92 nuclear missile officers implicated in cheating scandal

[kent]

I'm sure these people have security clearances at the Top Secret* (vs. Secret) level and, as such, their credibility/integrity is potentially more than a little troubling to me. 

*Likely at the Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/30/22508088-92-nuclear-missile-officers-implicated-in-cheating-scandal-air-force-says?lite

In part:

The original officers in the probe, all assigned to the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana, are accused of apparently texting answers to each other, or knew that the cheating was going on and didn't report it, according to officials.

The monthly exam tested the officers' knowledge of the missile launch systems. It was administered in August and September 2013.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh said earlier.......

[kent]

Four hours since posting and not a peep. I guess I'm alone in being concerned we have "nuclear missile launch officers" with questionable integrity.....wow!

The 341st Missile Wing provides security for 150 nuclear-armed Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles, one third of the entire ICBM force. James said there is no evidence of similar cheating at the other two nuclear missile bases, F.E. Warren in Wyoming and Minot in North Dakota.

<<yes, I know there are safeguards in place to preclude a rogue launching but in this day and age, are they still as effective as we need - think hacker mentality/ability.... 

[Tennesseer]

Not sure there is much to discuss kent. It is what it is. It needs to be dealt with. That is about all I can say.

[billisonboard]

Jan 30, 2014 20:43:11 GMT -5 kent said:

Four hours since posting and not a peep. I guess I'm alone in being concerned ...

What is there to discuss?

[Sum Dum Gai]

They'll all get a black mark on their records that will follow them for the rest of their careers.

[the flying reindeer]

The one thing that I am curious about - were they graduates of the service academies or ROTC? Having worked at West Point for 8 years where the motto there is "Duty, Honor, Country", I wonder.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The most recent stats I've seen, which are from 2010, say that 20% of all military officers come from the service academies.  92 were implicated in the cheating scandal, so I'm sure at least a few are academy grads.

[kent]

Jan 30, 2014 20:50:42 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Not sure there is much to discuss kent. It is what it is. It needs to be dealt with. That is about all I can say.

I guess you're right Tenn - I have too much time on my hands.

[EVT1]

Now there is a job we can do without.  Forget global warming and pollution- need to get rid of nuclear weapons first.  Guess that makes me a leftie.  Because ridding the world of shit than can blow up the world is a sign of weakness and all.

[Sum Dum Gai]

How are we going to get the rest of the world to theirs, or do you want us to our nuclear deterrent while the rest of the world retains the ability to obliterate us with the press of a button?

[billisonboard]

Jan 31, 2014 16:49:44 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

How are we going to get the rest of the world to theirs, or do you want us to our nuclear deterrent while the rest of the world retains the ability to obliterate us with the press of a button?

The rest of the world does not have the ability to obliterate us. There are only a few countries who could deliver some major hurt to us. Serious cutbacks to show our willingness to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons would provide leadership. Total nuclear disarming would need to be universal.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Total nuclear disarming would never happen.  Everyone will be too distrustful of other countries keeping a few in secret, and/or a rogue state like Iran developing one.

Imagine rival gangs setting up a knife fight.  No guns allowed.  Now, do you bring one?  Damn straight, because you know at least one of your rivals will.  In reality everyone does, because they can't trust each other not too.

That's why I have very little doubt that we're actually arming our satellites in secret.  Oh, I know, we all signed a treaty saying we wouldn't weaponize space, but we can't trust everyone else to keep their side, don't want to get caught with our pants down, and even if they really don't want to weaponize space they do the same calculus on us and have no choice.  In the event we ever go to war with a major power the ability to have our satellites damage or disable theirs using lasers or something is too useful not to pursue.

[EVT1]

Just a fan of de-escalation and a diplomatic solution.  Familiar with MAD.  Just seems every time there is an agreement to reduce these numbers- people fight against it.   Even Saint Reagan was onboard with START. 

[billisonboard]

Jan 31, 2014 17:12:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Total nuclear disarming would never happen.  Everyone will be too distrustful of other countries keeping a few in secret, and/or a rogue state like Iran developing one.
...

And? So a few countries have a couple of nuclear weapons. What is going to happen that would make that a serious concern that we didn't have a couple also? Bolivia, for example, seems to be doing just fine without one.

[Sum Dum Gai]

And? So a few countries have a couple of nuclear weapons. What is going to happen that would make that a serious concern that we didn't have a couple also?

I don't know, go ask Japan what happens when your enemies have a couple nukes and you don't.

[billisonboard]

Jan 31, 2014 17:46:49 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And? So a few countries have a couple of nuclear weapons. What is going to happen that would make that a serious concern that we didn't have a couple also?

I don't know, go ask Japan what happens when your enemies have a couple nukes and you don't.

They were a defeated nation before the bombs were dropped. They choose to surrender.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Has Bolivia spent the last half century plus toppling elected regimes, installing puppet governments, performing covert operations on foreign soil without their consent, using the US military to back up shady deals by US companies, exploiting foreign resources, using their NATO and UN power to impose sanctions on countries they don't like, and generally mucking about with world politics seemingly without giving a damn what it does to the rest of the world? No? Then maybe that's why they aren't as worried about a nuclear armed foe taking a swipe at them. Unfortunately we have spent the last half century plus pissing off half the planet, so it's probably not a good idea to be the first one at the party to put our guns down. Know what I'm saying?

They were a defeated nation before the bombs were dropped. They choose to surrender.

Doesn't matter.  We bombed them largely because we could, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it, because they didn't have the same technology.  If that scenario ever repeats I'd want to be living in the country doing the bombing, not the one being bombed.

[billisonboard]

Jan 31, 2014 17:55:03 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Has Bolivia spent the last half century plus toppling elected regimes, installing puppet governments, performing covert operations on foreign soil without their consent, using the US military to back up shady deals by US companies, exploiting foreign resources, using their NATO and UN power to impose sanctions on countries they don't like, and generally mucking about with world politics seemingly without giving a damn what it does to the rest of the world? No? Then maybe that's why they aren't as worried about a nuclear armed foe taking a swipe at them. Unfortunately we have spent the last half century plus pissing off half the planet, so it's probably not a good idea to be the first one at the party to put our guns down. Know what I'm saying?I do hear that and think that it is time we start doing things differently. This would be a good place to do that. Besides, we would be reducing an arsenal capable of destroying the rubble left after we destroy the rubble that we created when we hit the place the first time.

They were a defeated nation before the bombs were dropped. They choose to surrender.

Doesn't matter.  We bombed them largely because we could, and there wasn't a damn thing they could do about it, because they didn't have the same technology.  If that scenario ever repeats I'd want to be living in the country doing the bombing, not the one being bombed.

Your scenario had the other side having the capability to hit us so we would just be retaliating, unless you are suggesting us do a nuclear first strike.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Your scenario had the other side having the capability to hit us so we would just be retaliating, unless you are suggesting us do a nuclear first strike.

We bombed Japan because we had huge city destroying bombs and they didn't, and we used that to quickly end the war.  If they'd developed the bomb first, they would have done the same to us, even though they were losing the war by that point.  That's why I don't want to see us disarm completely.  We'd be purposely putting ourselves in the situation of the Japanese, when we know damn well the technology is out there for any country that wants to pursue it.

[billisonboard]

Jan 31, 2014 18:20:36 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Your scenario had the other side having the capability to hit us so we would just be retaliating, unless you are suggesting us do a nuclear first strike.

We bombed Japan because we had huge city destroying bombs and they didn't, and we used that to quickly end the war.  If they'd developed the bomb first, they would have done the same to us, even though they were losing the war by that point.  That's why I don't want to see us disarm completely.  We'd be purposely putting ourselves in the situation of the Japanese, when we know damn well the technology is out there for any country that wants to pursue it.

I am not purposing disarming ourselves completely. I am proposing seriously reducing our nuclear force while working with others to do the same. Is there much likelihood that the effort will ever get the world to zero? Not much, but it is a goal I would like my nation to take the lead on working towards.

[Sum Dum Gai]

We've been reducing.  The number of warheads we're hanging onto still seems a bit overkill, no argument from me on that, and I have no problem with continuing reductions.  Getting to zero doesn't seem realistic though.