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."
Time to take the men out of the loop ... (Score:5, Funny)
Turn the decision making over to a computer. I'm sure it can't find the launch codes.
Re:Time to take the men out of the loop ... (Score:5, Funny)
Would you like to play a game of tic tac toe?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Re: (Score:2)
Later. Right now, let's play [introversion.co.uk] Global Thermonuclear War.
Which reminds me, it's time to see how Subversion is coming along.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh. Let the Cyberdyne supercomputer decide...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
well that just takes the (Score:3, Funny)
Monica.... (Score:2)
...isn't this the same time frame as the Monica Lewinsky thing. I mean I too would loose nuke codes if I had a cigar and Monica at my desk.
Quick someone set us up teh BOMB! (Score:2)
Quick - any way we can "export" this "technology" to the rest of the world?
-- Barbie
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
And the first ever nuclear power nearly did. Before the Russians developed the bomb, there were a number of influential officers pushing to nuke
awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
fact? (Score:2)
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.
I think you're right about Iran. The nuke program is more about prestige and internal politics than about an actual desire to use 'em. But we're certainly well into the realm of speculation about matters of human motivation and judgement, and pretty far
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between two countries that are otherwise fairly sane who have a (even very heated) dispute lasting decades or even longer... and crazy or religious idealogues in control of a countries nuclear arsenal.
North Koreas leader has shown a tendancy to be outright nuts, and doing crazy unpredictable things. He's said a lot of really really agressive things and we really don't know what to expect from someone like that. As such, allowing them to have nukes of any consequence (they have alread
Re:awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
"(they have already shown to have nuke capability, but no real way to deliver it "
Put it in a container, marked as 'rare earth' and ship it to the New York harbor.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between two countries that are otherwise fairly sane who have a (even very heated) dispute lasting decades or even longer... and crazy or religious idealogues in control of a countries nuclear arsenal.
North Koreas leader has shown a tendancy to be outright nuts, and doing crazy unpredictable things. He's said a lot of really really agressive things and we really don't know what to expect from someone like that. As such, allowing them to have nukes of any consequence (they have already shown to have nuke capaibility, but no real way to deliver it or any stockpile) would also be unpredictable.
Iran has a slightly less crazy ruler, but he is a religious idealogue. If he thinks god told him to nuke someone, it could very well happen. Or worse, he might have to live up to his hyperbole or risk the rath of his own people.
Ah yes, our responsible, sane rulers: from the article [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I feel better know...
Good! Because you should once you take reality into account. In all of the democratic examples, in no case could any of those leaders actually launch nukes without lots of additional involvement from lots of additional people. Its not like in the movies where some crazy leader can say, "nuke everyone", and the world explodes.
Basically, if your cited examples scared you in the least, its only because you're ignorant of the subject matter. Best solution is to educate yourself rather than attempt to scare othe
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's extremely iffy logic at best. Democratic nations who assign high value to life are extremely unlikely to use the nuclear option unless in some form of retaliation. Any nation with nukes which do not fall into the above category is a huge question mark.
Now combine nukes with a totalitarian nation ruled by zealots with a well known blood lust for ideologies foreign to their own, and its a complete crap shoot. Made worse, are the empowered zealots with direct control over such weapons. Frankly, your odd
Re: (Score:2)
I believe and hope to whatever god there might be that NK will work like that - but to be honest, I'd prefer not to find out how they handle nukes :)
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are used for two things: deterrence and final retribution if the end is near.
Nice theory, but practice showed another use: to destroy so much of the enemy that fighting becomes pointless - especially with the threat of more nukes coming. From a military perspective, there's nothing about a nuke that isn't exactly the same as a very large amount of TNT.
Some people will use it as retribution, some people as a final Armageddon, some people will use it to turn the tide of battle in their favor. That's why the world is so uneasy about the proliferation of nukes: nobody knows who will use
Re: (Score:2)
Please support that statement with evidence.
Actually, no they didn't. Both countries developed nuclear weapons in 1998. In 1999, there was an armed conflict between India and Pakistan called "The Kargil War". Both still angle to have Kashmir as part of their respective countries and there are milita
Re: (Score:2)
Of course Iran won't use them immediately, but they have their proxies who they can make use of them or related material. Regardless, they will simply become more belligerent because they know the world doesn't want to force a confrontation, so they will keep pushing, keep moving the line, and get away with more abuses to include attacking other counties believing they are safe because they have the bomb.
North Korea can make up any offense they want, they are good at it. They are quite willing to sell kno
Re: (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
I often wonder if Iran would nuke Israel if they obtained/developed nuclear weapons. I'm sure they'd threaten it left and right and use it as a bargaining tool, but would they press the button? Remember that a lot of the sites in Israel that are holy to Christians and Jews are holy to Muslims as well. (One of the big reasons for the whole fighting over the land thing. If Muslims didn't care about that stretch of land, there would have been peace long ago.) If Iran nuked Jerusalem, they'd be destroying spots considered holy in Islam (e.g. Dome of the Rock). On one hand, the extremists would be happy that Israel was gone, but on the other hand, they'd blame Iran for desecrating the holy sites. Actually, I think all Muslims (whether extremist or moderate) would be upset over the loss of the sites (whether or not they mourned the deaths). Iran would find itself ostracized, if not outright attacked, by Christian and Muslim nations alike.
No, I think they'd love to have the bomb and would use it as a negotiating tactic and threat, but I don't think they'd actually launch it.
Re:awesome (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. Iran is doing fairly well as a regional major power. For all the rethoric towards Israel and hatred towards jews, if Israel was obliterated and Iran was obliterated, how would Ahmadinejad be able to continue to gain influence in Iraq and Lebanon?
Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad has one Sunni nuclear power is surrounded by Sunni nuclear power, and two countries holding a serious number of US soldiers and firepower (Iraq and Afghanistan). He definitely would not want to appear weak.
Of course, he may find he has no other choice than to suffer the fate of Saddam: Pretending to be more dangerous than he really is to deter regional enemies, and then attract even more dangerous enemies. Iran is a proud country with few good options. Ideally, they'll change their priorities, but until then we cannot expect Iran to be subtle and feeble.
Oh piss off (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating several things here. The true leaders of Iran are zealots. The people are pragmatic and do not want the zealots. Ahmadinejad is little more than a figure head. He does weld some power but its strictly at the whims of the zealot clergy.
The clergy walk a careful line because they know it would not be too difficult to trigger a serious uprising, costing them their leadership to the pragmatic population. Just the same, that should in no way be conflated to say the leadership is pragmatic. Furt
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between 'believers' and 'zealots'.
The actual leaders of Iran do indeed believe everything they say...but you'll also note that they are the ones saying that nuclear weapons are against Islam.
That's not to mention that Iran is Shia, and would hardly be supporting the Sunni Palestinians. They support Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is attempting to run Lebanon and Syria, and would hardly nuke them.
Iran is the most absurdly overblown 'threat' to the middle east peace, ever. Iran doesn't give
Re: (Score:2)
Hiroshima wasn't nearly as bad as people thought it would be.
Worth noting, by todays standards or modern nuclear devices, those dropped during WWII are considered very dirty devices. Remember, the more dirty the device, the larger and more inefficient the device. Greater efficiency from smaller devices has been a long term trend.
Re: (Score:2)
During the warmest parts of the cold war, if this became known to the opponent's spies, it would likely destroy the world.
At that time, for USSR simply knowing that it has a unique chance to do a first strike without fear of retaliation would be enough to press the red button right then and right there.
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: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: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.
Re:awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd recommend Richard Frank's Downfall as a good read on the subject, although there are others.
Japan did not offer surrender terms. The governing council was far too divided to do so. The offer they might have agreed on was: Repatriation of Japanese troops to be conducted on a Japanese schedule and procedure; No foreign trials of Japanese war criminals; No occupation of Japan; No change in the Japanese government. The Japanese government did ask the Soviet Union to be a go-between for diplomatic proposals, and then couldn't agree on a diplomatic proposal to send.
Nor did Japan surrender unconditionally. They were offered terms, although it was fairly close to an unconditional surrender. Whether to keep the Emperor as an institution was fundamentally left to the Japanese by the terms (although the Emperor in power at the time expected to be tried as a war criminal).
There has been a great deal of speculation on how much Soviet actions affected the decision, but the bombs were dropped in an attempt to force Japan to accept peace terms. (My take on the nukes is that they offered the Japanese a way to surrender while saving a certain amount of face.)
So, since they didn't offer surrender terms before, they would have asked for more than a figurehead Emperor, the Allies laid down conditions of surrender, the US dropped the nukes as part of forcing the Japanese to surrender, the US dropped the second bomb because the Japanese didn't respond to the first (and they wouldn't have, either), the Japanese never offered unconditional surrender, and the conditions of surrender allowed retention of the Imperial line, you have achieved a (+1, Informative) while being completely wrong in every statement. Congratulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Launch codes aren't nearly as important as Hollywood makes them out to be.
IN the end, they simply act as a way of saying "These two dumb asses are the ones who authorized the use of nuclear weapons, have their heads, not ours."
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! It doesn't really matter if nukes work or not anyway; they are not intended to actually be used, and this just helps them stay that way.
But they are intended to have the potential to be used, otherwise they lose their power as a deterrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am glad Clinton (slick Willy, not the Clinton-In-Charge, Hillary) could not push the red button. I can just see him accidentally push it while he was in the middle of a ... uh... nevermnd
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! It doesn't really matter if nukes work or not anyway; they are not intended to actually be used, and this just helps them stay that way.
Erm..., no. Your argument presupposes that, a) The parties who currently possesses nukes hope to never use them and b) those same parties will always be those who possess nukes, regardless of the number of such parties. In other words, there are definitely those parties that have a sincere desire to own nukes and use them, and as the number of parties who own them (even "benignly") increases, so does the likelihood that a willing user will come into possession of them.
Launch codes are so 1980... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide.
We are all better off losing them and to keep pretending you are going to use them if necessary.
Re:Launch codes are so 1980... (Score:5, Interesting)
>Seriously, who is going to launch a nuclear weapon anyway? It's like committing suicide.
Ignoring WWII, lets look at the cold war. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the Politburo and high-level party members were clamoring for war with the US to the point where Khrushchev made loud patriotic pro-war statements in public to appease them and privately with the US was doing his best to avoid a nuclear war. Turns out a group mentality can culminate into in irrational act like nuclear war. Not to mention the US was considering a pre-emtive strike early during the cold war with the assumption that it could wipe out the USSR but only lose half its own cities.
Consider smaller modern powers like Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea. If felt like their regime was going to collapse and their leaders killed or sent to the Hague, why not launch for revenge? Its not like dictators or theocrats are known to be especially rational or compassionate. Most likely we'll see nuclear war in the mideast sooner than later. I'd be willing to bet within 20 years.
Re:Launch codes are so 1980... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The recent torpedo incident seems to indicate the central government there isn't completely in control.
Or given who is in control, it seems to indicate they are in control. Realistically, I doubt anyone knows if this was a rogue captain or a lawful order from an idiot named Kim. Given the country, flip a coin.
You need to keep in mind, North Korea constantly provides false navigation signals to aircraft in hopes of creating an international indecent. They constantly attempt to incite troops. And occasionally, they do have weapon malfunctions which seem to land in the general proximity of troops located in the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I predict once North Korea sees a regime change they're going to open up dramatically and all their rhetoric will finally come to an end. North Korea is a pariah and has nothing to gain from launching a strike. Even merely having a nuclear weapon doesn't necessarily improve their position.
Iran, on the other hand, does have a lot to gain by having a nuke. And they might even have an incentive to launch it, even if it resulted in Iran's obliteration. Likely, they'd bring down Israel with them, turn the regio
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop falling for the neocon nonsense and actually do some research. Iran is not going to destroy itself, and the leader of Iran is no, in any way, shape, or form, crazy.
Iran wants to be a regional power. It wants to essentially control the Shia nations near it...Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. And to keep the US out of that area.
And weaken the existing regional powers...Saudi Arabia and Turkey and India.
That's basically it. That's all it wants. It doesn't even give a flying fuck about Palestine, which i
Re: (Score:2)
You just managed to contradict yourself in those two lines. The fact that North Korea and Iran are not attacked is exactly
Spot on. (Score:3, Informative)
You're exactly correct. In the years leading up to World War I, the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm II was an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist state seeking to make a mark in global affairs, their "place in the sun", as the Kaiser put it. England and France put aside their ancient enmity to face this new threat as allies, with France particularly thirsting for revenge after their humiliating defeat in the Franco-Pru
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Number of World Wars prior to the 20th century: 0.
I think you might have a problem with your statistical sampling.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to talk to the peoples that pissed off Rome back in the day. They may have only been Known World Wars to us but they were World Wars for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Number of World Wars prior to the 20th century: 0.
I think you might have a problem with your statistical sampling.
Depending on your definition of "world war", taking technology into account, the number could technically be far, far higher than zero. At different points in history, England, France, and Spain owned most of the world, and even fought each other, both directly and indirectly.
Generally speaking, most agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with his sampling.
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: (Score:2)
Mutually Assured Destruction works if you're looking only at THIS life. Certain people have proven that they are capable of killing themselves, on purpose, to kill others, on the promise of the here after being really fun place with lots of women. In which case, they don't consider it suicide. And that is the scary option most people would rather not think about, because Nuclear Weapons would not be viewed as defensive weapons, but rather first strike offensive weapons.
While N Korea may not use Nukes as fir
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when your enemy thinks you can't launch?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not suicide if your enemy has lost their launch codes.
I'm sure they changed the codes immediately (Score:2)
That's the sort of thing that'd be changed daily as a matter of course, and there must be other authentication factors besides just codes.
Not much to worry about here.
"Whoops" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Neebo, is that you??
This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
His "anti-terrorism activities" sure stopped Bin Laden from beginning the plans for 9/11 in 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
Bubba couldn't find Osama any better than W or Obama can.
The one time we got decent intel on his location, we sent half a dozen cruise missiles and levelled the compound.
Unfortunately, Osama was leaving just as the missiles were launching, so he didn't die.
Don't ever kid yourself thinking that Liberals don't fight. It's how this country was founded, it's how all of the wars we won were won, and it's the only thing keeping Conservatives from thinking they can institute martial law whenever they're elected.
Re:This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:4, Funny)
Well duh.
Democrats are unamerican, and strategerizing like that just hurts the thinkbone.
Re:This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:4, Informative)
The Clinton administration had plans which were promptly ignored by the new Bush administration.
Completely untrue! Blatant lie.
Clinton is on record as basically saying, I wash my hands of this as this is the next administration's problem. Clinton's administration basically said, "These guys are a problem. You need to keep an eye on them." Depending on who's account you accept next, basically the response was, "okay", to, "we are." They were commonly included in security briefings. The only gray area stems from the exact significance placed on them in the security briefings received by the next administration.
Basically Clinton's administrative policy was to ignore them as much as possible while as many people were murdered. Only after repeated attacks and complete lack of response by Clinton, did Clinton actually allow a pathetic retaliation which only embolden them to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
Basically you statement is a complete contradiction of all facts on record.
Re:This is Clinton we're talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>WTC, the US Embassy, or USS Cole attacks
Don't forget Oklahoma City. The FBI was never able to prove their case, but even today they still suspect Bin Laden was funding and providing technical know-how to Timothy McVeigh. After all the bomb was near-identical to the one used in the WTC, and using the same tactic (a van blowing-out the foundation/pillars).
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: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that they were missing, it's that President Clinton's aides were afraid to say they'd lost them.
True. The President's codes are useless unless they're delivered by the President. And Clinton wasn't starting any nukular wars anyway. He's no Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
They are in charge of making sure the missiles don't accidentally hit Santa Claus.
Not a comedy of errors (Score:4, Informative)
TFA heavily implies that the aid knew the codes were lost but covered up the mistake until the mandatory code change rather than cop to it and get the codes replaced. It seems to me this would be a court-martial offense at the very least.
That the people checking on such an important document did not communicate with each other or follow up with the President is also appalling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because then it would of got out, and even thought they aren't really needed, the risk of a confrontation escalates. The cold war is about that game.
Re: (Score:2)
But... it *did* get out. Just now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that occurred to me also, but I was not going to accuse Clinton of losing the launch codes. There are all kinds of tawdry jokes one could make about that, but hell, he's out of office, he'll never be President again, and we're all still in one piece. Let it go.
But aids, especially military ones, tend to stick around between administrations, and I find that thought a little frightening.
Not really an issue... (Score:2)
Not really an issue, they were probably the default codes anyway; i mean, why not, that's what they used at the minuteman silos anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really an issue, they were probably the default codes anyway
And that's the problem, isn't it? People need to be educated to always change the default!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You need to be at defcon 1 before you can launch (Score:2)
You need to be at defcon 1 before you can launch
Clinton wouldn't have pushed the button (Score:2, Interesting)
Obviously Clinton had decided he would never push the button and didn't much care about the button's whereabouts. If Russia had decided to launch 500 nuclear warheads at the U.S., there wouldn't have been much point in pushing the button anyway, other than, perhaps, for some sort of twisted revenge. Nuclear weapons are the kind of weapon that gives Iran's Ahmadinejad an Islamic hard-on...just thinking about nuking Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and...perhaps New York and Los Angeles...and...even better...thinking ab
Re: (Score:2)
Neglecting the nuclear deterrent only shows a defiance of "fear" by making the feared possibility into reality. It is not beyond the KGB-FSB to have arranged this "loss".
Not lost (Score:3, Funny)
Too bad it was 2004... (Score:3, Funny)
The real reason Monica was on her knees (Score:2)
Shamelessly stolen from Fark
That kind of failure is acceptable to me (Score:2)
This kind of failure errs on the side of non-destruction. It's better than a system that requires the periodic entry of codes to keep a system from being armed ain't it?
Obama (Score:2)
And people laugh at obama for wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons.
How is this a problem?!?! (Score:2)
How is this a problem?? We couldn't nuke the planet for a few months? That's a fucking selling point folks.
Overreaction (Score:3, Funny)
Game-changer (Score:2)
I demand a video review. They refs should have called a fumble.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every president supplies (maybe supplied?) sealed orders for the nuclear submarines under the north pole ice as far as what to do if the US is nuked into oblivion. Allegedly, at least a few presidents' orders were to stand down in such a situation, and a lot more were to seek out any surviving allies. So at least a few people in positions of power probably agreed with your assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
Every president supplies (maybe supplied?) sealed orders for the nuclear submarines under the north pole ice as far as what to do if the US is nuked into oblivion. Allegedly, at least a few presidents' orders were to stand down in such a situation, and a lot more were to seek out any surviving allies. So at least a few people in positions of power probably agreed with your assessment.
Citation needed.
The slashdot story I think you are partially remembering was about British submarine policy, not USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but you can never, ever, state that opinion, to anyone. Otherwise the house of cards falls down and a real risk of launch can occur. I mean, if you know your enemy won't retaliate there isn't much to stop you. But if both party knows that, and both parties know the other know that both parties know. Then you have a situation where you build them, and every knows there won't be a launch. But if you don't build them, then someone else will and the house of cards collapses.
It's weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if the U.S. was not willing to counterstrike, then there would be no deterrent. A weapon based deterrent is only as strong as one's will to use the weapon. If one has no will to use the weapon(s), then there is no deterrent.
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: (Score:2)
In which case there's no MAD, and the other side can just launch their nukes at you knowing that you won't nuke them back. Given you don't have anyone to make the actual decision.
There is no "save yourself" in the first place, you're already dead since the other side has launched. The millions have already been killed.
The idea is that there isn't a choice to make, it's already been decided that the response is to launch everything we have at them before our laucnh capability is destroyed. The decision being
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea of how nuclear war would occur are igno