The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:48 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
By their commander, for unsatisfactory performance

Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- In an unprecedented action, an Air Force commander has stripped 17 of his officers of their authority to control and launch nuclear missiles.

The 17 are being sent to undergo 60 to 90 days of intensive refresher training on how to do their jobs. The action comes after their unit performed poorly on an inspection and one officer was investigated for potential compromise of nuclear launch codes, according to Lt. Col. John Dorrian, an Air Force spokesman.

The story was first reported by The Associated Press.

The action was taken by the deputy commander of the 91st Operations Group, Lt. Col. Jay Folds, whose officers run launch control centers for the Minuteman III nuclear missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.

Folds announced the action in an emotionally charged April e-mail to his unit, saying in part, "Did you know that we, as an operations group, have fallen -- and its it time to stand ourselves back up?"

In that e-mail, Folds said, "We're discovering such rot in the crew force," while they are on alert status -- standing watch over the nuclear force -- that the unit is accepting of violations of weapons safety rules, and code compromises.

In words not often used by military officers, Folds told his troops to "crush any rules violators" and said, "We are, in fact, in a crisis right now."

CNN obtained a copy of the e-mail, which was also first obtained by the AP.

Dorrian confirmed that Folds was referring to a potential deliberate violation of Air Force rules regarding nuclear launch codes and the failure of his troops to report when they see potential violations.

The Air Force action affects only the 17 personnel deemed to need the training; others remain on duty.

The unit underwent a regular comprehensive inspection in March, according to Dorrian. The inspection consisted of an evaluation of 22 tasks. At the time, the unit was announced as having passed with a "satisfactory" rating, which is third on a scale of five.

But on one of the 22 tasks involving launch operations, it was rated "marginal" which is one step above "unsatisfactory." Dorrian called it the equivalent of a "D" grade.

Then the incident of potential compromise of launch codes occurred. Dorrian said the investigation found no compromise, but did find the codes were "potentially handled improperly," by one officer, who is now facing discipline. All of this then led to Folds' e-mail and action, according to Dorrian.

Dorrian noted that while some in the Air Force might view Folds' e-mail as "emotional," his actions are fully supported at the highest levels of the Air Force. In other portions of his e-mail Folds told his unit:

-- "Turn off the TVs."

-- "Clean your patches, uniforms and get your hair cut."

-- "Bring to my attention immediately any officer who bad mouths a senior officer."

While some nuclear officers are sent for retraining every year, this is the most extensive action taken to date, Dorrian confirmed. It comes after a 2008 Pentagon report was sharply critical of the Air Force for not focusing on the post-Cold War nuclear mission, and for a bomber that, in a flight over multiple states, carried nuclear-tipped missiles without the Air Force realizing it.


I'll comment more later after I have time to absorb this and look for additional details. All I'll say now is that I want to clarify the title - No military officer has authority to launch nuclear weapons without Presidential authorization. These officers have, essentially, been de-certified. The last U.S. officers that had such authority were SSBN captains in the early 1990s. That has no been the case for almost 20 years now. the only officers anywhere in the world with such authority that I know of are the British SSBN captains. Non one should be confused by the wording - these officers were not stripped of any sort of independent launch authority because no such authority exists.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:55 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Not a job with a lot of room for error. Probably a good idea if they are lax that they need to be off the duty cycle until they can prove they are ready again.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 23, 2013 8:30 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
The underlying issue here (and which there's no way to learn from the article) is, is this a case of problems in a particular unit, or is this more widespread? The reason this came to light isn't the inspection itself, but rather the reaction of the deputy commander to the results which, while technically passing, indicate some serious weaknesses.

I suspect there are problems that are fairly widespread; a great deal of performance that is marginal, but not outright unacceptable, and they've been going on for a long time. The 2008 cruise missile incident is another example; the problems aren't really a problem of just total neglect, but rather a mission the Air Force isn't taking very seriously any more because the chain of command, the President, Congress and ultimately the public doesn't take it seriously any more.

Part of the problem is that our nuclear systems - both the weapons themselves, and their delivery systems - are aging, and shrinking, and any replacement falls afoul of international screeching about any modernization, even when it would replace older systems with newer, safer, and probably less power weapons.

The other part of the problem can be traced to the absolutely terrible management of officer talent in the military in general. This is a problem that goes back to 1991, and possibly as far as 1983, and it's had some absolutely terrible effects that began coming to light during the current wars. They culminated (in the Army) when David Petraeus was called back to chair a special General Officer Selection Board after the regular board made promotion choices so devoid of logic that the Chief of Staff refused to accept them.

This is the Air Force, not the Army, but the problems are there too. Its no doubt compounded by the fact the fact that missile duty is really pretty miserable, and doesn't have a lot to hold onto talented officers in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 371 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group