Half of US Nuclear Missile Wing Implicated In Cheating 313
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."
At Least ... (Score:2, Funny)
At least it wasn't launch codes on his cell phone. Let's all be glad about that.
Re: At Least ... (Score:4, Informative)
least the launch codes aren't 000000 anymore
Re: At Least ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: At Least ... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
least the launch codes aren't 000000 anymore
Nope, they had to change it to 123456 in the name of national security.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Amazing! That's the same combination I have on my luggage!
Re: (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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
[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 prodigiou
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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. [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
password: Joshua
What are the questions? (Score:5, Interesting)
What are the questions for this exam? Why do they need to cheat?
Re:What are the questions? (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.
Re:What are the questions? (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.
Re:What are the questions? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re:What are the questions? (Score:4, 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. . .
Re:What are the questions? (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?
Re:What are the questions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What are the questions? (Score:5, Funny)
Err, forget about that unblemished record.
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (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 reasona
Re:What are the questions? (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!
Re:What are the questions? (Score:5, 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?
Re:What are the questions? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the banks wants guys who can sit in well-appointed offices waiting for the order to destroy the world.
Re: (Score:3)
iran, north korea, russia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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!
Re:What are the questions? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:What are the questions? (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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 thin
Re:What are the questions? (Score:5, 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.
Re:What are the questions? (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the questions, mind the initial test (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the questions for this exam? Why do they need to cheat?
It's not for an exam! They have mistresses :)
Re:What are the questions? (Score:5, 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. . .
Re: They have direct incentive to cheat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They have direct incentive to cheat. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:They have direct incentive to cheat. (Score:5, Funny)
Answer the fucking question.
You can't handle the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are the questions? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
2 - Which of the following is not an acceptable target to nuke?
I would check all of them.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is b) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg or the Spartacist Rosa Luxembourg?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
No real surprise (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.
Re:No real surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
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... [wikipedia.org]
"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""
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? How does a nuclear sub need electric service?
Re:No real surprise (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No real surprise (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>
Mistake. (Score:3)
'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.
Re: (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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Showing that they have been well trained (Score:3)
in our school systems.
Were they forced to cheat? (Score:2)
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
When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 2
Re:When TAC ate SAC, such was predicted... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Where was the NSA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheating in schools too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Dr. Strangelove (Score:2)
Nothing to worry about. It's just a 50th Anniversary tribute to Dr. Strangelove.
http://www.newyorker.com/onlin... [newyorker.com]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Time to put away the toys (Score:2)
Testing... (Score:2)
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?
What does it even mean (Score:2)
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?
Take the men out of the loop (Score:2)
will keep control at the top where it belongs
OMG (Score:2)
is it Tuesday again? On the ball as always there /.
Got a hold of one of the text messages (Score:2)
"When they ask ' How about Global Thermonuclear War?', answer NO!"
You would think that would be obvious, but.
We know those guys... (Score:2)
The best of the BEST of THE BEST, SIR!
Re: (Score:3)
With honors!
Has anyone here watched WarGames ? (Score:2)
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 :-)
Re: (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.
Re:Still got nukes (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adherence to military discipline ranks higher than that, or it should among men trusted to operate the most dangerous weapons on the planet.
Re:Re-assigned (Score:5, 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.