US Lost Touch With 50 Nukes This Weekend

from the that-does-not-sound-good dept

On the heels of hearing about how the US lost its nuclear launch codes for a few months over a decade ago, comes a report about how the launch control at the Warren Air Force Base apparently couldn’t communicate or monitor 50 nuclear missiles this past weekend. There were backup systems that allowed others to monitor the missiles, but apparently the whole snafu, due to a single hardware failure, seems to have shaken a few folks who aren’t happy that this happened, noting that the US plans “are wholly inadequate to handle an entire squadron of missiles dropping offline.” Comforting.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Lost Touch With 50 Nukes This Weekend”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
39 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Story Already Updated

This wasn’t a power failure. They’re just calling it an “engineering failure” now. Basically, the missiles were communicating some bad info so they basically rebooted one of the systems which seems to have “fixed” the problem. Everyone that seems to have a name knew what was going on the whole time. Only a convieniently unnamed general seems to be worked up.

Chances are the concern is BS and just fabricated by ignorant press people. The US has nearly six *thousand* nuclear ICBMs. 50 of them not being able to launch is not a problem….

Joe Glow says:

Re: Story Already Updated

Chances are the concern is BS and just fabricated by ignorant press people. The US has nearly six *thousand* nuclear ICBMs. 50 of them not being able to launch is not a problem….

And that ought to be the real story, that even with 50 nukes out of commission, we still have enough of these things to wipe out civilization as we know it many times over.

Maybe we should save some money and worry, and reduce our arsenal to the point where we can properly maintain and secure it.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Story Already Updated

“Maybe we should save some money and worry, and reduce our arsenal to the point where we can properly maintain and secure it.”

NO! Then the Germans…wait, the Russians…wait, the terrorists…wait, the Iraqis….wait….who are we supposed to be afraid of now? Is it the formics yet?

I’ll put my fear on hold for the moment until we get this cleared up….

Anonymous Coward says:

Well, maybe those 50 were targeted on a specific country. Imagine if that country found out about it and decided to do a first strike on the US? We wouldn’t be able to hit back. We would be at their mercy. Oh, the horror. Of course, rumor has it those 50 were targeting Iran (since it really wouldn’t take more than 50.) I can just imagine Pres. Abjamajaboudayabadabadoo hearing about how we couldn’t strike back and he missed his chance.

Were there any UFO’s reported in the area? I have read that a few sites have been having that problem.

Freak says:

Interesting, isn’t it? Everytime the conservative side of things wants to say we should start spending more on weapons, all of a sudden we start reporting on almost, but not quite regular occurrences. (Other sources indicate that this is common for 3/4 missiles at a time, and not unseen for a dozen or so, but abnormal, (not unexpected, just rare), for an entire squadron)

Like recently, in Canada, the news reported about Russian fighters testing out resistance at the Canadian border. Happens all the time. Conveniently for Harper, of course, it comes just before he needs to convince Canadians to spend more on the military.

Dollars to donuts that you guys are talking or going to start talking about spending more on nuclear weapons.

Sorry if I’m a bit jaded, mike, but it hardly seems like real news.

Will Sizemore (profile) says:

Re: Re: Why didn't they think of this...

Yeah, sure, but did the president REALLY love his wife, or was this a convenient way to have her assassinated along with the rest of NYC?

The technology that the government uses is built by contractors who charge way too much for the services provided, in some cases. I know, because when I was a soldier, I had to modify what some of these companies sold us, in order to make it work as advertised. Not all government contractors are bad, and I know at least one company that is just as frustrated. As a soldier, I worked with some of those employees who put in LONG, unpaid hours right alongside me to help fix what another company sold to the Army.

And to answer the question of, “Why didn’t they think of this…” I say that the decision-makers behind this may well have thought of it. That’s why there were backups and contingency plans. In everything you do, whether you realize it or not, you probably conduct a risk assessment. The likelihood of this sort of failure was probably so slim that it was deemed an acceptable risk.

Will Sizemore (profile) says:

Movies

Have any of you seen Failsafe? My college “Ethics in the Computer Age” professor showed us the original and to put it simply, the opposite happened. After the launch against Russia, the one component that caused the single point of failure meant we couldn’t stop an unprovoked assail against the Russians. The pres then nuked NYC and his wife, which should have actually been the real story. 😀

Revelati says:

The crazy thing is a first strike against Iran, NK, and various other rogue states would work just fine right now. Russia and China would be the only countries with the ability to retaliate and neither would risk global nuclear war for attacks that weren’t targeted specifically at their countries. Hell 1/2 of Russias nukes would blow up in their own silos. China only has a handful of ICBMs that could reach the continental US, and the new missile shield might catch a few of those.

I’m sure the international community would poo-poo the US and impose a sanction or two, but that crap doesn’t really mean anything.

Only real drawback I could see would be a few civilian megadeaths and a couple of radioactive clouds wafting around Asia.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

The "lose codes" claim is probably bogus

More than one person thinks there are some pretty significant holes in the claims made in Shelton’s book.

http://hoffman.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/21/what_s_missing

Seems more likely that it’s an author trying to sell a book based on sensational claims.

IMO what happens with/to land based missiles is high in snore factor. The only serious threat to anyone are the submarine launched missiles. With a land based missile you have a fair amount of time to recover from a mistake. With a submarine launched missile you may have as little as 10-15 minutes to find and press the “Unf**k It” button before the open-air people crisp market has its grand opening.

I can’t think of any agency in the federal government who can react within 10-15 minutes of anything except the Department of Spin Control and I doubt they have access to that bright yellow button with “Oops! Don’t Panic!” written on it in large, friendly letters.

Steve Hall says:

At the height of the cold war, the US had 2,054 ICBMs. (Some of those had multiple warheads, but the number still never was 6,000.)

It is, and never has been, unusual for a Launch Control Center to lose contact with a squadron of 50 Minuteman ICBMs; however, there are four other LCCs that retain the capability to fully monitor them (and launch them, if necessary).

This is another example of lousy (nonexistent?) fact-checking, and the spreading of more FUD.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

At the height of the cold war, the US had 2,054 ICBMs. (Some of those had multiple warheads, but the number still never was 6,000.)

To be clear, it was a commenter who suggested that, not me.

It is, and never has been, unusual for a Launch Control Center to lose contact with a squadron of 50 Minuteman ICBMs; however, there are four other LCCs that retain the capability to fully monitor them (and launch them, if necessary).

It would appear that many of the experts quoted in the Wired article disagree with you.


“Over the course of 300 alerts — those are 24-hour shifts in the capsule — I saw this happen to three or four missiles, maybe,” says John Noonan, a former U.S. Air Force missile launch officer who first tweeted word of the issue. “This is 50 ICBMs dropping off at once. I never heard of anything like it.”

“There are plans and procedures available to deal with individual broken missiles,” Noonan adds, “but they are wholly inadequate to handle an entire squadron of missiles dropping offline.”

That’s from someone who was a missile launch officer. What have you done?

Furthermore if there was nothing out of the ordinary here, then why did the original report note that “the outage is considered serious enough that the very highest rungs on the chain of command — including the President — are being briefed on the incident today.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...