's to be a wake up call, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

      *Being a former submariner, I'm biased, but IMO the best and brightest are onboard the boomers.

    2. Re:Recent firings of general & admiral by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Sadly it appears that even the submarine fleet is now being compromised by political correctness. Heaven help us.

      I'll thank you for your patrols, and wish you fair winds and following seas.

      --
      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
    3. Re:Recent firings of general & admiral by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Cold its more a purge based on ideology covered by the US "pull out" of a few distant wars i.e. reducing staff .
      You saw the 2 nuclear names go under strange conditions via the US press others fall under "security lapses".
      A two-star general, Marine generals, a Rear Admiral... all in the US mil and US press over a short time.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Recent firings of general & admiral by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      LOL cold, the existing subs are expensive, the Soviets/Russian know all about them and US needs wrt sub options are changing.
      Running them is getting too costly. Refitting them is useless. The huge boondoggle fix for a buy/build new is in :)
      Space and drones are the new high ground where the cash is flowing. Subs will be fun for special forces but that needs very careful builds, exotic new materials for next gen of subs :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Recent firings of general & admiral by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Nuclear submarines, both attack and missile, are going to be around for a long time to come. Drones and space have very little to do with their mission other than the SSBNs that were rebuilt into SSGNs. And the existing designs are already difficult to make significant improvements on. Knowing that those subs exist is a very different proposition than finding them when they are on patrol. As I wrote, they will be around for a long time to come yet.

      --
      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
    6. Re:Recent firings of general & admiral by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It was actually 2 Marine generals - for failure in Afghanistan, as well as both a USAF general, and an admiral, for the Strategic command.

      The "purge" has been going on for years, but has little to do with reducing staff per se, although the sequester may result in some consolidations.

      --
      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
  11. Open Door Policy by hduff · · Score: 5, Funny

    No longer in effect.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  12. Why hold them to higher standard? by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 2

    I would nap and probably do a bunch of much worse stuff too if I were them. My other buddies from the academy are stationed in tropical paradises picking up the locals when they go on leave, General Sleeps with His Biographer is getting some, and here I am stuck in America's asscrack buried deep in a bunker with another guy who won't shut up and keeps eating my lunch out of the fridge.

    Seriously do these guys get hardship pay or anything? Is it a rotational program where they get to go somewhere better after they do their time in the bunker? Or is this really just the worst assignment in the Air Force?

    Anecdotally by buddy's father who is in the Air Force Reserve was deployed somewhere in the Arabian Sea doing logistical support for the operations over there. He said it was the best vacation he ever went on. He loaded and unloaded planes, planes that sometimes came frequently and sometimes did not. When he wasn't loading and unloading planes he was playing golf, hitting the beach, or hanging out with his fellow airmen. I would be pretty envious if I were stuck in a bunker in Idaho.

    1. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Tukz · · Score: 1

      "Why hold them to a higher standard".
      Oh, I don't know, maybe because they are guarding "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

      At least close and lock the damn door if you are going to nap.

      I highly doubt someone could get that far without someone tripping an alarm and the guard(s) waking up, but still...

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    2. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I would nap and probably do a bunch of much worse stuff too if I were them. My other buddies from the academy are stationed in tropical paradises picking up the locals when they go on leave, General Sleeps with His Biographer is getting some, and here I am stuck in America's asscrack buried deep in a bunker with another guy who won't shut up and keeps eating my lunch out of the fridge.

      These guys specifically sign up to be part of the nuclear arsenal team - it's not like they assign these jobs to random privates fresh out of boot.

      Kinda like the saying*, 'don't join the Marines if you don't want to kill anyone,' you shouldn't join the nuclear arsenal team if you don't want to spend the majority of your time sitting on your ass guarding missiles from nobody.

      * Yes, I just now made that up.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, it's a sucky job. Often it gets assign to former pilot, and no one wants to do it.
      F.E.* Warren Air Force base is horrid, it's in a horrid place, and threes things happen when someone goes there:
      1) The retire
      2) The put 100% of their effort to getting a new station
      3) They just give up to get discharged.

      I was their for 18 months. During that time promotions were frozen(Thanks Reagan!) We were at 30% staffing. Meaning I spent many weeks work 72 to 100 houre, straight. as in No sleep, or at best an hour a night Plus I was told no one in my classification would every get transferred out because that don't see staffing getting put back up to 100%
      Plus, for some reason, they thought I was talking drugs, os about every month I had to go pee in a cup. I have no idea why they would think that

        The security teams the send out to the site our horrible people who will rob you blind.

      *Fuck Everybody Warren.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has lost most of its bite since they redefined it to make the Boston bombing sound more damaging than an average industrial accident.

    5. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Either your keyboard or your speech-controlling Central Nervous System is a little strange. That probably made them suspicious. Apparently you did nothing wrong, so that's all fine.

    6. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      The folks I used to work with in the DoD would always refer to the USAF as the 9-to-5 branch of the military.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    7. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I always heard the USAF referred to as "white mans welfare" by the people i knew in it.. Always have a job, only the officers are in harms way, and you get retirement too.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Keep someone up for 100 hours and they will look like they're strung out on drugs.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

      There aren't any more active silos in Idaho

      They are in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota

    10. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Incorrect.
      Most officers didn't choose to do that, they were assigned when there was an issue in their previous duties. Like screwing off and destroying a fighter.
      Or couldn't cut it in the field they chose, and took this instead of resigning.
      Sometime Some can't do their previous jobs for reason outside of their control, and there isn't a position to move to. For example Vision going bad on a pilot, but there isn't a position of their rank open. I didn't meet a single member of the crew where this was the primary choice.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Good point.
      OTOH, it was the whole services group not just me. They did have the gall to ask why there were some many alcoholics.

      I could go on, but I will spare you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "only the officers are in harms way,"
      Clueless much?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So... basically what you're saying is, the people our government puts in charge of the most deadly, destructive arsenal ever known are, essentially, the worst of the worst and laziest of laziest?

      I wish I hadn't found that out.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      "only the officers are in harms way,"
      Clueless much?

      It's not a completely true statement, and there are many examples of exceptions, but it's largely true.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    15. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Thank you!

      While your tale is interesting, reading your prose has my brain slowly dripping out my nose.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    16. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by dubner · · Score: 1

      > Seriously do these guys get hardship pay or anything? Is it a rotational program where they get to go somewhere better after they do their time in the bunker? Or is this really just the worst assignment in the Air Force?

      They collect the pay of a lieutenant or captain, which ain't nothin'.

      It's not a bad assignment. They have a lot of free time and can do coursework for a master's degree or catch up on reading or just nap (obviously). While getting paid.

      It's the best assignment in the Air Force for an officer who wants operational experience but cannot qualify to fly (or work drones). Not everyone wants to be a maintenance officer, personnel officer, or some kind of REMF: some want to be in Operations.

    17. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

      Now I see why you always mod me down; you're an Air Force guy who hates pilots...

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    18. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The Russians and US test their nuke staff well to ensure they will press/turn key/enter codes when the correct order is given.
      If they can't even close the doors, a lot of tax payers cash has been wasted on testing, profiles.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    19. Re:Why hold them to higher standard? by careysub · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Most officers didn't choose to do that, they were assigned when there was an issue in their previous duties. Like screwing off and destroying a fighter. Or couldn't cut it in the field they chose, and took this instead of resigning. Sometime Some can't do their previous jobs for reason outside of their control, and there isn't a position to move to. For example Vision going bad on a pilot, but there isn't a position of their rank open. I didn't meet a single member of the crew where this was the primary choice.

      And yet, there is a special qualification standard that all personnel are required to meet called the Personnel Reliability Program.

      Item 3 of the PRP directive states:

      3. Only those personnel who have demonstrated the highest degree of individual reliability for allegiance, trustworthiness, conduct, behavior, and responsibility shall be allowed to perform duties associated with nuclear weapons, and they shall be continuously evaluated for adherence to PRP standards.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  13. Homer Simpson by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    I had no idea Homer had taken up a military job. Must've missed that episode.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  14. Reminds of the scene from 'Spies Like Us' by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Where the Russians were napping next to a mobile ICBM launch vehicle. Hopefully the US Nuclear Officers will get to bang a hot adversary like in the movie.

    1. Re:Reminds of the scene from 'Spies Like Us' by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Maybe that was their plan all along? Desperate times, desperate measures and so on.

    2. Re:Reminds of the scene from 'Spies Like Us' by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      In one of the greatest achievements of a guy above his pay grade, Dan Ackroyd ended up married to Donna Dixon, the hot blonde Soviet soldier. I just happen to be in the middle of Doctor Detroit which I just read is where they met.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Reminds of the scene from 'Spies Like Us' by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Donna Dixon was a spy from the other team (and still way above Ackroyd's pay grade). Vanessa Angel was the Soviet soldier.

  15. Summary does not enhance my calm by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

    Can we not use the phrase "abrupt firing" when talking about nuclear missiles please?

    1. Re:Summary does not enhance my calm by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Well, then take a nap. But then LAUNCH ZE MISSILES!

  16. I actually used to work in one. by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A) There are two blast doors.
    B) They are [REDACTED] meters below ground.
    C) There is an elevator
    D) They are their for more than a day, so they sleep.

    This isn't really much of a deal. There is nothing that can happen that they can nap through.
    Their Job is extremely boring, and their isn't a regular thing to watch. Like gauge, or pressure valves.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:I actually used to work in one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't there busywork to keep them occupied? I don't see how anyone could sit and do nothing for eight hours a day. Maddening.

    2. Re:I actually used to work in one. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You can't pocket a giant metal bomb casing containing 4,255 pounds of C4 explosives, a nuclear core, 37 safety mechanisms, guidance systems, sensors, and whatnot anyway. What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?

    3. Re:I actually used to work in one. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      I really want to know what you're doing with 4,255 lbs of Composition 4 in a nuclear facility.

    4. Re:I actually used to work in one. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?

      Well, if you've gotten that far, you might be able to make off with it.

      And if you can't, if you can detonate in place ... you still create a hell of a mess.

      The point is, if the guards are sleeping and the door is open, all of your security up to that point is useless. If security falls apart at the weakest link, it sounds like they identified some.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:I actually used to work in one. by Nimey · · Score: 1

      15-30 meters down, isn't it? I toured the (decommissioned) Minuteman command silo at Whiteman AFB in the mid '90s and I seem to remember it being pretty far down.

      I'm sure you're right about it being boring as fuck, yet stressful.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:I actually used to work in one. by intermodal · · Score: 1

      And one of the more important aspects to remember: This is far from the first line of defence.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:I actually used to work in one. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      conventional explosives are used to start the nuclear reaction.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:I actually used to work in one. by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Eight? How about 24?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    9. Re:I actually used to work in one. by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?

      You get shot dead by the guys in the bunker, who are armed and psychologically screened not only to be able to launch nuclear weapons, but to be perfectly willing to shoot intruders first and never ask questions.

    10. Re:I actually used to work in one. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Uh, you're not going to make off with an atomic bomb. Or detonate it. Do you know how hard it is to set off nukes?

    11. Re:I actually used to work in one. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You are under the illusion that the missile is in the same room as the people launching it. It is not.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:I actually used to work in one. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1
      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re:I actually used to work in one. by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      I don't know, but you will have to bypass that last remaining 50c switch or no boom-boom: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/20/goldsboro-revisited-declassified-document

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    14. Re:I actually used to work in one. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the neutrons just come from within the core. The core is constantly bombarded by its own neutrons - it just needs to be at a supercritical density for that to lead to a sustained chain reaction.

    15. Re:I actually used to work in one. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Usually that C4 is used to compress the plutonium so it crosses the critical threshold. The plutonium starts an uncontrolled chain fission reaction, which gives a lot of fast neutrons and a lot of heat. Those fast neutrons (and the heat) are used to create an immense pressure in the deuterium. Together with the heat of the fission reaction itself this enables fusion in the deuterium.
      By that time the reflective casting that reflects the neutrons back into the deuterium will have been removed and the full blast of the explosion will be a problem to the bad guys. (Or yourself if you made a very stupid mistake, don't worry about making more mistakes after that one though.)

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    16. Re:I actually used to work in one. by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      You can't pocket a giant metal bomb casing containing 4,255 pounds of C4 explosives, a nuclear core, 37 safety mechanisms, guidance systems, sensors, and whatnot anyway. What happens if somebody does walk past the guards into the nuclear arsenal?

      Well, then they've walked into the wrong place. The missiles aren't in the same hole in the ground as the people.

  17. Not a problem by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's ok, though, because between the NSA spying on literally everybody, the TSA feeling us up at the airports, and the government spending millions pursuing "terrorists" such as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, there is no way somebody is going to be able to walk through an unsecured, open door and wreak havoc; because the sheer irony itself would tear a hole in space and time.

  18. This is one of the most important missions . . . by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    This is one of the most important missions that the Air Force ever will have. I'm sure they put their best officers on it.

    That's DEEP SARCASM.

    This is a command problem.

  19. Re:Nuclear Launch Detected by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about a nice game of chess?

  20. Parallels to the Night's Watch by aerivus · · Score: 2

    Ever since we built enough nuclear ICBMs to threaten mutually assured destruction, the most important military personnel have been those who diligently guard their country's nuclear weapons arsenal . As long as we possess nuclear weapons, their job performance (or lack thereof) may one day save or destroy millions or billions of lives. Like the Night's Watch in GoT, being a nuclear officer is not a glamorous job, but this work is infinitely more important to the safety of regular citizens than any other section of the armed forces or law enforcement (obviously TSA would be near the opposite end of the spectrum of usefulness). Its time we reassess our definition of heroism around the people that really make the difference in our continued survival.

  21. Does it matter? by warrax_666 · · Score: 2

    ... if all the lauch codes are zero anyway?

    (Well, alright that was some time ago, but really... this points to systemic issues, and I don't think they'll have been fixed within a few years.)

    --
    HAND.
  22. Re:Nuclear Launch Detected by firex726 · · Score: 1

    "Shall we play a game?"

  23. So... by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    How come we're not all dead? I thought (was told) there was a terrorist hiding around every corner.

    1. Re:So... by twotacocombo · · Score: 5, Funny

      How come we're not all dead? I thought (was told) there was a terrorist hiding around every corner.

      That's why missile silos are round. Duh.

  24. Above pay grade by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    Billy Joel -- Cristy Brinkley now that was marrying above his pay grade. Gives hope to us all

    1. Re:Above pay grade by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      On Slashdot 'marrying above your pay grade' usually means getting the tricked out version of a Real Doll.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Above pay grade by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      I'm going with Lyle Lovett/Julia Roberts. Although they didn't last either. Hmm.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    3. Re:Above pay grade by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Billy Joel gets +1 in a band, 1+ rich and +5 he's the goddamned piano man, bringing him squarely up from a 1 to an 8.

      ...could be worse. Alexa Ray Joel (the daughter of Billy and Christy) got her father's looks and her mother's singing voice.

      She's since had plastic surgery to look more like mom... ...but still sings like her.

  25. Submarines are better! by Bodhammer · · Score: 2

    This is why the Navy is better than the Air Force. This could never happen on a Trident!

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  26. Job Requirements by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Such thinking requires you to think logically and predict the outcome of your actions. These are probably not traits you want in the person with their finger on the button because they are also likely to reason:

    1) If I press this button millions of people will die.
    2) This will probably include myself and my family.
    3) Ergo, never push the button.

    1. Re:Job Requirements by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      That's not quite the reasoning:
      1) If some bastard attacks us with nukes he'll probably kill me and my family.
      2) If I press the button once he attacks I might be able to kill the bastard that is going to kill me and my family.
      3) Ergo: I'll press the goddamn button if I have to.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:Job Requirements by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So spiteful, pointless murder is perfectly OK to you. Good to know.

    3. Re:Job Requirements by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Nope. I resent the fact that MAD is the best solution, but I have no better one.
      I too wish that we could all simply get along, have fun, drink and laugh. However that is not realistic. There will always be people who will feel they deserve what the other one has (or have other silly reasons for killing the other). It has been a evolutionary advantage for far to long not to be so.
      That is why we need MAD and that is why we need that man to be ready to push the button. I just hope that it will never come to that.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  27. For God's sake, don't read Command and Control by MikeHalcrow · · Score: 1

    If this incident has you freaked, don't even think about reading Command and Control.

    1. Re:For God's sake, don't read Command and Control by Svartormr · · Score: 1

      That's not quite true.

      I just read Command and Control over the weekend, an amazing and eye-opening read. Turns out those detonation systems were far too fragile and susceptible to unusual environments: ie. crashes and burning. Many could have had one or more lens elements detonated by enough induced current. The worse case--a frag hitting the cusp where 3 lens elements met--wasn't even though of until sometime in the late 1950's as far as I can recall. And those could have led to a partial-yield nuclear explosion.

      Truly safe nuclear weapons--with safety equivalent or better than say regular conventional munitions--weren't developed or deployed until the late 1980's to 1990's. And there were a lot of accidents, from "simple" ones like dropping bombs short distances to crashes where the very hazardous plutonium and beryllium metal were exposed and burned. In some ways it's only because of shear luck and what safety and dedication there was in all nuclear forces that there wasn't an accidental detonation.

  28. Job title by clandaith · · Score: 2

    I bet the button pushers job title is "Mass Population Control Specialist" /DNRTA

  29. Re:I'm with the "it's boring" comments, however, by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    They're SUPPOSED to sleep during their 24 hour shift.

    They're just supposed to close the door when they do it.

  30. Huh by CaitlinAnnPatton · · Score: 1

    You know, if we didn't have any nuclear ICBM's, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone falling asleep while guarding said ICBM's against potential terrorists.

  31. hey, it's an important job! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    somebody's got to keep the aliens out!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  32. Navy by gpronger · · Score: 1

    Was talking with a new acquaintance who mentioned to be in the Navy. Turns out he was on nuc subs. He mentioned that the reason that many of the other forces struggle with stuff like this to him was really simple. In the Navy, on a nuc sub, if you screw up, you're likely dead (sunk). Tended to keep everyone's focus. Navy is often seen as somewhat lax compared to the other uniformed services, but maybe in this case, they're not.

    1. Re:Navy by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

      In the Navy, on a nuc sub, if you screw up, you're likely dead (sunk).

      huh, and all this time I thought the main feature of a submarine was to sink and not be dead.

    2. Re:Navy by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      It's just the opposite of airplanes. With airplanes, take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory...

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  33. Re:This is one of the most important missions . . by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

    And that's why the commander at the very top of the Global Strike Command mission got the axe.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  34. Give me a break by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'd think about the obvious reasons for nuclear disarmament, but nobody ever spares a thought for the poor sods who have to sit there watching these doomsday devices: if they ever get used it's the end of the world, if they're ever attacked it will be with overwhelming force, and they are expected to be running their AAA-game 24/7/365, no holidays, no vacations.

    Oh, I think of the 'poor sods' in the missile silos... to laugh uproariously at them and how 'hard' they work. They're on duty in the silo for 24 hours once a week or so, and when they're not on duty they work 9-5 and get weekends off. When something in the system breaks, they phone home and someone else comes out to fix it.
     
    I sat my missile fire control console six on, twelve off, mumble feet under the North Atlantic for sixty to eighty days a pop. If the system went down, it was on us to fix it. No nine to five. No weekends. No meals at home. No sunshine. And back then, the Walkman was brand new and the absolute height of personal electronics. (Not that personal electronics make up much for what you're missing.) I truly had to have my AAA game, because there were dozens of ways to die or be badly injured surrounding me 24/7 for days on end.
     
    When it comes to a hard life in the strategic weapons world, the chumps out there with the prairie dogs aren't close to having the hardest. That (dubious) 'honor' belongs to my brothers and sisters boring holes out there in the deep blue.

    x-FTB2/SS, USS Henry L. Stimson 655B 1983-87.

  35. Re:Boring job by cusco · · Score: 1

    Good grief, and I thought my wife's dog was a coward. He can't hold a candle to an AC.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  36. Re:Fucking hypocrites by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because that would be doable in a finite amount of time.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  37. That's already a problem then by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons there are two officers there is so that if one goes crazy and rigs a spoon and string to turn the other's launch key, the other can shoot him.

  38. Ancient military maxim by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    "Keep the troops busy". There are drills and so on of course but it's just plain mismanagement to let people get bored.

  39. "Command post". "Launch keys". by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    No need to pocket a nuclear bomb if you can turn two keys and kill millions.

    There are fortunately some other safeguards. For example, I believe any other launch control crew can override a spurious launch, and it would be insane if the keys were live during peacetime.

  40. Re:This is one of the most important missions . . by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    You're missing my point.

    This commanding general gets officers scraped from the bottom of the barrel. Of course he gets canned, but he's getting shit officers to work with.

    But of course the Air Force won't do anything to change THAT!

  41. Of course this presumes the intruder comes from th by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Of course this presumes the intruder comes from the outside. Fort Hood anyone?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  42. Do they also screen them for following orders? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    You claim the guys inside the bunker are well trained and screened.

    Well trained and screened soldiers would close the fucking blast doors if that is the order they have received. These guys didn't, so clearly the screening and/or training isn't worth shit.

    Really what kind of idiot tries to claim how well trained group X is in a story showing group X not doing what they are supposed to do. Do you stand next to rusted wreck that spun out on a corner about how well it corners (see you can get a car analogy in every story)

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  43. Disarmament by mangu · · Score: 1

    Your other choices?

    It's not only that the game should not be played, the whole game need not exist anymore.

    The only reason why nuclear missiles are still around is to justify the salaries and profits of the people and contractors who maintain them.

    This price is too high, we could just retire all those people and let them sleep as much as they wish, at their own homes.

  44. There's even more to it... you don't get promoted. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    From "Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power" by Rachel Maddow.

    SAY YOU'RE A HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR IN 2007. WE'RE FOUR YEARS into Iraq, and six years into Afghanistan. If you're feeling a call to patriotic duty, a sense of adventure, thinking about the training opportunities offered by a career in the US Armed Forces, where do you tell that recruiter that you'd like to end up?
    Probably not in a missile silo in Minot, North Dakota. In the post-9/11 era, who'd want the job of sitting through the nuclear winter on the high plains, running maintenance on the thirty-five B-52s, guarding the "silos" that housed 150 giant and largely untested intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), babysitting the hundreds of smaller nuclear warheads stored in sod-topped bunkers like canned fruit shelved in a tornado shelter? The munitions maintenance team and the weapons handlers and the tow crews in Minot could call those bunkers "igloos", but giving stuff funny names didn't make life there any more fun.

    "Our younger airmen, once they've reached that decision point, if they have been stationed in one of our northern bases where the environment's a little bit tougher, they tend to leave the service", an Air Force general told the Senate. Those who didn't leave the service didn't stick around the tending-the-nukes life for long.
    In 2007, an Airman assigned to a nuclear bomber wing could look around and note that more than eight in ten members of her wing's security force were rookies. One senior officer in the Air Force's nuclear enterprise admitted that standing alert duty in missile silos is not considered "deployed", and "if you are not a 'deployer', you do not get promoted."
    The Air Force pleaded for more missileers, but "deployments in support of regional conventional operations [i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan] decrease manpower available to the nuclear mission." But even without Iraq and Afghanistan siphoning off military talent, would anyone expect that ambitious young airmen would be clamoring for silo duty?

    BTW, that's from a chapter titled "An $8 Trillion Fungus Among Us".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  45. Guns at work... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Never a good idea over the long term

  46. Thermonuclear War by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "There is nothing that can happen that they can nap through."

    I just had an image of an officer *snort* walking up looking around and saying, "shit I missed it".