US Presidential Nuclear Codes 'Lost For Months' 322
Martin Hellman writes "Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton, has dropped a nuclear bombshell, metaphorically speaking. Shelton's recently released memoir Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior, asserts that an aide to President Clinton lost a card containing key phrases needed for ordering a nuclear strike, and that the codes were missing for months. This confirms a similar allegation, made in 2004 by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a military aide who frequently carried the 'nuclear football' during the Clinton presidency. Unfortunately, human error within the nuclear weapons complex is a frequent and dangerous occurrence."
awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:2, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are these the cards you keep in your wallet, picking one of the sequences (which one not being indicated on the card) to confirm your identity in case you're called upon to satisfy the two-man rule for authorizing a nuclear strike?
First, someone would be guessing randomly as to which sequence to use.
Second, someone would have to convince the guy at the other end of the phone--or in person--he was the right person. In DC, that can be tricky, because everyone knows everyone.
Third, You'd need a SECOND person to help.
Fourth, when it goes missing, surely you could call NORAD and say "Yo, I'm missing my card."
Oh, I skimmed the article. The problem isn't that they were missing, it's that President Clinton's aides were afraid to say they'd lost them. They should have been fired or arrested, putting their pride ahead of a fairly important--though hopefully unneeded--element of national security like that.
Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually that has got to be one of the dumbest ideas ever.
I hope you are joking but that kind of error makes a nuclear war more likely than less.
Re:This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:4, Insightful)
He most certainly did retaliate...with anti-terrorism activities. You don't send divisions of soldiers to fight terrorists, you send cops, spies and agents who knock on their doors in the middle of the night and make them disappear...without fanfare. You don't give terrorists press, you don't let them know you're coming with armored brigades tearing up the wilderness.
Well, they better fix this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our government better fix this and fix it quick. As a U.S. citizen I demand our elective officials overblow this issue into some kind of national security problem and require anyone flying, driving, walking, bicycling, chartering a bus or taking a taxi while entering, leaving or just site seeing our country to be detained, strip searched, beaten (especially if you one of those pesky journalist) and have your personally belongings seized.
And due to the fact that this lost nuclear activation card can be scanned and uploaded to nefarious websites, we need to completely shut down the internet, restrict television and radio to RIAA and MPAA approved content and revoke all library cards immediately.
The government needs to be reminded that us citizens are in control, dammit.
Re:Launch codes are so 1980... (Score:2, Insightful)
So far the pretending is working:
Number of world wars in first 50 years of 20th Century: 2
Number of world wars in last 50 years of 20th Century: 0
Re:Launch codes are so 1980... (Score:5, Insightful)
"They were immediately replaced." Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide. .
I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought no one would strap explosives to themselves either.
But more to the point: the reason it's suicide is because it's mutually assured destruction. If it's not mutually assured, then it's less likely to be suicidal.
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like if some country were to attack them without justification? You mean use nukes (if they had them) in self defense?
What kind of nonsense is that? Who would ever want to retaliate after being attacked?
The fact of the matter is, Iran, when they get nukes, will not use them unless they are attacked, and even then that's an iffy proposition. Both (or more) of the countries involved know what will happen when the nuclear genie is used. And it ain't pretty.
Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries at each other's throats for decades after they gained their independence, yet the moment the two got nuclear weapons, suddenly hostilities ceased.
North Korea, for all their bravado, won't use them. They'd rather sacrifice their military personnel and claim they are great warriors for going against the Western devils than shoot a nuke from a distance.
Nukes are used for two things: deterrence and final retribution if the end is near. Go read The Sampson Option about Israel's nuclear weapons program.
Re:This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:2, Insightful)
His "anti-terrorism activities" sure stopped Bin Laden from beginning the plans for 9/11 in 1998.
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
This is also important to remember in the modern age, especially when dealing with Iran or North Korea. Behind the scenes nobody wants a nuclear war, even if they got a clean "first strike", it's a world sized can of worms politically, economically, and socially. It's no good being the last nation on earth if your own people revolt and overthrow your government.
Remember, the only time nuclear weapons have ever been dropped in anger, it caused an end to the largest war in the world's history and caused every person on earth to stop and wonder if we had gone too far.
Re:This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The first time we dropped a nuclear bomb, it wasn't enough to convince Japan to surrender. Only dropped a second, and the threat of dropping uncountably more (which we didn't have - but they didn't know that) actually brought the war to an end.
The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombs - the impact of the bombs was the perceived threat of complete, quick destruction, not the amount of damage they caused. Nuclear weapons aren't really that special; they're just really big compared to conventional ones.
Finally, the political fallout would only happen the first time they are used. As more small and unstable states acquire them, we *will* eventually see a nuclear exchange. The world will not end, and it will eventually become a "normal" part of war, subject to similar rules. I don't think you'll ever see a major power level a city, but if two ocean-going states are at war, it is perfectly reasonable to expect nuclear weapons to be employed in wiping out battle groups.
Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. Many people detest the idea of MAD but so far it has worked. In practice, nukes are primarily a weapon of influence rather than destruction.
I think the continued existence of United Nations and its various agencies can be attributed in part to nuclear weapons, which made open conflict an existential risk for the superpowers, and created a need for a different way of resolving disputes. At this point, UN could probably survive without nuclear weapons, but its creation would not be possible without them.
I think that regardless of any ideology, nuclear disarmament is very unlikely on the grounds of simple game theory - it's essentially a prisoner's dilemma where the temptation to defect is extremely large (the last remaining nuclear power can blackmail the whole world) and punishment for mutual defection is small (the cost of producing and maintaining the weapons).
Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absurd idea to begin with (Score:5, Insightful)
Cities are irrelevant. The "football" scenario is a surprise ICBM strike against our nuclear response capability.
The response is not wiping out cities, the response is wiping out civilization and possibly humanity.
It's he "AD" part of MAD.
Who do you think should be making the choice to potentially wipe out humanity or just accept being wiped out ourselves? You have minutes to decide before you no longer have a choice to make. Leave it to a career military guy? Or the elected President?
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Conditional surrender is a misnomer - that's a negotiated peace. You're grasping at straws.
The fact is, Japan did not accept the terms offered them - they did not surrender until after two bombs were dropped.
Republican Propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
This is total BS, but it is convenient it appears just before the mid-term elections (the mention of Carter is a dead give-away here). I have much too much respect for the people in the DNA to give this any credence. It may be something was lost, but I don't think for one instant that this jeopardized our nuclear deterrence in the slightest.
I don't know where to start, except to say that the story as written implies a security system for the frakking nuclear force that wouldn't pass an elementary security review. Tokens may always be lost or compromised, and must be replaceable at will. Presidents go jogging, swimming, fishing, etc., meet foreign leaders (and even take them to places like Camp David); it must be assumed that the "biscuit" could be compromised at any time and thus must be replaceable at any time. Further, if the President is in the White House, on Air Force One, at Camp David, etc., there is an infrastructure around him that includes plenty of people that could vouch for him. If SAC commanders have an ability to launch if communications with the National Command Authority is lost (and they do), then I don't believe for an instant that the President in the White House situation room couldn't give any necessary orders. Further, it is not reasonable to expect that even the most conscientious leader will always have the biscuit on him. (In the bath ? While scuba diving ? Horse back riding ? Or, clearing brush at some Texas ranch ?) Again, I do not believe that our deterrence will fail because no one figured that the President might be a few miles from his coat when the crisis came.
So, I call BS on this. It just doesn't pass the smell test.
Re:Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! (Score:1, Insightful)
Psst! Your political ideologies are showing.
Really now. Who in this day and age really believes that the Reagan nuke build-up was anything more than hollow posturing against a dying nation? The threats of imminent nuclear war with the USSR were fear mongering to get timid voters to stick with good old 'Big Stick' Ronnie, the 'Cold Warrior' and his GOP pals - and it worked. It worked so well that the military budget is STILL untouchable all these years later.
Wise up you dipity-doo sniffing right-wing wannabe -- there is no nuclear threat. There hasn't been a nuclear threat since 1965. All those missels might as well be filled with spare pin-ball machine parts for all the use they will ever get and they are absolutely no good as a modern deterrent. If China wanted to kill us all they would do is call in their markers. As dear old PTerry wrote:
"Let others boast of martial dash
For we have boldly fought with cash
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes.
We own all your generals - touch us and you'll lose."
And we can't bomb anyone else. Those great big phallic symbols are just that, my good Tweenk, and nothing more.
Sleep tight.