Power Failure Shuts Down 50 US Nuclear Missiles 338
Pickens writes "The Atlantic reports that a power failure at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming took 50 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), one-ninth of the US missile stockpile, temporarily offline on Saturday. The 90th Missile Wing, headquartered there, controls 150 Minuteman IIIs. According to people briefed on what happened, a squadron of ICBMs suddenly dropped down into what's known as 'LF Down' status, meaning that the missileers in their bunkers could no longer communicate with the missiles themselves. LF Down status also means that various security protocols built into the missile delivery system, like intrusion alarms and warhead separation alarms, were offline. The cause of the failure remains unknown, although it is suspected to be a breach of underground cables deep beneath the base, according to a senior military official."
Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, the far more frightening thing is that someone can take out a base full of nuclear missiles with a backhoe and a bottle of Jager. My server room at least has a UPS, and the fate of the free world doesn't depend on that.
Re:This is just embarrassing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Deterrent against who? Against the terrarists? No, not really, you cannot really strike back at them with a nuke.
Against Putin? No, because Putin is not really interested in having a shooting war with the West right now, at least until his family lives there.
Against the Chinese? No, because international trade seems to be the better way to have each other by the balls.
Against the Japanese? Nah, not really, US has bases over there, and their prime minister resigns as soon as he hints about something Americans don't like.
Against Iran or North Korea then? How are they even a threat that would merit deterrent?
So nope, it looks like US nuclear arsenal is definitely not serving as an effective deterrent.
Is it deterring a massive strike from a bitter enemy with thousands of such weapons at his disposal? No, not so much. Is anyone else bothering to build even a fraction of our stock of the things? Nope: because to achieve even a fraction of the threat that the Soviet Union once posed would be far too costly. So I'd say you're wrong: the United States' nuclear arsenal is deterring anyone else from building anything similar: the barrier to entry is too high. I don't see that as a bad thing.
And if I'm wrong, well, then so are you. The global situation is changing and the current status quo will not be maintained forever. We may need them some day.
Re:Oh god! Not 50 nuclear missiles! (Score:3, Interesting)
First it wasn't a power failure the caused the problem, it was a cable problem. I imagine those cables have intrusion protection, which if it's anything like the old 4-wire secure telephone lines they have a lot more false alarms than they have missed alarms. It would be like your server room's network shuts down any time a ping detects a signal reflection change to foil a man-in-the-middle attack or a snooping device.
Re:This is just embarrassing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or you may end up like Putin, sitting on a large pile of nuclear rust some day.
Better that than swimming in a lake of molten glass. And, if you Google our force reductions, you'll see that we realized a long time ago that we didn't need the Cold War buildup, after the Soviet Empire collapsed. We've reduced both our nuclear and conventional forces considerably since then. That may ultimately prove to be a mistake, time will tell. But we no longer possess the same nuclear capability we once had.
Re:This is just embarrassing. (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to assume US was ever under a threat of attack.
Care to furnish proof this is so? When was continental US ever under a real threat, especially post WW2, and by whom, even assuming no nukes? Please, enlighten us.
Specifically, when were the Russians even willing to take on Alaska?
When have the Chinese ever contemplating attack on the US, or turning her into "a satellite"?
Russia developing nukes wasn't so much an aggressive move, as a defensive one. They have seen what US did when she were the only power with nukes.
phones out to cheyene mountain beats that (Score:5, Interesting)
I know a fellow who cut the phone lines to Cheyenne Mountain back in the early '70s. He was running the drilling machine to make pilings for a new highway overpass when two truckloads of angry MPs hunting communist infiltrators came roaring down the road. Turns out the guy who left the little flags showing where there was an underground cable didn't notice a loop that was put in when the cables were installed and the two ends didn't match up. By complete coincidence the bridge piling was going in right over the looped cable. Hah, took my friend and his crew several hours to convince the MPs they weren't a Soviet sleeper cell disrupting communications as prelude to nuclear attack.
Earthquake related? (Score:1, Interesting)
There was a 4.4 earthquake in WY [usgs.gov] two days ago, with two aftershocks since then. Could this have affected underground cables or the computer?
Re:This is just embarrassing. (Score:3, Interesting)
So I'd say you're wrong: the United States' nuclear arsenal is deterring anyone else from building anything similar: the barrier to entry is too high. I don't see that as a bad thing.
The "barrier to entry", as you put it, to building a US-sized nuclear arsenal would exist even if the US had no missiles. Nukes are expensive - end of story. The real question is, if the US had no missiles would the incentive to try to build a US-sized nuclear arsenal, or even a fractional one, still exist?