Slashdot Mirror


Half of US Nuclear Missile Wing Implicated In Cheating

mdsolar writes "Just over half of the 183 nuclear missile launch officers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana have been implicated in a widening exam cheating scandal, the Air Force said on Thursday, acknowledging it had 'systemic' problem within its ranks. The cheating was discovered during an investigation into illegal drug possession among airmen, when test answers were found in a text message on one missile launch officer's cell phone. The Air Force initially said 34 officers either knew about the cheating or cheated themselves. But Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told a Pentagon news conference on Thursday that the total number of implicated officers had grown to 92, all of them at Malmstrom, one of three nuclear missile wings overseeing America's 450 inter-continental missiles, or ICBMs."

200 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. At Least ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least it wasn't launch codes on his cell phone. Let's all be glad about that.

    1. Re: At Least ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      least the launch codes aren't 000000 anymore

    2. Re:At Least ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The launch codes are all set to: 00000000

      * based on information released in recent articles
      ** the reason given was they don't want anything slowing down the launches in the event of an attack

    3. Re:At Least ... by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Well, it is far more important that we be able to immediately respond to a nuclear weapon attack by basically wiping out the rest of the world, ensuring nobody wins, than it is to make sure that if one of these missiles were to be stolen somehow, that it would be too easy to arm and fire it.

      Goddamn it man, the communists are coming! Hell, they are here already!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:At Least ... by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's more important that everyone knows that a immediate response would be forthcoming that would essentially wipe out the rest of the world. That pretty much ensures that there won't be a missile to respond to in the first place.

    5. Re:At Least ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      unless the other side believes that it can win. And that is the problem with China. To many of their leaders, MAD can be defeated. Hence the 3000+ miles of tunnels, combined with nuclear production underground, along with submarine production being done underground as well.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:At Least ... by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Even the Chinese leaders are not always so naive as to believe that they personally will survive such an attack

      of course they will... as for the other 1b+ chinese

      Even Mao knew nuclear weapons were mostly a paper tiger

      agreed... nukes are the best weapon that you can't use

    7. Re: At Least ... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Informative

      They never were. That was actually the code for what essentially amounted to a superfluous lock on the devices. There were still multiple layers of security, physical and otherwise, that prevented any kind of unauthorized use of, or access to, nuclear weapons. The idea that someone, armed with the code 0000000, could have done anything sinister with regard to nuclear weapons is beyond laughable and is well into the realm of nutjob conspiracy theories.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    8. Re: At Least ... by dryeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you claiming that General Jack Ripper is a nutjob conspiracy theorist? Next you'll be claiming that the fluoride in the water isn't affecting you when obviously it is.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:At Least ... by anubi · · Score: 2

      CPE 1704 TKS

      password: Joshua

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    10. Re: At Least ... by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      least the launch codes aren't 000000 anymore

      Nope, they had to change it to 123456 in the name of national security.

    11. Re:At Least ... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It'll be a pretty nasty survival if they did. A nuclear exchange of that scale would bring on a nuclear winter long enough to ensure things like agriculture wouldn't be possible for many years.

    12. Re:At Least ... by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Both countries have a very good track record of not accidentally launching nuclear missiles?

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    13. Re: At Least ... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1, Funny

      Amazing! That's the same combination I have on my luggage!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re:At Least ... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      Not a missile but maybe something that is mistaken for one. The Soviets were once very, very close to making that mistake.

      Thank you Col. Petrov, for saving the world from nuclear annihilation.

      Do you think the US is immune to making such a mistake?

      In fact we've come pretty close..

    15. Re:At Least ... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Both countries have a very good track record of not accidentally launching nuclear missiles?

      And they both have a track record of coming awfully close.

    16. Re:At Least ... by cusco · · Score: 1

      unless the other side believes that it can win.

      This is why the non-loonies were so desperate to get Wolfowitz and Pearle out of the Reagan White House, the bastards were whispering in Ronnie's ear that a nuclear war in Europe was "winnable" if the US attacked first. Somehow they believed that it wouldn't escalate into a general launch of ICBMs. Considering the quality of intellect resident the last time they were back in the White House it's very lucky that the Soviet Union no longer exists, just a kleptocracy that the neo-cons are happy to work with.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    17. Re: At Least ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      No for General Jack Ripper to be involved we would have to the CRM-114 discriminator code to O P E

      --
      Time to offend someone
    18. Re:At Least ... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Sunlamps, water recycling, underground nuclear power plants. The thousands of people that could sustain is all you need to "win".

    19. Re:At Least ... by deadweight · · Score: 2

      One of the reason we "won" the cold war is Reagan and Company were the first leaders in a long time to actually put a scare into the Soviets. They actually thought Reagan was crazy enough to try something and then Chernobyl made a huge mess and that wasn't even a bomb at all, just an industrial accident. Of courese we had the amazing good luck to have Gorbachev on the other side, who was pretty rational and a good guy as far as Soviet leaders went. It could have ended badly with some others at the helm.

    20. Re:At Least ... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sunlamps, water recycling, underground nuclear power plants. The thousands of people that could sustain is all you need to "win".

      Yeah, somehow I doubt that the average leader with the ability to make nuclear war a reality is going to want to trade their life of limos, private planes, and steak on plates that cost a year's salary for Vault 101 and hydroponic soybeans. At least as long as nobody else tries to take away their toys...

    21. Re:At Least ... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      unless the other side believes that it can win.

      Or the other side doesn't care, and just wants to watch the world burn.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    22. Re:At Least ... by cusco · · Score: 2

      Reagan probably **was** crazy enough to launch if there weren't people like Bush (only good thing I've ever said about him) holding him back. He wanted to invade Cuba, until the Joint Chiefs talked sense into him.

      At one point the (IIRC) Norwegian meteorology department launched a sounding rocket. The notification paperwork had all been filed with the Soviets but apparently got lost before it arrived in Moscow. The track looked like a SLBM from the North Sea, and the Kremlin generals asked Gorbachev for permission to retaliate. Fortunately he was sane enough to hold them off until it was confirmed that the rocket wasn't targeting Moscow. I hope someone lost their head for that particular mistake.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    23. Re:At Least ... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. I'm not talking about intercepting the incoming missiles.

      The point is the extraordinary deterrent value of an immediate and devastating response. That pretty much eliminates anyone trying to win via a "first strike".

      It also pretty much prevents anyone from trying a false flag attempt as the immediate response would make the world almost unlivable - even for people think they could wait it out in caves.

    24. Re:At Least ... by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I misread your response. I get what you're saying but I didn't mean "wipe out the rest of the world" literally.

      The destruction and its aftermath would eventually destroy most of the world's human population.

    25. Re:At Least ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      pretty much.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    26. Re:At Least ... by deadweight · · Score: 1

      If you think about it, the only reason any USAian is alive is the reliability of *Russian* ICBM command and control.

    27. Re:At Least ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      [Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]
      General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
      Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
      Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. What are the questions? by rossdee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What are the questions for this exam? Why do they need to cheat?

    1. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Policies & procedures stuff, primarily. They cheat because, while there is a 'passing' score, your raw score also gets noted in member reviews. And when the review board sees that there's only 10 slots for the next rank in your specialty, and there's 20 people who graduated in the same class and all have good board interviews, of course they'll look at all your test scores next.

    2. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      1 - What are the consequences of an accidental launch?

      a - Political embarrassment for the United States Armed Forces.
      b - Court martial for officers found to be negligent.
      c - Retributive attacks against your fellow servicemen around the world.
      d - Global nuclear war likely culminating with human extinction.
      e - All of the above.

    3. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there's only 10 slots for the next rank in your specialty, and there's 20 people who graduated in the same class

      Sounds like the military is overstaffed. Some budget cuts are in order.

    4. Re:What are the questions? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't seem to get it. That's exactly what's happening. The military is cutting troops, not re-enlisting them. When your entire career has been spent sitting in a bunker waiting for the order to destroy the world, getting laid off is a bit more of a threat to you than others. I know quite a few career military guys and they all fear for their jobs right now. Not that it's a bad thing, our military is way way too big... but you can understand why these people are going to such lengths.

    5. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?
      a - Russia
      b - Luxembourg
      c - New York
      d - New Zealand
      e - Florida

    6. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No you don't seem to get it. Career military guys should be laid off. Let them be reservists with productive jobs instead of getting paid a living wage to wait for a chance to destroy something.

    7. Re:What are the questions? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?

      I would check all of them.

    8. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who wants to hire a guy who has spent their entire career sitting in a bunker waiting for the order to destroy the world?

    9. Re:What are the questions? by stoploss · · Score: 2

      2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?

      I would check all of them.

      WRONG! The correct answer is Luxembourg.

      All the rest of these places need to reap the destruction they so richly deserve (New York especially). New Zealand is included simply because we're jealous of their gratuitous natural beauty.

      Anyhow, we're just waiting for an excuse.

    10. Re:What are the questions? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The military is cutting troops, not re-enlisting them.
      Exactly. Right now is more difficult than ever for both officers and enlisted to "stay it" unless they are "top performers". The US military is downsizing by substantial numbers (and this is a good thing).

      In the USAF (my employer - I'm a former Active Duty civilian), Operational Flying and the career fields that support it are doing quite well, and those that fail to make Major or have some other issue are pushed to UAVs. But yes, as some Lt or Captain in a bunker, you might want to plan an "after-USAF" career. We'll probably always have nukes, but it's a small career field getting smaller with no analog on the "outside".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    11. Re:What are the questions? by treeves · · Score: 4, Funny

      example
      1. When should you launch a missile?
      a. Whenever you feel like it.
      b. Now.
      c. Never.
      d. When your commanding officer tells you to launch.
      e. None of the above.

      2. Who can authorize a strategic launch?
      a. Anyone.
      b. The mailman.
      c. County sheriff's deputies.
      d. The POTUS
      e. The tooth fairy.

       

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    12. Re:What are the questions? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lots of people! High security clearances (and the implication that they are therefore trustworthy), technical training plus an unblemished record will take you far. These people would be excellent for recruiting into fields that require technical skills but not deep specialisation, such that they could be affordably retrained. Sometimes the proven quality and reliability of a recruit is more important than any particular skills they might already have.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    13. Re:What are the questions? by C18H27NO3+ · · Score: 1

      How To Turn A Key 101. In seriousness I was wondering the same thing.

    14. Re:What are the questions? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Err, forget about that unblemished record.

    15. Re:What are the questions? by oscrivellodds · · Score: 1

      Except that 1/2 of them are now shown to be cheaters. There goes the trustworthiness, the technical training, and the unblemished record in one shot. Maybe they can work at the post office.

    16. Re:What are the questions? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, I prefer to have senior ppl with their finger on the buttons. Far too many young guys WANT to go to war.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    17. Re:What are the questions? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      zero chance of human extinction from nuke war. It is silly that ppl make such claims today when America and Russia have less than 1/3 of the nukes that we used to have. The real problem is that other nations are producing nukes.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re:What are the questions? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      and why not luxembourg?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    19. Re:What are the questions? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      In the USAF (my employer - I'm a former Active Duty civilian), Operational Flying and the career fields that support it are doing quite well, and those that fail to make Major or have some other issue are pushed to UAVs. But yes, as some Lt or Captain in a bunker, you might want to plan an "after-USAF" career. We'll probably always have nukes, but it's a small career field getting smaller with no analog on the "outside".

      Think wider. There will always need to be some cross-training done, but 'sits in a bunker waiting to act' does actually cover a number of fields. 911 operator, for example. The cheating is very bad, but for somebody with at clean record and at least a Bachelour's, 911 mostly consists of waiting in a building for a phone call, then working through checklists on the basis of the phone call. Dispachers, sitting watch on non-critical bits of nuclear plants(or getting the training TO sit the critical watches), etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Guys with wives and daughters have good reason not to push the button. Guys who can't get a date have nothing to lose. Finger, push the button! Submit! Submit!

    21. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only reason we agreed to the 2/3 reduction was because the weapons are now orders of magnitude more powerful, so we need fewer to achieve mutually assured destruction.

    22. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They could miss and hit Belgium. Do you want the US to be known as the country that accidentally nuked Belgium?

    23. Re:What are the questions? by gishzida · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that 1/2 of them are now shown to be cheaters. There goes the trustworthiness, the technical training, and the unblemished record in one shot. Maybe they can work...

      ^H ^H ^H ^H ... on Wall Street.... for a political party... as an HR Director... as IT management at a financial institution.... As head of the NSA [I hear they are looking]...

      There, fixed that for ya!

    24. Re:What are the questions? by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, the banks wants guys who can sit in well-appointed offices waiting for the order to destroy the world.

    25. Re:What are the questions? by CTU · · Score: 1

      Florida...duh

    26. Re:What are the questions? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      is b) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or the Spartacist Rosa Luxembourg?

    27. Re:What are the questions? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them

      love your sig... i'm the latter :-)

    28. Re:What are the questions? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are confusing two separate issues, perhaps intentionally.

      First, the Military _may_ be overstaffed and maybe not. Sure, we could close some remote bases or seek funding from the countries we are there to supposedly protect instead of paying them to be there. But lets not forget that a whole lot of traditional military work has gone to "Contractors" who have almost zero accountability. I'd rather have soldiers sworn to protect the constitution doing that work. Sure, there are always problems and Abu Graib was horrible. That said, at least some people were punished for it. Unlike Blackwater that has done things at least this bad yet noone gets punished. So perhaps the Military is not so much over staffed as they are used improperly and mismanaged.

      The second issue is how promotions work in the Military. If you spent ten years of your life serving and want to continue to retirement you have to make rank. In order to make rank, you have go get points. Those points are nothing simple, and nothing like it exists in the civilian sector that I know of. If your job is a 35R there may be 100 E4 rank jobs, but only 5 jobs at E5 rank, and 1 at E6. If you have spent 12 years serving and can't get E6 in that time you, can't reenlist. Your 12 year investment into a career is gone. And it's not like you get some great civilian job out of 12 years military service. A military mechanic, electrician, etc.. is not considered the same as a civilian and very few of the military certifications count as civilian certifications.

      All 100 of the E4s know that they need points to get rank and if they plan to make the military a career they all do the same things. They all go to airborne school, air assault school, work to shoot well and do well on their PT tests. It's little things like these BS tests and ass kissing that get the next rank and let a person continue at their desired career.

      Seems like you know jack about the Military on the surface, so I'll point out another huge difference between civilian jobs and military. In the civilian world you can change jobs when ever the hell you want. In the Military you can't do this, you have to serve out your term. This means reserve time after active duty whether you want it or not, in addition to your active time. People that volunteer for a second term have given up a hell of a lot to protect you and your way of life. An attitude like yours ensures that we get shit people in the military, not people who care to do a good job. Considering the true purpose of their job, you don't really don't want shitty people (there even though you may try and claim otherwise).

      FYI I am a vet and lived the life. I worked in DOD for 10 years and another 20 in the civilian sector. I can speak to both sides from an educated perspective.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    29. Re:What are the questions? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      shit, you have a point... do they have a steering wheel to drive the rocket after they launch... just to make sure they don't hit belgium?

    30. Re:What are the questions? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      yeah cos america is allowed to have them, but everyone else (except maybe the russians) can't

      good luck with that

    31. Re:What are the questions? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      A few companies prefer vets, mostly those that have vets managing and directing. A minority for sure, but they do exist. So it's not "Lots of people!", it's "I hope you can find one of those because they do exist but are very rare."

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    32. Re:What are the questions? by s.petry · · Score: 2

      2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?
      a - Russia
      b - Luxembourg
      c - New York
      d - New Zealand
      e - Florida

      WTF? You need a "none of the above" and "all of the above" on this one, because everyone knows that New Zealand is the first target for all nuclear superpowers! Screw them and their beautiful islands!

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    33. Re:What are the questions? by Granular · · Score: 1

      It's a banking center. Remember the golden rule: those with the gold write the rules.

      --
      "Suspicion Breeds Confidence"
    34. Re:What are the questions? by Sique · · Score: 1

      Rosa Luxemburg is missing the -o- in -bourg. Thus it's the Grand Duchy.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    35. Re:What are the questions? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Goes against their training. EVERYTHING to them is checklists. Caller says 'my house is on fire' he goes to the fire binder, flips to 'house' and follows the checklist. Things like getting the address of the fire, calling the appropriate responders, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    36. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Practically anything!! That "cheating" thing was PART OF THE TEST!! And they passed!

    37. Re:What are the questions? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      no wonder they suck at exams... with checklists who needs to memorize anything?

    38. Re:What are the questions? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      you seem to think that the US has never broken any international arms treaties... oh wait, it's because the US rarely if ever ratifies any of them... including SALT II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

    39. Re:What are the questions? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      What are the questions for this exam? Why do they need to cheat?

      It's not for an exam! They have mistresses :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    40. Re:What are the questions? by Alioth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wouldn't be so sure. Recent modelling to update the 'nuclear winter' theory has not only shown that the theory is most likely valid, but actually far worse than the model that the Soviets and US came up with in the 1980s. Our current best modelling shows that even a hypothetical regional exchange with as few as 50 Nagasaki-sized weapons on each side between India and Pakistan would cause a "nuclear autumn" bad enough to cause famine in many countries, and a growing season shortened by 60 days the first year after this hypothetical war.

      An exchange using the remaining weapons of the former Soviet Union and the United States - well, nuclear winter is a misnomer. Nuclear six month long night is a better description. Daytime lighting conditions in the aftermath of such an exchange would reach no more than that of a moonlit night. Continental temperatures would fall very low, and if this hypothetical war were to happen in the growing season, that's all of your food gone. Water would be hard to get as it would be frozen over. Coastal areas would be milder, but be lashed by constant violent storms due to the temperature difference to the extremely cold inland temperatures. Since the soot would be lofted to the stratosphere, there is no mechanism that will rapidly bring it down and the climatic effects would last long enough that the decade after the war would be a truly miserable experience, and most likely fatal. Those who managed to survive this would then have to deal with a world with no ozone layer and no manufacturing industry to make sunblock. Growing crops would be extremely difficult in those conditions.

    41. Re:What are the questions? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not an isolated incident. Our society has rewarded, and is percieved to rewards cheating, duplicitiousness, dishonesty and fraud. The Justice system has been seen to go out of its way _not_ to prosecute certain crimes.

      The rot caused by this breakdown in law and order has clearly reached the military. How much longer will the US allow basic standards to slide?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    42. Re:What are the questions? by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I cannot speak to what MISSILE crews had to pass, but I was a SAC B-52 Crewdawg in the 1980s. We were CONSTANTLY getting tested on aircraft knowledge (i.e. how well we knew our equipment, and what the appropriate "dash" volume said about it), emergency procedures (which had to test 100% correct or you were pulled from flight duty), and what we called "command and control procedures" (i.e. how to properly authenticate and decode Action Messages and Emergency Action Messages).

      ANY failure: classroom test, simulator ride, or inflight evaluation was devastating to the career, at least back in the days of Strategic Air Command. . .

    43. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, the 90's were a great time to retire. Right now, we've got retired colonels living in their cars. Yup, I've got a top secret clearance and I'm only martingally employable because my career field has been gutted both on the military aside and the contracting side, and with a masters in math, well, walmart won't touch me, and teaching at a community college pays less than minimum wage. But don't worry; you're paying for it through the VA.

      The problem in the missile corps is not the folks who were reasonably reponding to an unreasonable set of expectations. The problem is that the military's senior leadership is, as a whole and as a set of individuals, the most sniveling politicians ever to wear a uniform. They're cowardly, gutless, and competent only at backstabbing and surviving in a beauracracy. It's time to fire them all and start over; we can't do worse.

    44. Re:What are the questions? by domatic · · Score: 1

      6. Which of the following is NOT acceptable for polishing the missile?

              a) Spit
              b) Gasoline
              c) KY Jelly
              d) Grandpa Joe's Patented Missile Polish
              e) All of the above
              f) None of the above

    45. Re:What are the questions? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      Our military is not that big, of the 144,000,000 military aged adults in the US only 1,430,000 are active less then 1%. The US military budget on the other hand is about 5% of our GDP, even that has been decreasing since the 50's. The US ranks 11th in GDP military spending percentage and the active duty percentage puts the US outside the the top 25 in the world. The US is a large wealthy country so even though its spending and personal are at the top of the list once you factor in it's size and wealth they are in line with many other nations.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    46. Re:What are the questions? by domatic · · Score: 1

      8) What is the fuel used by the LGM-30?

                a) Viagra
                b) Uncle Billy's Secret Recipe
                c) Airman Mitchell's Midnight Black Coffee
                d) Composite solid fuel
                e) None of the above

    47. Re:What are the questions? by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      We leveled Belgium once, what's the harm in doing it again.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    48. Re:What are the questions? by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, you are PROHIBITED from memorizing a checklist, and on a checkride, if you are deviating from the checklist, you have to announce that you ARE deviating, what you're deviating from, why, and when you intend to complete the deviated portion OF that checklist.

      It's a QA measure, supposedly. . .

    49. Re:What are the questions? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      And what career isn't full of crazy pressure? There's nothing special about these people or their career.

    50. Re:What are the questions? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      zero chance of human extinction from nuke war ... America and Russia have less than 1/3 of the nukes that we used to have.

      So we've gone from 6x overkill to 2x. I feel so much safer.

    51. Re:What are the questions? by cusco · · Score: 1

      As long as it increases the power and wealth of the PTB.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    52. Re:What are the questions? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      emergency procedures (which had to test 100% correct or you were pulled from flight duty)

      It's good that they're concerned about flight crew safety, but what about procedures of the release of nuclear weapons?

      how to properly authenticate and decode Action Messages and Emergency Action Messages

      Such as those received via the CRM-114? "Ain't nobody got the go code yet!"

    53. Re:What are the questions? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      <voice="litella">Never Mind</voice>

    54. Re:What are the questions? by Ancil · · Score: 2

      An attitude like yours ensures that we get shit people in the military, not people who care to do a good job.

      I'd say it's the military's "up or out" policies which keep lousy workers in the military.

      Forcing 10 or 15 good, competent E4s to muster out because there were only 5 promotion slots available this year is insane. Most organizations will do almost anything to avoid high turnover in their employees.

    55. Re:What are the questions? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seems like you know jack about the Military on the surface, so I'll point out another huge difference between civilian jobs and military. In the civilian world you can change jobs when ever the hell you want. In the Military you can't do this, you have to serve out your term.

      And not only do you have to serve out your term - you're pretty much always stuck in your job field, as there's very little lateral mobility. Once you come out of school, you're pretty much pipelined for your entire career. If you're a widget tech you might be able to swap from Widget MK88/2 to Widget MK98/0, but it's difficult-to-impossible to become a twiddler operator... so if the widget pipeline is stopped up, you're screwed unless the twiddler pipeline is *very* desperate for bodies.

      That's the problem I faced in my career... we were a tiny specialty (800 odd people) that were very expensive to create (because of a lengthy training pipeline and the high security clearances required), so even when the pipeline was overmanned the Navy forbid us to swap rates. I couldn't even get out and come back as something else, I'd have had to swap services. (Something I had no interest in doing - the other services don't have submarines.)

    56. Re:What are the questions? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Never mind that there are actually 8 nations with confirmed nuclear weapons:

      United States
      Russia
      China
      United Kingdom
      France
      India
      Pakistan
      North Korea

      And one nation with unconfirmed nuclear capability: Israel.

      Oh, but only "america" is allowed according to you.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    57. Re:What are the questions? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      And win the Rory Award for Most Gratuitous Nuking of Belgium in a War Scenario!

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    58. Re:What are the questions? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      All 100 of the E4s know that they need points to get rank and if they plan to make the military a career they all do the same things. They all go to airborne school, air assault school, work to shoot well and do well on their PT tests. It's little things like these BS tests and ass kissing that get the next rank and let a person continue at their desired career.

      Bullshit. The US has been involved in overseas combat/security operations for the past 10+ years. If you wanted a fast track method to distinguish yourself, you can get yourself deployed.

      These guys aren't assigned to the nuclear missile wing, they apply because it is a highly competitive military position that requires good academic background AND ensures a physically comfortable work environment if you can handle being isolated underground with another person for days at a time. Your chance of being shot at is zero percent.

      It's clearly an avenue towards the more policy based side of the military as opposed to the operational side. And that is why it is particularly egregious that they are slacking on their studies. Since they aren't involved in combat ops, their studies are their only asset. Serving in the US armed forces is about having strong personal honor and ethics, even in the face of adversity; these guys should be court-marshalled immediately and dishonorably discharged.

    59. Re:What are the questions? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Zero chance? Seriously? Ever since we started stockpiling nukes, the odds of something going horribly wrong (they accidentally set up us the bomb) have been slowly converging on infinity.

      You don't see me mounting rocket launchers on my car controlled by a non-safetied button on the steering wheel, now do you?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    60. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a couple of points.
      First, most of those listed as involved in this cheating never cheated. What they did was to know there was cheating going on and not step up to stop it. Under military discipline that is a crime. They are honor bound to report a violation if they know of it. Was anyone prosecuted for knowing that major banks were knowingly selling worthless mortgage-based derivatives to investors and failing to report it. Hell no. Not even those doing the selling have been punished nor their auditors.
      Second, do people cut corners in other jobs, especially things that make them look good that seem to be "just paperwork - not my real job"? I know they do and so do you.
      Our military is a reflection of our society's norms. They come from civilian society and return to it. Most are intelligent, honorable and motivated and they bear burdens that most other jobs don't require whether on the front line in a combat zone, in a submarine under the seas or buried in an underground missile silo in some remote part of the US. Should the cheaters be disciplined? Yes, and it looks like they will be.

    61. Re:What are the questions? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      High security clearances (and the implication that they are therefore trustworthy), technical training plus an unblemished record will take you far.

      Their training consists of opening safes, validating launch orders by comparing codes, and turning keys. I'm sure they also know to call in an engineer if they get a red light on their board or whatever.

      These aren't guys loading cargo onto jets or manning control towers. They aren't fixing tanks.

      I'm sure they're still employable, but they don't really have transferrable high-skill experience unless the guys launching the missiles also maintain things.

    62. Re:What are the questions? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that joining the military will involve sacrifice even if the rest of us don't go out of our way to make their lives miserable. While we shouldn't be just handing privates $100k/yr to go sit on a beach, that doesn't mean that somebody who does their job well for their entire life shouldn't be able to afford to retire, or that they should have to live like 3rd world citizens for all the time they're in the service.

    63. Re:What are the questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our current best modelling shows that even a hypothetical regional exchange with as few as 50 Nagasaki-sized weapons on each side between India and Pakistan would cause a "nuclear autumn" bad enough to cause famine in many countries, and a growing season shortened by 60 days the first year after this hypothetical war.

      The Tsar Bomba test had a yield (50 Mt) more than 2,000 times as powerful as the bomb used at Nagasaki (21 kt), and failed to produce the effects you say would be caused by a mere 50 such bombs. I'm willing to consider that multiple small detonations might have a greater effect than a single large detonation of the same total yield - but still, I'm going to need some references before I believe what you've claimed here.

    64. Re:What are the questions? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Why should we listen to someone that get's paid to murder people? Or paid to help others murder people. Despicable. And the nerve to call yourself "educated".

      And who do you think pays them to do it? That is, unless you're positing your lofty sentiments from a prison cell for tax evasion.

      I'll be the first to say that we're using our military inappropriately. However, there is a big difference between that and not having one. The reason that you can sit at home and type on your computer without owning a gun is because you've decided to pay other people to use guns to keep your greedy neighbor from just killing you in your sleep and taking your computer. I think the best military is one that you don't have to use, but that doesn't mean that there is no need for it.

    65. Re:What are the questions? by schlachter · · Score: 2

      iran, north korea, russia

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    66. Re:What are the questions? by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having studied for government certification exams before, a more likely set of questions is:

      What is the regulation that allows a warhead restraining bolt to be inspected without a current bolt inspector certification certificate?
      a. 19.393.7(b)3
      b. 17.101.4
      c 19.393.9(c)4
      d 19.393.12(d)7.5

      What is the model number of the restraining bolt for a launch button assembly? (not mentioned: As of the time of printing of this 5 year old test.)
      a. 413
      b. 74A3
      c. 802
      d. 7/12

    67. Re:What are the questions? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      They paid me $18k to get out in '95. Sometimes I think I should have put my 20 in, and then I remember I would have had to do Bush's dirty war.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    68. Re:What are the questions? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      So a technical job can volunteer for combat duty? No they can't, and if you served you know that. Most military people are not in combat roles, they are in support roles. Unless you retrain and get assigned to a combat unit, you don't get choice. Retraining and reassignment can be blocked for any number of reasons. MOS shortages (real or contrived) being pretty common.

      If you are in a support/command unit, you either get deployed or you don't.

      I'm not saying I agree with them cheating, I'm pointing out why it happens. It's like all of the officers pushed through jump school even though they shouldn't get their wings. The system is designed so that these things happen, and you don't fix a design problem by punishing the people trying to survive in the system.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    69. Re:What are the questions? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      not only that, these are guys who were prepared to kill their bunker mate if he failed to follow the order...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    70. Re:What are the questions? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      In the USAF (my employer - I'm a former Active Duty civilian), Operational Flying and the career fields that support it are doing quite well, and those that fail to make Major or have some other issue are pushed to UAVs. But yes, as some Lt or Captain in a bunker, you might want to plan an "after-USAF" career. We'll probably always have nukes, but it's a small career field getting smaller with no analog on the "outside".

      Think wider. There will always need to be some cross-training done, but 'sits in a bunker waiting to act' does actually cover a number of fields. 911 operator, for example. The cheating is very bad, but for somebody with at clean record and at least a Bachelour's, 911 mostly consists of waiting in a building for a phone call, then working through checklists on the basis of the phone call. Dispachers, sitting watch on non-critical bits of nuclear plants(or getting the training TO sit the critical watches), etc...

      Power plant operators need to be highly skilled with a strong technical backround. There are often checklists but often there is no time to refer to them, even in routine day-to-day operations. They need to take swift action with initiative in many cases, and millions of dollars of equipment is at stake. "Someone who can follow a checklist" doesn't cut it.

      I have seen a lot of ex-navy guys in these roles, and they don't quite cut it IMO. The navy of the 1940s/1950s probably turned out knowledgable engineers, but with today's contractor-heavy military, if something breaks they usually rely on the backups and a contractor swaps out the broken equipment when they get back to port.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    71. Re:What are the questions? by dj245 · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't be so sure. Recent modelling to update the 'nuclear winter' theory has not only shown that the theory is most likely valid, but actually far worse than the model that the Soviets and US came up with in the 1980s. Our current best modelling shows that even a hypothetical regional exchange with as few as 50 Nagasaki-sized weapons on each side between India and Pakistan would cause a "nuclear autumn" bad enough to cause famine in many countries, and a growing season shortened by 60 days the first year after this hypothetical war.

      An exchange using the remaining weapons of the former Soviet Union and the United States - well, nuclear winter is a misnomer. Nuclear six month long night is a better description. Daytime lighting conditions in the aftermath of such an exchange would reach no more than that of a moonlit night. Continental temperatures would fall very low, and if this hypothetical war were to happen in the growing season, that's all of your food gone. Water would be hard to get as it would be frozen over. Coastal areas would be milder, but be lashed by constant violent storms due to the temperature difference to the extremely cold inland temperatures. Since the soot would be lofted to the stratosphere, there is no mechanism that will rapidly bring it down and the climatic effects would last long enough that the decade after the war would be a truly miserable experience, and most likely fatal. Those who managed to survive this would then have to deal with a world with no ozone layer and no manufacturing industry to make sunblock. Growing crops would be extremely difficult in those conditions.

      We have detonated over 1800 nuclear bombs in the last 60 years. Most of these were bigger than the Nagasaki bomb, in many cases many many times bigger. If what you claim is possible it would have already happened.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    72. Re:What are the questions? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Even if you could refer to the checklist, you have the basic problem that when the checklist says "Set the CRM-114 to standby" you need to know exactly what a CRM-114 is and how to set it on standby, and you need to know it quickly.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    73. Re:What are the questions? by nicolasgoddone · · Score: 1

      Lay them off Let them get a real job

    74. Re:What are the questions? by nicolasgoddone · · Score: 1

      Serving in the US armed forces is about having strong personal honor and ethics, even in the face of adversity

      such high opinion!...we could debate your main reason of what serving in the US army is all about...but or some reason i'm not inclined to think that's the main reason why even most signs up for, and, certainly the whole world would be much better served with less people in any army. I do agree that they ought to be at least court-marshalled and dishonorably discharged... they should be make an example of, they should burden the shame, putting missile ops in hands of cheaters feels spooky

    75. Re:What are the questions? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The rot caused by this breakdown in law and order has clearly reached the military. How much longer will the US allow basic standards to slide?

      US is powerless to do anything about cheating, because it's not caused by "breakdown in law and order" but by the basic nature of US itself. When you hold success to be the highest value, you get people doing whatever it takes to reach it, violating lesser values - such as honor - on the way. That's the price you pay for whatever benefits encouraging competition over cooperation brings.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    76. Re:What are the questions? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not so much the nukes as what they set on fire. They're very good at starting firestorms in cities. Not that I'm agreeing with Alioth's assessment without sources I can check, but it isn't just numbers of nukes.

      Which brings up the question of the effects of WWII firestorms. While there weren't nearly 50, there were some (Dresden and Tokyo come to mind, as well as the nukes). Anybody know of global meteorological effects from them?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    77. Re:What are the questions? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Some of these questions can get tricky. Many have stumbled on this one:

      3. The U.S. has decided to secure its warheads with a special 8-digit code password. Which is the best example of a good password to use?

      a. The President's birth date.
      b. The First Lady's birth date.
      c. Some random set of 8 digits.
      d. 00000000
      e. 53180080

      Now, you might think the correct answer here would be (c), but you'd be wrong. Turns out that it is (d).

      Given the stupid reasoning and lack of maturity for this password -- "we wanna be able to gets our guys to blow stuff up if the Ruskies even blink!" -- my guess is that (e) is actually the second-best choice, i.e., "O BOOBIES!"

    78. Re:What are the questions? by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      Never worked as a 911 operator did you.

    79. Re:What are the questions? by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

      You don't memorize the checklist, you pull the checklist out and follow it exactly unless you announce the reason why not. That way if the checklist changes you incorporate the changes and you don't have a senior moment and forget step 37.

    80. Re:What are the questions? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Just an exchange between the comparatively small arsenals of India and Pakistan are estimated to be enough to trigger a Nuclear Winter event, collapsing the world economy. If it lasted more than two or three years much of the world would be lucky to maintain a medieval-era level of technology. You don't think that a full-on exchange between the US and Russia would be catastrophically larger? If a few dozen nukes would destroy our civilization what would a few thousand do?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    81. Re:What are the questions? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      and that is an exageration. If you check the wiki for nuclear winter, you will see that the studies were NOT about india/pakistan with their few nukes, but about using EVERYTHING that we the world had in 2007, and using 1/3 of what the world had.
      Yes, things were not good, but, it involved more than 4000 nukes on the 1/3, not a few dozen.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    82. Re:What are the questions? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I did find the 'study' that was done on a india/pakistan exchange. Basically, they assume that it would be similar to Pinatubo erruption. IOW, the north would have a shortened summer, and crops in far north and south would have issues. OTOH, civilization would be JUST FINE.

      BUT, the issue is that muliple chinese leaders believe that THEY CAN live through a nuke war. Considering that they have built a massive underground tunnel that is 3000 miles long, at least 100' wide in the areas that were found, and are stocking up for a nuclear war, should concern everyone.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    83. Re:What are the questions? by cusco · · Score: 1

      3000 miles long? Rather hard to believe. Pretty much impossible, really. A total of 3000 miles in various tunnels? Still close to ridiculous, but almost kind of sort of believable.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    84. Re:What are the questions? by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    85. Re:What are the questions? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      No they don't. That was true in the 60s and 70s... there wasn't a lot of way to get leadership experience in the US back then. But now they don't care about leadership experience. The kind of jobs the military prepares you for have been outsourced.

    86. Re:What are the questions? by cusco · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this Scientific American article is behind a paywall, it's where I originally saw mention of this. This article includes at least one of the articles that SciAm was referencing.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    87. Re:What are the questions? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      None of those nukes were detonated on live cities.

      That's what makes the difference. That's why the Tsar Bomba nor the atmospheric tests produced these effects - they were detonated over wildernesses, not cities full of highly flammable hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon products. That's why an actual nuclear war would produce a nuclear winter, although the atmospheric tests done in the 1950s won't.

    88. Re:What are the questions? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The Tsar Bomba wasn't exploded over a city. It's the burning cities that create the nuclear winter, not the actual nuclear explosion.

  3. No real surprise by capedgirardeau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No surprise to me.

    It is a terrible, mind numbingly boring job that is essentially a career killer in the Air Force. Not to mention the fact that the likelihood of them actually having to do what they train for is very low and if they do have to do what they trained for it basically means they are helping end life on this planet as we know it.

    I completely understand why they would not be motivated to excel on the exams and/or might smoke a little grass.

    I wonder what their Russian counterparts' moral is like.

    --
    Wax on, wax off baby!
    1. Re:No real surprise by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Re I wonder what their Russian counterparts' moral is like.
      Depends on their tasks but from been surrounded with known issues like on other parts of the Russian mil:
      I would guess very creative and never a slow day.
      List of Russian military accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
      "A nuclear submarine had its electricity cut by an electricity company at a naval base due to unpaid bills. The submarine's cooling system ceased to function and the reactor "came close to meltdown""

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:No real surprise by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

      "Career killer"? In what world is life as a Air Force officer and eventual retirement as an O-5 or above while still in your early 40s (late 30s even) not considered a successful career?

    3. Re:No real surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I expect professionals.

      Mid-level officers don't exactly get paid big bucks, you know.

      I don't want to understand

      How very American of you. Clearly we should all be proud of having you as a fellow citizen.

    4. Re:No real surprise by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Funny

      <voice style="male movietrailer stereotypical">

      In a world where there's more to life than a title and pay grade, where people want to have an interesting job doing more than endlessly waiting for an order - an order they hope will never come - one man must decide, between his honor, and his sanity.

      <video src="MilitaryCadets.webm"></video>

      <video src="StressfulExam.webm"></video>

      <video src="ImpliedCheating.webm"></video>

      This summer, the biggest threat to a nation... ...is its own bureaucracy.

      <video src="BaseFlyover.webm"></video>

      Coming July 4th to a theater of war near you.

      <video src="MissileSiloOpening.webm"></video>

      </voice>

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:No real surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "or above" is the problem.

      Each branch of the military has its own preferred roles, where officers who fill these roles are more likely to get promoted to command rank. Some of these are combat commands - all of the services are more likely to promote officers with combat experience. Even aside from that, though, certain roles are more likely to make an officer seem "appropriate" for promotion to flag rank later in life. Commanding a tank battalion is much more prestigious than commanding the 374th Integrated Supply Depot. The captain of an aircraft carrier is more likely to be promoted to admiral than the captain of a destroyer. Flying fighter jets is more likely to get you promoted than flying close air support aircraft.

      And so the missile guys get the extremely short end of that stick. It's a non-piloting command in the Air Force, in charge of the leftover remnants of a mission the Air Force took on because when it did, it envisioned lots of bombers with lots of pilots and not a few silos out in the middle of nowhere. It's a job with no transferable experience - training to launch a nuke doesn't train you to do anything else, and it's not really possible to cross-train because the Air Force keeps the rest of its facilities the hell away from nuke silos (because hey, targets). Commanding a bunch of missile nannies is objectively unlike any other task in the air force; an officer with that command on their resume is probably worse off than if they'd spent the time off-duty fighting disease or on sabbatical. Not because it's not possible for such an officer to be a good one, but in competition for limited slots as colonels and generals, you can't afford to have a few dead years watching the grass grow on your resume.

    6. Re:No real surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they weren't "motivated to excel on the exams," why have half of them been implicated for cheating on those same exams?

      Here's some uncomfortable facts for you to deal with; you created the weapons that could "end life on this planet as we know it," and in charge of those weapons you put cheats, liars and frauds. People who are more interested in their own careers and their exam averages than the inhuman power that they wield. People who are so mind-numbingly corrupt that they have no place in the armed forces, much less at the controls of a system capable of destroying the planet. The income tax that is carved out of your paycheck helped pay for those weapons, they help pay the salaries of the incompetent twats in charge of them. Probably helped pay for the "little grass" they smoked, too.

      Just plug your ears, keep yelling "my vote still matters" at the top of your lungs. It doesn't matter how many "whistleblowers" there are if nobody is listening for the fucking whistle.

    7. Re:No real surprise by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      WTF? How does a nuclear sub need electric service?

    8. Re:No real surprise by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Frankly, should the day ever come.... I would be far happier if they just thought better of it and decided not to do it. Whether it was willful disobedience or incompetence, honestly, I don't care, I would just rather they don't do it under ANY circumstances at all

      No really, not any.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:No real surprise by crutchy · · Score: 1

      I wonder what their Russian counterparts' moral is like

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    10. Re:No real surprise by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Informative

      The same way that Fukushima's reactors did.

      Nuclear reactors don't cool down for weeks after they stop producing power. During this time they need outside electric to cool the core. This particular sub was in dock, likely with the core shut down.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    11. Re:No real surprise by deconfliction · · Score: 1

      I completely understand why they would not be motivated to excel on the exams and/or might smoke a little grass.

      Everybody knows that smoking cannabis will lead you to question authority instead of being an automaton willing to launch your nukes without any voice confirmation over the phone.

      (If that went over your head, you were probably getting high the last time you watched the first 5 minutes of War Games)

    12. Re:No real surprise by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It is not like the air-force in total have a lack of funding. The problem won't be solved by pushing more tax money their way, the problem in their organization still exists.

      Do you realize that military pay is set by congress? An O-3 Captain(Army, AF, and Marines) is paid the same no matter the branch. The services don't have a choice on what they pay him. Levels of each grade is also controlled by congress, so they can't just bump them a grade.

      Also, congress has it's fingers so deep in the military budgeting process(you HAVE to buy these tanks, planes, keep that unit operational, etc) that it's not even funny.

      There are things that the military does control - certain quality of life matters, for example, but not everything.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    13. Re:No real surprise by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If the core was "shut down," it would be in danger of meltdown how?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    14. Re:No real surprise by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Jeez, it's not like we *tried* to put cheaters in charge. Get off your high horse.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    15. Re:No real surprise by confused+one · · Score: 2

      a nuclear reactor, immediately after shutdown, still produces as much as 10% of it's rated thermal output due simply to radionuclide decay. As these by-products break down the heat output decreases. It takes several days for the output to drop to 1-2%, and even at that level the fuel can reach temperatures high enough to melt it's way through the containment vessel if there is a sudden loss of cooling (as in Fukushima reactors). Used fuel bundles, once removed from a reactor, must be stored in a cooling pool for several months to maintain their temperature at reasonably safe levels. A "used" fuel bundle can still get hot enough to overheat it's jacket and distort. (again, see Fukushima, reactor 4 fuel storage pool).

    16. Re:No real surprise by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Citation? I'm aware of the mechanic but skeptical that meltiness can still happen at 1% reaction levels, a week later.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re:No real surprise by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I don't have firsthand knowledge but the question is whether the power produced by decay is larger than the power dissipation via passive cooling. Fissile material is dense, so very high mass to a given surface area, and that surface area is surrounded by materials like concrete/etc that probably don't have high conductivity. It isn't like fissile materials are just left out exposed to the air.

      If power produced is greater than power dissipated it will heat up. At some point the increased temperature relative to surroundings will cause the rate of power dissipation to rise and equalize, but that could be a very high temperature if there is sufficient insulation. Now, if the difference is low it might very well take a long time for it to heat up enough to cause problems, and power production is constantly dropping as the pile decays.

      So, I don't know what the practical limits are, but certainly I'd want to have done the math and properly maintain cooling systems until the math says they aren't needed.

    18. Re:No real surprise by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      For a reactor that is SCRAMed after holding a constant power level for an extended period (greater than 100 hrs), about 7% of the steady-state power will remain after initial shutdown due to fission product decay.

      Sounds important to keep in mind, too...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    19. Re:No real surprise by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      "A nuclear submarine had its electricity cut by an electricity company at a naval base due to unpaid bills. The submarine's cooling system ceased to function and the reactor "came close to meltdown""

      Why does this come to mind?

    20. Re:No real surprise by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      If the core was "shut down," it would be in danger of meltdown how?

      It would still be hot. Nuclear reactors don't cool down for weeks after they stop producing power. During this time they need outside electric to cool the core.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    21. Re:No real surprise by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      As I responded to the other poster half a day ago, I'm aware of what happens in the older-model reactors after you scram them. Presumably we're assuming different definitions of "shut down." By my definition, "shut down" means you shouldn't need any active systems to keep it from reaching criticality; the control rods being all the way in should maintain a subcritical safe state on their own (or in pebble-beds etc., the design of the reactor itself). Having the control rods all in but you're still pumping coolant through it seems like an intermediate state to me, and if you have to keep circulating coolant through it all the time no matter what (which would be a horribly retarded design), you can't actually shut it down.

      I wonder how much of the term "meltdown" is a misnomer-dumbing-down of the physics involved. Admittedly if the reactor innards get hot enough to start melting the fuel elements etc. etc. etc., it's a Very Bad Thing...but if it doesn't actually breach the containment vessel/building, theoretically it's just a very expensive mess rather than actually hurting anyone, since the radioactive material is contained.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    22. Re:No real surprise by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Or did you mean that they're safely subcritical but still temperature hot? Hmm...in which case, would you really *need* to cool them...unless you wanted people to do maintenance on them soon...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    23. Re:No real surprise by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The rods are "safely subcritical" so long as the heavy elements (probably uranium in this case) remain where they should: suspended in the cast.

      The term meltdown refers to the fuel rods actually melting. Gravity then differentiates the component materials: heavy stuff pools at the bottom. Once you have a pool of uranium there is danger of it becoming dense enough to become critical. There is even evidence of this having happened in nature.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  4. Showing that they have been well trained by stox · · Score: 2

    in our school systems.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  5. Re:They have direct incentive to cheat. by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hold on, let me consult the cheat sheet...

  6. Were they forced to cheat? by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    It strikes me as odd that this many people would go bad. Maybe the tests were a joke they were so hard so everybody just winked and cheated; otherwise the place might have been empty with a bunch of people "failing" for no good reason.

    A good example of this is apparently in China nearly everyone bribes to get a driver's license. The test is pretty much impossible. I read that some people try to take it as a challenge. For example some of the questions on the test have exactly opposite correct answers to what is essentially the same question.

    The problem is that once you make it impossible to pass, forcing them to cheat, then people might not study the material at all; the result being that the people end up knowing even less than if they were just offered an easier test.

    1. Re:Were they forced to cheat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      Beyond a lack of integrity and poor judgment among airmen, she has also blamed the decision to cheat on a test-driven culture within the nuclear force, which must consistently score a passing grade of at least 90 percent correct on exams.

      And you can pretty much bet these weren't multiple choice.

  7. When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by couchslug · · Score: 1

    SAC was famous for tight discipline and esprit de corps. When TAC ate SAC, many SAC folks we'd inherited predicted slack standards and the end of the highly disciplined SAC culture. Years of fuckups proved their point.

    Some jobs require performance of a very high standard. Go old-school and crush the cheaters in an exemplary manner. Do what Curtis LeMay would do to shitbags and replace the lot.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by pla · · Score: 1

      Some jobs require performance of a very high standard.

      This ain't one of 'em. "Wait in a bunker for three days at a time, for an order that will never come". Woo-hoo, now that right there takes some serious best-of-the-bestness!


      Go old-school and crush the cheaters in an exemplary manner.

      Meh. Cheating to a get a job that anyone with an ounce of motivation would do their damnedest to avoid? Let 'em have it, keep them out of better jobs, and get rid of the stupid test. Anyone that wants to spend 20 years in a bunker sleeping in shifts deserves what they get.

    2. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      what is sad, is that the USAF has not decided to reverse poppa Bush's mistake. SAC really is needed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hmmmm. I do not think that you understand what the job is. These men are ran through drills where all of the sounds, and feelings would be the REAL thing. IOW, for their drills, they really believe that they are going through the real thing. That is harsh. It causes these men/women to have some hard strains on them. And being locked up when your family is suffering, is even harder.
      My sister was in the hospital with a 106 fever when the cuban missle crisis started. So, he had to sit on a runway for 3 days, with a nuke about 20' away from him, ready to fly to USSR and drop it, while he had absolutely NO idea of how his daughter was doing in the hospital. It was not until the stand down that he found out that she was alive. That is a hard thing to do.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      Uh... ACC(Air Combat Command) has lost a lot of the nuke mission in favor of a new command: Global Strike Command(GSC), which is basically SAC in all but name.

      Well, okay not quite - it doesn't have the resources or manpower than SAC did, and it'll take time to build the processes that were dropped when SAC joined TAC.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Take someone who - by definition of willingness to complete their duties - counts as a complete sociopath...

      Somehow I doubt the definition of duties includes the word "sociopath." Messed up describes the nature of humanity that necessitates their job in the first place...

    6. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Thanx. Did not know that.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      How quickly people forget MAD, and what it meant for the survival of humanity.

  8. Re:Still got nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At gunpoint, the same way Americans do everything. Hell, if you don't mow your lawn in America, the guys with guns come to your house to force you to do it.

  9. Re:Still got nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The same way we do everything else: by force. Our government sees itself as the masters of the world, unfortunately. Don't agree to their terms? They'll bomb your country. Don't want to provide them with cheap products? They'll hack into your corporate networks, steal plans, and hand it over to American companies (for which their cousin/nephew/whatever works). Don't want to provide them with a constant stream of where you are and what you're doing at all times? Too bad, that wasn't an option.

    I am deeply ashamed at how our government is behaving yet still tries to hold up the illusion of democracy.

  10. Where was the NSA? by MasseKid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the NSA, for all of it's intrusion into privacy to protect us all, could not find 93 co-conspirators who had access to nuclear weapons, how on earth can we expect them to find a small terrorist cell? What the hell are we trading our liberties, privacy, and freedom for if they can't even uncover something as large as this?

    1. Re:Where was the NSA? by freax · · Score: 1

      Google employed 47,756 people in 2013, I heard that NSA employs around 40,000 people. So Google has about the same amount of 'analyst for every n Americans' as the NSA has. Both the NSA and Google operate both outside of the USA and inside of the USA. My conclusion is that I should be equally worried about the NSA as I am about Google. Besides, NSA doesn't have to play fair and (can) reuse(s) the results of Google by stealing the data.

    2. Re:Where was the NSA? by SeanBlader · · Score: 1

      This response seems to miss the point where the conspirators were using their cell phones and text messages to copy and move around these test answers. This is certainly the easiest thing to track since technically SMS messages are actually cell phone meta-data, and it's already text that can be indexed and searched. This Air Force cheating ring is exactly what the NSA should be doing. Plus one for the question, "Where was the NSA?" Maybe they're cheating on their tests too via SMS.

  11. Cheating in schools too by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    With all of the organized cheating that happens in american schools too (and to move up the ranks in out businesses), I'm not surprised. Cheating is as american as apple pie.

    1. Re:Cheating in schools too by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      With all of the organized cheating that happens in american schools too (and to move up the ranks in out businesses), I'm not surprised. Cheating is as american as apple pie.

      That's probably the best comparison so far. With No-Child-Left-Behind (aka - no kids gets ahead), the schools had financial incentive to pass kids who would not have otherwise passed and teachers were directly penalized for failing kids. The predictable result was teachers helping kids cheat on the tests and fudging scores. In this case, the wing commander knew cheating was rampant but didn't intervene because they didn't want the wing to look bad.

      What's next, the fact that the answers to the Postal exam are available on the internet?

  12. Dr. Strangelove by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

    Nothing to worry about. It's just a 50th Anniversary tribute to Dr. Strangelove.
    http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:Dr. Strangelove by guttentag · · Score: 1

      Nothing to worry about. It's just a 50th Anniversary tribute to Dr. Strangelove.

      Interesting sentiment, considering things got to a point in Dr. Strangelove where soldiers breaking the law was the only hope for saving the world:

      Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel... that Coca-Cola machine. I want you to shoot the lock off it. There may be some change in there.
      Colonel "Bat" Guano: That's private property.
      Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Colonel! Can you possibly imagine what is going to happen to you, your frame, outlook, way of life, and everything, when they learn that you have obstructed a telephone call to the President of the United States? Can you imagine? Shoot it off! Shoot! With a gun! That's what the bullets are for, you twit!
      Colonel "Bat" Guano: Okay. I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?
      Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: What?
      Colonel "Bat" Guano: You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.

      Perhaps encouraging these officers to come up with outside the box solutions is a good idea. Not that it worked in the movie, but they need to be prepared to piss on a spark plug if they think it will do any good.

  13. Time to put away the toys by confused+one · · Score: 1

    OK, if the children can't take care of their toys it's time to put them away. I say (not that I have any say in the matter) we have a chat with the Russians and agree to get rid of an additional 450 deployed launchers each, and reducing the warhead count. Call it New START II. We can then turn the 450 boosters over to Orbital Sciences to use for space launch missions.

  14. Testing... by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

    I can do this:

    Marijuana - check
    Cocaine - check
    LSD - check
    Peyote - check
    Mushrooms - check
    Strawberry Daqarita - check
    Ayn Rand Looney time - check

    Do I pass?

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  15. What does it even mean by treeves · · Score: 1

    How can part of a missile cheat at anything? And what does "half a wing" mean? Aren't the fins on the missiles one-piece?

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  16. Re:They have direct incentive to cheat. by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Answer the fucking question.

    You can't handle the truth.

  17. Re: They have direct incentive to cheat. by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Repeat after me: I misinterpreted the rules.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  18. Take the men out of the loop by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    will keep control at the top where it belongs

  19. Re:Shows Something About the Exams by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    Adherence to military discipline ranks higher than that, or it should among men trusted to operate the most dangerous weapons on the planet.

  20. Re:Still got nukes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    how are we trying to convince others to give up their nukes while we keep our own?
    O is trying to Russia to work on a new start treaty, but with China as part of it. So far, putin and China are fighting against that.
    But, I can not think of where else we are trying to get nations to give up their nukes.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  21. Re:Still got nukes by artor3 · · Score: 1

    Oh get off it.

    The US government has nukes because it started building a stockpile before the world came together to make a non-proliferation pact. It has been reducing its stockpile steadily. Meanwhile, it tells other countries that they can't have nukes because they signed an agreement saying that they would not have nukes.

    And that's a good thing. The survival of human civilization is more important than your kindergarten sense of fairness.

  22. Mistake. by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    'Career Killer' in the sense that they aren't retiring as an O-5, they're retiring as an O-4 if they're lucky, probably 'let go' after 10 years as an O-3.

    To be a USAF officer you have to have your Bachelour's. That translates to most officers being at least 22. 42 is their earliest retirement age, 'Late 30's' would be for an enlisted member. An officer retiring that way would have to be an 'OE', or an enlisted member who went officer. They tend not to get stuck in capsules.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Mistake. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Late 30's is doable if done right and is what my cousin is planning on but in the army. The plan is as follows:
      1. Join the national guard at age 17 (requires parents permission) 2. When entering college in a year go into ROTC (you are still in the national guard, and get a boost in rank) 3. Upon graduating college you have 5 years in the military already 4. Since there are often more people in ROTC than there are commissions available having 5 years of military experience helps getting you that first commission 5. Start your progress up the officer track for the next 15 years 6. Profit and retire as an officer at age 37.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  23. Re:They have direct incentive to cheat. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?

  24. Re:Still got nukes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    BTW, you do realize that Russia has several 1000 more nukes than does USA? Yes?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  25. Re:Shows Something About the Exams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    By the article, it implies much of the chain of the command is either in on the cheating or turning a blind eye. They have unit solidarity and loyalty to the US government, what they don't have is tolerance for micromanaging politicians who apparently instituted an exam system that is so far from reality that pretty much the entire wing agrees they are a waste of time.

  26. OMG by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    is it Tuesday again? On the ball as always there /.

  27. Got a hold of one of the text messages by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    Here is one of the messages containing a test answer:

    "When they ask ' How about Global Thermonuclear War?', answer NO!"

    You would think that would be obvious, but.

  28. Re:Re-assigned by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why the hell aren't they all being dishonourably discharged and even court-martialed?

    It takes 5 minutes to decertify somebody and pull them from their duties. You can't be 'dishonourably discharged' without a General Court-Martial, which the civilian equivalent is a full up court trial. As such, it takes time to build a case, time to put together a court, time to assemble a jury of equal or higher rank*, time to hold the trial, etc...

    Now complicate it by having to do it by x92. A *busy* base might have 1 general court marshal(overseen by a federal judge) per month. Most only have 1 court room, though I suppose they can set up others ad-hoc, but the rooms can't be too bad or it generates a point to base an appeal on.

    As such, in order to expediently conduct the trials they'd have to ship the offenders to bases all over the country. Finding enough federal judges would be a problem.

    Honestly, I do expect a number of discharges ranging from 'Dishonorable' to 'Other than honorable', even a number of honorable discharges - the military is shrinking so even if the court doesn't find them liable enough for discharge(standards for this are NOT supposed to change year by year), what will happen is that the conviction or article 15 will be a black mark for the 'Quality of Force Review Board' to hook on, forcing them to stand a board and defend themselves as part of a 'whole person' concept, including said black mark, when the board is looking to kick out between 30-70% of those they review.

    Their careers in the military are done, even if it might take a couple years for some to be forced out.

    *Easy for enlisted, not so easy for officers.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  29. Re:They have direct incentive to cheat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No I ordered the Baja Blast

  30. Never mind the questions, mind the initial test by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Why bother what the questions are if half of the people taking them are cheating? Why did they get the job in the first place? What tests did they have to pass to get the job? How is it possible that half of the people that are supposed to be 100% honest and dependable get implicated in cheating? We can't afford to have this happen with the people that are supposed to handle such a responsible job. Until this is absolutely clear, new test methods have been devised and retesting has been done, world peace is in trouble.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  31. Re:Still got nukes by crutchy · · Score: 1

    Then stop whining on slashdot and fucking do something.

    too late... ron paul quit politics

    now america is fucked either way

  32. Re:Still got nukes by crutchy · · Score: 1

    Have a look at all the international and UN treaties that the USA hasn't ratified... the USA has no high moral ground to stand on.

  33. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hiroshima blast ~== 16,000 tons of TNT. H-bomb ~== 10,000,000 tons of TNT. If that isn't an order of magnitude, I don't know what is.

  34. Re:Still got nukes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    What would happen if the result was a vote voting in an ineligible candidate, whether Obama, Bush Jr., or Mickey Mouse?

  35. We know those guys... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    The best of the BEST of THE BEST, SIR!

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:We know those guys... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      With honors!

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  36. Has anyone here watched WarGames ? by slincolne · · Score: 2
    If you have it in your collection, watch WarGames again.

    The opening sequence has a missile operator discussing the quality of the sensemilia his girlfriend was growing with the other. And the bonus easter egg for those of you that do is the sign in the corridor :-)

  37. More whistleblowers please by metamarmoset · · Score: 1

    Please remind me: why does the government think that whistleblowers are the greatest threat to national security?

  38. With all the news stories about how veterans by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    are getting screwed at every turn (treatment for injuries and psychiatric problems, etc.) and the BS soldiers are subject to when they are on active duty (drugs tests, radiation tests, inadequate pay to support their families, etc.), I'm amazed that anyone voluntarily goes into the military.

    Is killing people and getting shot at or blown up really so much fun that it makes up for all that?

  39. Mantra by bigstupid · · Score: 1

    If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. If you get caught, you ain't tryin' hard enough.

  40. COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS by blade8086 · · Score: 1

    How dare snowden release this information! This is a breach of trust and puts the national security at risk!
    These people are not reporters or whistleblowers, but traitors, and should be tried in a military court!

    erm... oh.. right.

  41. Re:Still got nukes by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    When was the last time the U.S. actually convinced someone to give up their nukes?

    North Korea? Hmm...no...
    Iraq? Never had them to begin with...
    Israel? No...
    Iran? We'll get back to you on that.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  42. Re:Still got nukes by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Sometimes there's a difference between what Congress agrees to, and what the State Department negotiates.

    As to why Congress won't ratify, the reasons are many; legitimate or not.

    Functioning as designed, for better or worse.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  43. Re:Missing Option by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Trust me, you don't want CowbyNeal authorizing nuclear launches.

  44. W.O.P.R. time by Feneban · · Score: 1

    Someone get Stephen Falken on the line.

  45. Zero Defect in the Military by DCWillie · · Score: 1

    This is the by product of the Zero Defect mentality in the military. The same issue arose when the Army had small Tactical Nukes a while ago. They had the same mindset and it caused lots of issues like lying to their commanders about violations or illegal activities. Those who work closely with nuclear material in the military know that they have to have HIGH standards. They can't mess up, If they do then they are deemed a risk to everyone. Now, if they do stuff behind everybody's back. No one would know what is going on. No human is perfect and we cant always get a 100% on every test. We are bound to mess up and make mistakes. Things need to change to avoid stuff like this from happening sometime in the future again.

  46. Re:Still got nukes by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    In the US, the popular vote for President is of no legal significance. The individual states select Electors, typically the ones picked by whoever won the popular vote in that state. These Electors then vote for President and Vice-President, and if an eligible person has a majority that person wins. If no eligible person has a majority, the House of Representatives votes for anybody in the top three list (voting by state, not by representative), and anybody who gets a majority of that is elected. The Senate votes (individually) for VP candidates, and again a majority is required. Assuming party-line votes, it's likely that the House will fail to come up with a majority, since equally split state delegations will effectively abstain. The Senate is less likely to fail, since individual Senators vote.

    If no President can be elected by Inauguration Day, the position is taken by the VP-elect; if there is none, by whoever by law takes over. I think that would be the Speaker of the House. It would be interesting....

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  47. Re:But? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    yup. A 3000 mile long tunnel with a nuke power plant in it, and apparently, other nuclear work.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  48. Re:Still got nukes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So no president could be elected if the top 3 electoral winners were Bush Jr, Obama, and Mickey Mouse. Whoever the senate votes in for VP will be the president, then select their own VP. Maybe we can get that to happen. At least then, we might finally get rid of the Electoral College, one of the worst ideas by the founding fathers (though not done now as originally written, as it was even worse before).