PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Mission Continues to slide



technomage1
10-22-2013, 11:24 PM
Http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081893-four-air-force-officers-punished-for-leaving-nuclear-blast-doors-open?lite

The four officers on duty at a missile site have gotten career ending reprimands after leaving the doors open to the silos.

Yet another warning signal the system needs immediate and systematic attention. When will the lack of enforcing the important standards (not PT, not waist size but job performance) end?

USN - Retired
10-23-2013, 12:34 AM
Http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081893-four-air-force-officers-punished-for-leaving-nuclear-blast-doors-open?lite

The four officers on duty at a missile site have gotten career ending reprimands after leaving the doors open to the silos.

Yet another warning signal the system needs immediate and systematic attention. When will the lack of enforcing the important standards (not PT, not waist size but job performance) end?

Why did they leave the door open? Is it a hassle to close the door? Did they just simply forget?

technomage1
10-23-2013, 01:00 AM
Why did they leave the door open? Is it a hassle to close the door? Did they just simply forget?

Does it matter? Those silos have been manned for decades with those doors. Since the 1960s, I think. So in all those years, all those crews, however many shifts that would be - the standard was to close the doors. Why these guys failed to do so is irrelevant to me. I don't care if its hard, I don't care if they forgot. The reason is irrelevant.

technomage1
10-23-2013, 01:02 AM
Oh no, door to capsule opened...

only thing keeping it safe is a blast door that is closed, an entryway secured by SF member,
locked SF office door and secure barbed wire fence facility with armed SF on premises.

Come on, you should full well know the nuclear mission is zero failure, and therefore has multiple layers of redundancy built into the system. That doesn't mean that we should shrug our shoulders if one of those layers fails.

Chief_KO
10-23-2013, 01:43 AM
MT article says "a person who entered the capsule to do maintenance work realized that the deputy crew commander was asleep with the door open and reported the violation to superiors. Upon questioning, the deputy crew commander initially denied the accusation but later confessed and said her crew commander had encouraged her to lie"

Kinda sounds like integrity and following the rules is alive and well within the enlisted corps. Guess flight suits, leather jackets, scarfs and nicknames are not the motivators we were told they were...

SomeRandomGuy
10-23-2013, 02:46 AM
Oh no, door to capsule opened...

only thing keeping it safe is a blast door that is closed, an entryway secured by SF member,
locked SF office door and secure barbed wire fence facility with armed SF on premises and signs that clearly read DO NOT CROSS THIS RED LINE.

Reminds me of a friend of mine who had to guard a classified server in Japan during exercises. He was one of the people who had to take a 12 hour shift sitting behind a locked door to a SCIF guarding a server. Honestly, if the base gets overrun and the locked door gets busted down the classified server will probably be the least of anyone's worries.

P.S. I fixed your post for you too.

USN - Retired
10-23-2013, 05:34 AM
Does it matter? Those silos have been manned for decades with those doors. Since the 1960s, I think. So in all those years, all those crews, however many shifts that would be - the standard was to close the doors. Why these guys failed to do so is irrelevant to me. I don't care if its hard, I don't care if they forgot. The reason is irrelevant.

I still want to know why they left the door open.

technomage1
10-23-2013, 05:35 AM
Oh yeah, zero failure; what if the chef topside screws up a chef salad, what if the facility manager
doesn't replace the blown lightbulb in gym. Zero failure is a great term for paper leaders and charts.

The nuclear mission is a lot different than a salad mistake or a blown light bulb and you know it. No one wants to explain an accidental mushroom cloud.

Chief_KO
10-23-2013, 12:09 PM
There is the "show, pomp & circumstance, parade" aspect of the military that is meant to inspire and comfort the homefront & allies and put fear and respect in the enemy. For many this is easy to do...the aircraft flying over head, the tanks, armored vehicles rolling down the street, air shows, open houses, the troops marching in step, etc. Why do we have dress & appearance standards? For appearance...

The nuclear enterprise was built (SAC) to comfort America knowing that they were highly trained (the BEST of the AF) and were willing and able to do the unthinkable. Everyone in SAC was held to a higher standard. If the TO or AFR (or SACR) said to tie your shoes with left over right, that is what everyone did.

Then QAF entered the force..."does it make sense to close the door"...things started to slide. Is not closing the door (when there are multiple other security measures) that big of a deal, sounds like no. BUT, that is what the regulation says to do.

Back in the day when an Airman PCS'd TAC - SAC or SAC - TAC they were in for a total life change, and most liked the SAC way better (even though it would be considered micro-management today).

Pullinteeth
10-23-2013, 12:35 PM
Oh no, door to capsule opened...

only thing keeping it safe is a blast door that is closed, an entryway secured by SF member,
locked SF office door and secure barbed wire fence facility with armed SF on premises.

So...would you be ok if the SF were all sleeping and left the office door open? After all, there is still a fence... I am not sure how you figure that the blast doors that they LEFT OPEN would offer any protection....


It doesn't surprise me that a maintenance guy ratted them out, becuase the FM, chef or SF
guy surely would not. All of them are in the field around 180 days a year. The maintenance teams might
have to run out to the site or sometimes stay overnight, but not like the FM, Chef and SF. I did 448
days out there over 4 1/2 years and that doesn't count the time in the office going out to certify or visit
my guys. I always took down meals for the chefs; that's three square a day, so around 1344 or so
times I went downstairs and did they have the door open or closed, not saying. What happens in the
field stays in the field. Someone in the media was digging to find a problem...simple as that

So you are saying that people that work together are not to be trusted?

waveshaper2
10-23-2013, 12:40 PM
There is the "show, pomp & circumstance, parade" aspect of the military that is meant to inspire and comfort the homefront & allies and put fear and respect in the enemy. For many this is easy to do...the aircraft flying over head, the tanks, armored vehicles rolling down the street, air shows, open houses, the troops marching in step, etc. Why do we have dress & appearance standards? For appearance...

The nuclear enterprise was built (SAC) to comfort America knowing that they were highly trained (the BEST of the AF) and were willing and able to do the unthinkable. Everyone in SAC was held to a higher standard. If the TO or AFR (or SACR) said to tie your shoes with left over right, that is what everyone did.

Then QAF entered the force..."does it make sense to close the door"...things started to slide. Is not closing the door (when there are multiple other security measures) that big of a deal, sounds like no. BUT, that is what the regulation says to do.

Back in the day when an Airman PCS'd TAC - SAC or SAC - TAC they were in for a total life change, and most liked the SAC way better (even though it would be considered micro-management today).

Question; What are the origins of the words/concept "Nuclear Enterprise". Whenever I hear this term I want to do a big face palm because it sounds so corporate, like something the USAF came up with during the Quality Air Force days, post SAC. Maybe its just me and I have developed some strange form of PTSD from the McPeak/TQM days.

4CECMC
10-23-2013, 01:05 PM
TAK - a base graphic's guy with an M-16 is about as scary as a junior officer with keys to the crypto!

DWWSWWD
10-23-2013, 01:14 PM
Before someone jumps on "If we only had SAC back", I was in SAC and worked in the capsules from 89-92ish. They guys left the door open many, many times. The issue here, I think is a TPI (Two Person Integrity) violation. The guy was asleep with the door open and someone could have tampered with things such as targeting information. It's not clear where the other crew member was. How does this stuff get into the media?

BISSBOSS
10-23-2013, 01:52 PM
Does it matter? Those silos have been manned for decades with those doors. Since the 1960s, I think. So in all those years, all those crews, however many shifts that would be - the standard was to close the doors. Why these guys failed to do so is irrelevant to me. I don't care if its hard, I don't care if they forgot. The reason is irrelevant.

THAT is at the core...

You are certified for PRP duties and part of a Two-person TEAM for a REASON. You have a job to do.

I got a very uneasy feeling when the AF "declared" the Nuclear ENterprise "fixed", dusted off it's (collective) hands and moved on to other "more pressing matters". As I have briefed many a Squadron Commander - You get what you pay for.

The USAF is simply enjoying the return on the effort and resources it actually put into rejuvenating the Nuke world.

Just my two cents.

Nuke world or not - These guys failed to do their jobs and it is a symptom (not the problem) of what's wrong in the AF at the moment.


-BB-

Juggs
10-23-2013, 02:33 PM
TAK - a base graphic's guy with an M-16 is about as scary as a junior officer with keys to the crypto!

The majority of the AF having access to M16s is a scary thought.

Juggs
10-23-2013, 02:35 PM
THAT is at the core...

You are certified for PRP duties and part of a Two-person TEAM for a REASON. You have a job to do.

I got a very uneasy feeling when the AF "declared" the Nuclear ENterprise "fixed", dusted off it's (collective) hands and moved on to other "more pressing matters". As I have briefed many a Squadron Commander - You get what you pay for.

The USAF is simply enjoying the return on the effort and resources it actually put into rejuvenating the Nuke world.

Just my two cents.

Nuke world or not - These guys failed to do their jobs and it is a symptom (not the problem) of what's wrong in the AF at the moment.


-BB-

Then make sure everybody is held to the same standard. No slacking.

Juggs
10-23-2013, 02:36 PM
Before someone jumps on "If we only had SAC back", I was in SAC and worked in the capsules from 89-92ish. They guys left the door open many, many times. The issue here, I think is a TPI (Two Person Integrity) violation. The guy was asleep with the door open and someone could have tampered with things such as targeting information. It's not clear where the other crew member was. How does this stuff get into the media?

Because people can STFU and keep things in house.

DWWSWWD
10-23-2013, 02:42 PM
Anecdotally, did you know the blue hunks of rubber cost more than a real M-16 rifle? Crazy, but true.

20+Years
10-23-2013, 02:56 PM
Its simple. Do what you are supposed to or suffer the consequences.

Just evaluate, is a short-cut worth the risk?

Anything dealing with nuclear I would think hell no. Don't shut a door on a silo, national news.
A medical procedure, hell no. Didn't follow procedure, amputated wrong limb, national news.
Gym staff didn't lock the locker with the basketballs while away from the front desk, national news..... er yeah, probably not. Minimal reprecussions.

20+Years
10-23-2013, 03:00 PM
Anecdotally, did you know the blue hunks of rubber cost more than a real M-16 rifle? Crazy, but true.

That is crazy. I need to submit an AF IDEA on this one and make some $$$.

Buy real M-16s. Give them to the medical unit with instructions to disassemble/clean/reassemble/function check. They will never work again. Return to basic training and add red caps.

BISSBOSS
10-23-2013, 03:49 PM
Then make sure everybody is held to the same standard. No slacking.

Not quite sure what you mean by that...

AF members are ALL subject to the standards of the job or AFS they are in. The standards (for the MOST part) are not different from person to person.

NOW - The APPLICATION or interpretation of the standards vary WILDLY in todays Air Force...

There is WAY more wrong with the AF in general than in the Nuke World and I truly believe that all we are doing now is experiencing the RESULTS of decades of trying to create Airmen and leaders on the cheap!

-BB-

RobotChicken
10-23-2013, 03:51 PM
Anecdotally, did you know the blue hunks of rubber cost more than a real M-16 rifle? Crazy, but true.

:spy"Just spray paint it with rubber blue paint! A shot of Crylon crystal clear and off to the sandbox you go!!"

RobotChicken
10-23-2013, 04:01 PM
No argument there, I never was good with one, probably touched one while staying qualified about 5 times in 20 years.
I was not one of those face paint rambo Air Force dudes...

There's a reason the AF uses fake blue weapons in our basic training.

http://www.moody.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/081215-F-1830P-331.jpg

:spy "The 'BCG's are enough for the enemy to have a mass tactical retreat alone!!"

Gonzo432
10-23-2013, 04:20 PM
No argument there, I never was good with one, probably touched one while staying qualified about 5 times in 20 years.
I was not one of those face paint rambo Air Force dudes...

There's a reason the AF uses fake blue weapons in our basic training.

http://www.moody.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/081215-F-1830P-331.jpg

Oh man, that's bad. Go to the Magpul site, get some FDE (flat dark Earth) hand guards and stocks.

Gonzo432
10-23-2013, 04:21 PM
:spy "The 'BCG's are enough for the enemy to have a mass tactical retreat alone!!"

When I saw that comment on a nuclear mission thread, I was really expecting a picture of Curtis LeMay.

BISSBOSS
10-23-2013, 06:23 PM
When I saw that comment on a nuclear mission thread, I was really expecting a picture of Curtis LeMay.

You mean - Like this:

http://ww2db.com/images/person_lemay12.jpg

-BB-

OtisRNeedleman
10-23-2013, 06:30 PM
My bottom line on this...just a manifestation of poor morale in the ranks of the missileers. Commanders need to spend time letting their people know (a) their mission is a vital mission and (b) the commander cares about his/her people. Take care of the people, and the people will take care of the mission. Least that's the way it was in the AAF (Adult Air Force) in which I served. Now...not so much...

Juggs
10-23-2013, 06:38 PM
My bottom line on this...just a manifestation of poor morale in the ranks of the missileers. Commanders need to spend time letting their people know (a) their mission is a vital mission and (b) the commander cares about his/her people. Take care of the people, and the people will take care of the mission. Least that's the way it was in the AAF (Adult Air Force) in which I served. Now...not so much...

I the TACP community we were aware of our roles. Our CCs also knew we pretty much controlled whether they were hired or fired.

SomeRandomGuy
10-23-2013, 06:43 PM
My bottom line on this...just a manifestation of poor morale in the ranks of the missileers. Commanders need to spend time letting their people know (a) their mission is a vital mission and (b) the commander cares about his/her people. Take care of the people, and the people will take care of the mission. Least that's the way it was in the AAF (Adult Air Force) in which I served. Now...not so much...

Do commanders really think that people will work harder and do the right thing if it seems like the commander cares about them? Every place that I have worked people have done their job according to regulation because that is the rules. It never mattered whether or not we thought the commander cared about us. At one base I was stationed in the same unit with 4 different commanders. The ops tempo never changed much and people always seemed to do their job. 2 of the commanders were total pushovers but loved to coddle their people. One was very by the book and one was a hardass who appeared to be actively tryingt o screw people over. I never saw any difference in the way people worked based on their perception of if the commander cared about them or not. I can honestly tell you most commanders do not really give a damn about their people. They want to get promoted just like anyone else. I do not see any reason to lie about it. Just tell people up front, "I expect you to do your job because it is your job. Hopefully you do it well enough for me to get promoted." I kind of doubt the guys in this Nuclear incident would have kept the door closed if their commander cared about them more.

Pullinteeth
10-23-2013, 07:05 PM
:spy "The 'BCG's are enough for the enemy to have a mass tactical retreat alone!!"

You are of course aware that none of them are wearing BCGs right? They are all wearing inserts...

BISSBOSS
10-23-2013, 07:24 PM
Truth lies within:

DSB PTF on Nuclear Weapons Surety (FAS site) http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/usaf/Minot_DSB-0208.pdf

SECDEF TF on DoD Nuclear Weapons Mng DEFENSE site) http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf

AF BRR on Nuclear Weapons P&P (AIRFORCEMAG site) http://www.airforcemag.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reports/2008/June/Day24/BRR-2008.pdf

DSB PTF on Nuclear Weapons Surety on Nuclear Weapons Inspections (NUCLEARFILES site) http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/policy/us-nuclear-policy/weapons/2008-12-NWS_Inspections%5B1%5D.pdf

DoD Special Briefing With Secretary Gates (GLOBAL SECURITYsite) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/09/mil-080912-dod01.htm

Testimony on AF Nuclear Security (ARMED-SERVICES site) http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/Transcripts/2008/02%20February/A%20Full%20Committee/08-06%20-%202-12-08.pdf

Reliability, Safety and Security of US Nuclear stockpile (DOCSTOC site) http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5975910/FY-1999-Report

Now, if after having looked through all that, are you still just worried about some doors?

One of those documents highlights the conversion from AFRs to AFIs as an "not appropriate for an area as unforgiving as nuclear weapons operations"

Concur.

-BB-

Pullinteeth
10-23-2013, 07:40 PM
One of those documents highlights the conversion from AFRs to AFIs as an "not appropriate for an area as unforgiving as nuclear weapons operations"

Concur.

-BB-

Then the author is an idiot. AFIs still say "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY." Changing one word does not change the text. I would think that a bigger issue would be Gen Welsh saying that you only have to follow them if they make sense to you....

SomeRandomGuy
10-23-2013, 07:44 PM
It just hit me. We can blame this incident on the commander. He said he had an "open door policy" and these guys took him literally.

waveshaper2
10-23-2013, 07:48 PM
It just hit me. We can blame this incident on the commander. He said he had an "open door policy" and these guys took him literally.

I am surprised that Hollywood hasn't decided to do a modern remake of Dr. Strangelove based on Strategic Commands follies since the demise of SAC and of course it would have to be a comedy. They could call it Dr. Strangelove 2, The Nuclear Enterprise. It would also be based on real world events, no need for fiction in the remake. Actually, they could make it a into a mini series since there seems to be an endless supply of new material.

BISSBOSS
10-23-2013, 08:02 PM
Then the author is an idiot. AFIs still say "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY." Changing one word does not change the text. I would think that a bigger issue would be Gen Welsh saying that you only have to follow them if they make sense to you....

I respectfully disagree.

The AF did far more than change text.

AFIs are fundamentally different.

AFRs told you "How to..." - Example: "In blue or black ink fill out the AF Form XXX"

AFI define what is to be done - Example: "Manage an effective tool control program"

OtisRNeedleman
10-23-2013, 08:14 PM
Do commanders really think that people will work harder and do the right thing if it seems like the commander cares about them? Every place that I have worked people have done their job according to regulation because that is the rules. It never mattered whether or not we thought the commander cared about us. At one base I was stationed in the same unit with 4 different commanders. The ops tempo never changed much and people always seemed to do their job. 2 of the commanders were total pushovers but loved to coddle their people. One was very by the book and one was a hardass who appeared to be actively tryingt o screw people over. I never saw any difference in the way people worked based on their perception of if the commander cared about them or not. I can honestly tell you most commanders do not really give a damn about their people. They want to get promoted just like anyone else. I do not see any reason to lie about it. Just tell people up front, "I expect you to do your job because it is your job. Hopefully you do it well enough for me to get promoted." I kind of doubt the guys in this Nuclear incident would have kept the door closed if their commander cared about them more.

I hear you. And I always did my job regardless of the commander. But, as someone who has commanded people and supervised people, believe morale is important. My motivation was higher in an environment where I knew the commander was looking out for us instead of looking at us as just a tool to gain the next promotion. Unfortunately, all too many commanders are managers vice leaders. The managers don't care about their people. Leaders do. And we have an extreme paucity of leaders, not just in the AF but military-wide.

raider8169
10-23-2013, 10:13 PM
What I dont get is that if the guy was going to take a nap the first thing is to make sure you are not seen. That just sounds like bad planning.

Absinthe Anecdote
10-23-2013, 11:26 PM
Oh yeah, zero failure; what if the chef topside screws up a chef salad, what if the facility manager
doesn't replace the blown lightbulb in gym. Zero failure is a great term for paper leaders and charts.

You worked in the missile field for a significant part of your career; I worked WSA security for nukes only 18 months out of my career, so I do respect your opinion. However, I'd like to challenge your thinking on this point.

Aren't policies like "zero failure" and all the redundant levels of security a direct acknowledgement of the human tendency to fuck up?

Think about it, any rule, regulation or law is an attempt to cope with the basic fact that people make mistakes. All those insanely strict and redundant SAC policies were an attempt to make people rise above normal levels disciplined behavior.

What do you think the two-person policy is all about? Sooner or later everyone fucks up. There is slightly less of a chance that two people will fuck up at the same time.

Still, people fucked up in the SAC days and broke all kinds of regulations. Those people on here claiming that the SAC era was a "golden age" of the Air Force are being nostalgic.

Plain and simple, people are flawed; we can strive for perfection, but we can never attain it.

Maybe the difference was in the SAC days, our nation was "playing for keeps" in a game of readiness for nuclear war with the Soviet Union. There was an urgency to maintain those silos that we just don't have today.

I have no problem with harsh discipline and mottos like "zero failure" because we need to strive for that mindset if we are going to maintain nuclear weapons.

I obviously agree with you that people will fuck up, despite a mural painted on the break room wall of the LCF that says, "ZERO FAILURE."

Where I might differ with you is, I think consistently applying pressure on people and strictly enforcing standards motivates people to stay focused on their jobs. Disciplining people for minor infractions is were it starts and it needs to permeate the ranks.

You'll still have failure, but approaching a nuclear mission with a lackadaisical attitude invites failure. Losing control of a nuclear weapon or having an unauthorized detonation is a failure of a collosal proportion.

Chef salads missing a hard boiled egg and burnt out lightbulbs in the gym aren't likely to cause a nuclear mishap, but what is wrong with demanding top performance from everyone in a missile wing?

Gonzo432
10-24-2013, 12:38 AM
You are of course aware that none of them are wearing BCGs right? They are all wearing inserts...

Are gas-mask inserts as effective as BCGs at doing what they do? Help you see while scoring less than the Jacksonville Jaguars?

Chief_KO
10-24-2013, 01:27 AM
REF: Nuclear Enterprise...not sure when that came into the lexicon (sorry for that word too). But, I distinctly remember my BMT book (1982) containing the drawing of the Nuclear Pyramid (Bombers, Missiles, Submarines) with the USAF having 2 of the 3 sides. Pretty sure that was deleted from the book during the SAC / TAC = ACC convergence.

I was SAC my first 4 years, 1st Combat Evaluation Group to be exact. 1CEVG's mission was to train and access the bombers ability to evade/counter AAA/SAM threats and score the release of the bomber's weapons (bombs, missiles) using little radar sites scattered all over, mostly the plains of western US. We also evaluated other aircraft, but SAC bombers (B-52, FB-111, B-1B) were our prime customers (sorry for that word too).

Train, practice, evaluate, exercise over and over again (don't forget alerts and the klaxon) was SAC. Scare the poop out of the Soviets so they would never try anything (and it worked). Unfortunately when we (USAF) lost our primary external customer (sorry for that word too), the romance of SAC was lost forever.

imported_AFKILO7
10-24-2013, 03:03 AM
I agree with Tak and I agree with some of what has bee said by others. As a cop that guarded Nukes this particular instance isn't that bad on the scale of no big deal-to-Armageddon. The article makes this sound absolutely catastrophic. On the other hand the missilier lied and they were both sleeping with the door open! How silly can you get? The two person concept, no-lone zone, etc are systems in place for a reason.

SomeRandomGuy
10-24-2013, 12:51 PM
Don't believe they were both sleeping. I believe that one was sleeping, the crew member that was awake coordinated with
the topside flight security controller and gave access for team to go downstairs. I imagine the maintenance team did their
maintenance and noticed the other crew member was behind curtain, apparently sleeping still, which is what would have
been happening had the maintenance team not come down. Now, I speculating all of this, but the maintenance team could
have told the awake crew member, Sir/Maam you need to have that crew member awake for PRP two person concept
and that member would have done so immediately. If that crew saw the voliation and just did maintenance and went
topside and did not tell flight security controller or facility manager and just left and told their leadership at base, I have
to wonder their motivation. It's not their job to enforce PRP violations, but it was obviously not addressed on the spot
and corrected. I imagine the crew member thought nothing of it as nothing was said at the time of maintenance.
I ever further speculate that other teams could theoretically given okay for a member to stay sleep. All these things
are just what may have happened, as I have no idea. But, I am pretty sure that both members were not sleeping at the
same time, meaning one sleep in bed and the other sleep in chair. That's the point with the door, if the door was closed
the other member could have stayed asleep, but with the door open, the other crew member needed to be awake, thus
the voilation. Now, just like when the guys with codes slept years back, there was still overall security and nothing
actually compromised, but that's a technicality. Now I ask you, do you think whoever in OSS trained them on PRP
or the people who certify PRP (security manager/med grp/commander, etc) got in trouble or were held accountable,
I doubt it, becuase it's better to punishe at the very lowest level to ensure it's not looked at as a systemic problem,
rather rogue AFI breaking agents. Anything but rot from the top and within. Again, all pure speculation...

Here is the thing though. When you uncover a violation how far should you take it to make sure it is corrected? I have to defer to people with experience but it was obviously one of the rules to keep the door closed while one person is asleep. I hate to give the "bacK to basics" speech but if they do not care about this rule what other rules do they ignore? Should we all have the same policy? I always thought it was kind of dumb to have to wear a cover while outdoors especially if I am only going 10 feet (would hate to mess up my hair). So if I think it is a dumb rule can I just ignore it? If I stop someone and tell them to wear their cover and they basically ignore me how far should I take it? Personally, I wouldn't report it to CNN and make a big deal about it but I might let their supervisor know about it.

I was the finance cashier at an overseas assignment where we only had 5 people in our office total. I was the cashier and my boss was the disbursing officer. We each had our own safes and he knew the combination to mine which is allowed. One day I went to lunch and when I came back someone had made a payment out of my safe. The documents were correct and no money was missing. I asked my boss if he made the payment (which is allowed) and he said it was probably one of the other people in the office. I asked him how they knew the combination to get into the cage and also to my safe. He said that everyone in the office knew both of those combinations. In the past this is how they allowed people to have flexibility with their schedules. Apparantly, everyone in the office knew everyone else's passwords and combinations. As long as at least one person in the office was around no matter what a customer needed that person could help them. This all sounded very dangerous to me and is very much against the rules. The problem is that this office had been doing this for years. There was nothing I was goingt o do as the lowest ranking person to get it changed. The only thing I could do (which I did) was asked to be relivede as cashier. I told them I was not going to have my name on all the forms as the person accountable when other people had access to my safe.

I wonder if this door problem was an isolated incident or a recurring problem? It could be possible that this maintenance crew had observed the door open many times and was simply told to mind their own business.

BISSBOSS
10-24-2013, 02:48 PM
I agree with Tak and I agree with some of what has bee said by others. As a cop that guarded Nukes this particular instance isn't that bad on the scale of no big deal-to-Armageddon. The article makes this sound absolutely catastrophic. On the other hand the missilier lied and they were both sleeping with the door open! How silly can you get? The two person concept, no-lone zone, etc are systems in place for a reason.

I'm retired now but when I was on Active Duty I worked on a BUNCH of Nuke sites and inspected a ton of sites.

The AF plain and simply does NOT train to the same standards that is has in the past. The bar has been lowered.

For many reasons; fewer training dollars, smaller force, WAY less emphasis on the Nuclear Mission and a lack of knowledge from the top down about the mission and how it should be trained up and administered in general. The USAF has systematically diluted the "corporate knowledge base" with frequent job moves, AFSC mergers and restructuring.

Those are but a few of the things that have contributed to a climate where the force is almost incapable of focusing on concepts like "Zero Failure". They are now having a difficult time just staying out of their own way.

Just my thoughts based on what I experienced, saw during inspections and worked through.

-BB-

Absinthe Anecdote
10-25-2013, 12:49 PM
I have been wondering if we could drastically reduce our nuclear arsenal?

From the perspective of looking at how congress would react to such a suggestion, I doubt it could be done.

I think we could provide nuclear deterrence with about 1/4 of our current warheads.

Here is another question that I don't have the answer to, but I think it is something that needs to be debated openly.

Is the mission of nuclear deterrence obsolete?

If the answer is no, then what about the lifespan of these weapon systems?

There are so many damn things that support Minuteman IIIs that are really old and it makes me wonder if it would make more sense to develop a road mobile fleet and scrap the Minuteman silos.

We would have to violate treaties to do that so it probably isn't possible.

Stalwart
10-25-2013, 01:37 PM
I have been wondering if we could drastically reduce our nuclear arsenal?

From the perspective of looking at how congress would react to such a suggestion, I doubt it could be done..

On that point, trace where the companies and contracts are for the servicing, procurement of parts etc for the nuclear arsenal and you can likely gauge how many legislators would act. In simpliest terms, "follow the money."


I think we could provide nuclear deterrence with about 1/4 of our current warheads.

Here is another question that I don't have the answer to, but I think it is something that needs to be debated openly.

Is the mission of nuclear deterrence obsolete?

There you are on to something. In my opinion, the answer is not one we can answer ourselves (in America) but is really in part dictated by actions of countries like: Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The bigger threat today (bigger than all out nuclear war) is a non-state actor who obtains fissile material or a warhead.


If the answer is no, then what about the lifespan of these weapon systems?

There are so many damn things that support Minuteman IIIs that are really old and it makes me wonder if it would make more sense to develop a road mobile fleet and scrap the Minuteman silos.

We would have to violate treaties to do that so it probably isn't possible.

Lifespan of platforms again means "follow the money."

Bunch
10-28-2013, 03:16 AM
Why is it that the Navy don't seem to have as many issues, if any at all, with their nuclear mission?

imnohero
10-28-2013, 05:10 AM
Maybe they do and it just doesn't end up in the press?

Actually, what I suspect is that it's because the Navy and Naval Leadership wasn't as fractured as the AF was during the 90's drawdown. The AF reorganized like 3 times at different levels, reshuffling of units and missions every couple of years, the drawdown of mid-grade, mid-career technical experts, etc. A recipe for organizational and mission failure.

Also, for good and ill, the Navy is much more "old school" military than the AF. Their attitude toward nukes and nuclear missions is different than the AF.

Rusty Jones was in the Navy for a long time, maybe he can shed some light?

Rusty Jones
10-28-2013, 12:41 PM
Maybe they do and it just doesn't end up in the press?

Actually, what I suspect is that it's because the Navy and Naval Leadership wasn't as fractured as the AF was during the 90's drawdown. The AF reorganized like 3 times at different levels, reshuffling of units and missions every couple of years, the drawdown of mid-grade, mid-career technical experts, etc. A recipe for organizational and mission failure.

Also, for good and ill, the Navy is much more "old school" military than the AF. Their attitude toward nukes and nuclear missions is different than the AF.

Rusty Jones was in the Navy for a long time, maybe he can shed some light?

I can't say what Naval leadership was like in the 90's, as I went in in 1999. Though, through the years I've served - 1999 to 2011 - I've watched a lot go down the shitter.

As far as nuclear missions go, there's a guy here "winthorp" or "Winthrop" who is, or was, a bubblehead. Not sure if he served on boomers or not. That's a totally different Navy. He'd be the best man to ask.

Stalwart
10-28-2013, 12:56 PM
I served on Submarines as a deployed OIC for small detachments on SSNs, and one SSBN. I have been around when nuclear weapons were onboard as well as onloaded and offloaded and there is also the reactor in the Engineering spaces to be considered.

The Navy takes security of the weapons (positive controls, handling, custody, transfer) VERY seriously. Security of weapons, sites is handled by the Marines (Marine Corps Security Force Regiment) and contractors with some Navy as well.

That said, when we load a weapon on a submarine it is there for some time (months) as opposed to loading them on an aircraft for a flight, then offloading them 10, 12, 18 hours later.

imnohero
10-28-2013, 12:58 PM
LOL, I take it "bubblehead" is a term for submariner? I don't think I've heard that one before.

Greg
10-28-2013, 01:16 PM
LOL, I take it "bubblehead" is a term for submariner? I don't think I've heard that one before.

Sewer pipe sailor.

BISSBOSS
10-28-2013, 01:22 PM
Maybe they do and it just doesn't end up in the press?

Actually, what I suspect is that it's because the Navy and Naval Leadership wasn't as fractured as the AF was during the 90's drawdown. The AF reorganized like 3 times at different levels, reshuffling of units and missions every couple of years, the drawdown of mid-grade, mid-career technical experts, etc. A recipe for organizational and mission failure.

Also, for good and ill, the Navy is much more "old school" military than the AF. Their attitude toward nukes and nuclear missions is different than the AF.

Rusty Jones was in the Navy for a long time, maybe he can shed some light?

Well said!

I agree 100%.

-BB-

Stalwart
10-28-2013, 01:28 PM
LOL, I take it "bubblehead" is a term for submariner? I don't think I've heard that one before.

Bubblehead = submariner
Skimmer = surface ship Sailor
Air Dale = aviation community

imnohero
10-28-2013, 01:45 PM
OK, sorry for the aside.

BISSBOSS
10-28-2013, 10:12 PM
Bubblehead = submariner
Skimmer = surface ship Sailor
Air Dale = aviation community

Gawd!

20+ years on Active Duty and I NEVER got proficient in speaking Navy!

Do you have ANY idea how long it took me to figure out what and where the"Gee-dunk" area was?!?

STILL don't know for sure how it got that name but I have a good idea!

-BB-

OtisRNeedleman
10-28-2013, 10:26 PM
Gawd!

20+ years on Active Duty and I NEVER got proficient in speaking Navy!

Do you have ANY idea how long it took me to figure out what and where the"Gee-dunk" area was?!?

STILL don't know for sure how it got that name but I have a good idea!

-BB-

See, if you work joint-service like many SIGINTers you learn about the gedunk, etc. :)