Who Should Manage the Nuclear Weapons Complex, Civilians Or Military? 183
Lasrick writes "For the first time since 1946, Congress is seriously debating whether the U.S. nuclear weapons complex should be under civilian or military control. That the article is in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is significant, as it was many of the scientists who founded BAS who argued for civilian control in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They believed that atomic energy was too destructive, and the military too secretive, which would possibly thwart scientific discovery and erect a major obstacle to international control and cooperation. The article talks about how management has changed over the decades and explains the discussion that needs to happen before Congress acts."
Frying pan or fire? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, if anything, corporations are more entangled in the military side of government than the commercial side. DoD facilities are full of commercial contractors of various kinds, some of which only exist to get government contracts (i.e. they have no real private-sector clients).
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, I meant "...than the civilian side", of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is how you define "advisory". Some of the worst acts from our government, both from civilians and military, can be traced back to a private contractor who "advised" a government official to do one thing or another. Sometimes it was "advice" that was just biased to serve the interest of the contractor and the official just wasn't smart enough to pick up on it. Other times free dinners, Christmas presents, "business entertainment", and an implied offer of future employment accompanied the so-called "advice". And more common than we would like to see officials have been simply flat-out bribed to knowingly serve the interests of private corporations and individuals at the expense of taxpayers and risk to citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Which I would say is worse. The military isn't as swayed by public opinion as the civilian government is.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, military brass might be less likely to drop the bomb than civilian politicians. MacArthur had the entire invasion of Japan all planned out and was really p*ssed when Truman decided instead to launch the nuclear attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to force a quick surrender.
For a general there is much more glory in leading dozens of divisions into battle than commanding a handful of national guardsmen to press a button from deep within a missile bunker.
Re: (Score:2)
MacArthur had the entire invasion of Japan all planned out and was really p*ssed when Truman decided instead to launch the nuclear attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to force a quick surrender.
And then a few years later, got even more pissed when Truman wouldn't let him nuke China. I think we can pretty much agree who was right, both times, and it wasn't the guy wearing the uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, easy, this isn't about government vs. commercial (private), this is about Civilian (government) vs. Military (government, specifically the DOD)
Since the civilian, elected President has to authorize the use of nuclear weapons, what's the debate, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, easy, this isn't about government vs. commercial (private), this is about Civilian (government) vs. Military (government, specifically the DOD). So, the mention of a corporation isn't correct.
You're being sarcastic, right? Right? You don't seriously believe that the U.S Government actually represents the will of the people anymore. Right? No one on /. would be that stupid. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The mention of a corporation is not incorrect.
Consider your money. The United States owns no money. The Department of the Treasury doesn't print money, possesses no gold to back up any currency, has no authority to set lending rates, nothing. The GOVERNMENT itself has abdicated all such authority and privilege. The currency of the United States is a fiat currency, issued and controlled by a private bank, at usury interest rates. That bank sets lending rates, and in fact, intentionally precipitates rece
TSA or US Military (Score:2)
this is about Civilian (government) vs. Military (government, specifically the DOD).
Ok, so we are effectively talking TSA airport security vs. the US military and the TSA is already irradiating millions of people without access to nuclear weapons. Is there really any question who you want to be in control?
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:5, Informative)
Corporate executives can be tried under criminal law, just as generals can be court-martialed. The problem is, neither of them will be. Our legal system is completely incapable of extracting justice from the powerful. No general has been prosecuted for torture after the Bush administration, and no executive has been prosecuted for fraud following the 2008 financial crisis. There is no justice or rule of law left in the US. Who you are and who you know matters a lot more than what you did.
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate executives can be tried under criminal law
Link?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rare, but it does happen, remember Bernie Madoff?
and Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, etc, etc.
Now show me a list of generals court-martialed over the last few decades.
The idea that generals are more accountable than CEOs is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Rare, but it does happen, remember Bernie Madoff?
and Bernie Ebbers, Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, etc, etc. Now show me a list of generals court-martialed over the last few decades. The idea that generals are more accountable than CEOs is absurd.
Well, there are a lot more CEO's than generals, so that would affect the statistics. CEO's also on average make significantly (orders of magnitude) more money than generals, so it should be worth a bit more risk!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are a lot more CEO's than generals, so that would affect the statistics.
And generals (and admirals) typically have years of through-the-ranks experience before they make it to the top, with a lot of competition. They aren't just popping up like CEOs can, and almost never make rank just because Pop owned the army.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this would be UK/Canada/etc. rather than US, but still fun all the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_charles#Honours_and_military_appointments [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh#Honours_and_honorary_military_appointments [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew#Naval_ranks [wikipedia.org]
And so on and so forth.
Re: (Score:2)
CEO's also on average make significantly (orders of magnitude) more money than generals
How much money they are paid is irrelevant. More important is the cost of their mistakes. Crooked CEOs have cost us billions. Incompetent generals can cost us trillions.
Re: (Score:3)
First, generals are less likely to pull the antics commonly found among CEOs. For the most part they weren't born with a silver spoon. Usually they started with a bachelor's degree paid for by the military (either through a service academy or ROTC). All hold a master's, usually gained mid-career at a military command college, not as a drunk frat boy at a business school. They all worked their way up. They define their own success by the success of the units they command, by doing so well they get promoted t
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I think the question here is referring to the control of civilian government employees versus military officers, not control by private corporations run by civilian business executives and a board of civilian directors. I haven't checked recently, but I still don't think any private coporations own and maintain their own missile silos, complete with nuclear warheads and staff to maintain and launch attacks. Though I'm sure Blackwater would jump at the opportunity if it were available.
Re: (Score:2)
fraud is a crime.
keeping slaves is a crime, fucking over the environment is a crime. fucking over people in several other ways is a crime.
and actually people, private company executives, do get sued and tried under criminal law for these things all the time - it's just that it seems if the operation hits 50 million+ nobody will get sued.
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you mean that rendition stuff, that's because it has been determined they didn't break any laws. Sorry, but if you're talking accountability by the top brass for that, anything they did was at the direction President Bush and his civilian leadership. They can't go down unless he goes down since it appears Bush didn't take the convenient step of throwing one of them under the bus.
If you mean the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, up to lieutenant colonel rank was tried, as that was the highest level of person who was actually involved (unfortunately, someone didn't read him his rights, letting some charges be dismissed). Above that, his colonel received non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty, and his general was demoted just because that happened under her command.
But as far as generals in general (haha) being court martialed, it does happen. Just recently they tried the highly respected BG Jeffrey Sinclair of the 82nd Airborne for sexual misconduct with subordinate officers and abuse of his power. This guy was like a god in his unit, practically revered like Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, and he still went down. Even if found not guilty, his career is over.
There is much more accountability if it's military. They don't even have to break a regular criminal law to go down, a simple finding of dereliction of duty is enough. Imagine if our recent high-profile CEOs could have been criminally prosecuted for dereliction of duty, without even having to try to prove intentional fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about waterboarding. It's a war crime, and we hanged Japanese for it. Anyone who waterboards should get the same treatment.
Sorry, but if you're talking accountability by the top brass for that, anything they did was at the direction President Bush and his civilian leadership. They can't go down unless he goes down since it appears Bush didn't take the convenient step of throwing one of them under the bus.
If you notice, officers take an oath to uphold the constitution. Not obey the president.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, the nuclear weapons complex is managed?
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you trust less: the military, or a whatever corporation would be set up to run it? Personally, I'd take the one where people of whatever level of management can be held accountable by court-martial.
...and really long prison terms (not club fed) ....and executions. It's in the UCMJ.
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:4, Interesting)
I work on a military site as a civilian contractor. We have MARINE GUARDS on the site to protect sensitive items stored on the base. Those marines are taught to "shoot ANYONE who violates the rules, and ask questions later." I remember a time when a 4 star ADMIRAL was made to go prone in the mud by a 19 year old marine guard, and NOTHING happened to the guard. That is the kind of security I want to guard WMD. I do not want some civilian cop wanna-be guarding nukes, I have done my share of security when I was in school, and the average guard is not able to tie his own shoes without help. The military takes that kind of job VERY SERIOUSLY.
I vote for MILITARY CONTROL and SECURITY.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:5, Interesting)
That never happened, you Trekkie idiot.
I guarantee the 19 year old guard was brought to the admiral's quarters, naked, to be raped by the Admiral and his entire staff, after which, the EM was forces to felch his own ruined asshole with a feeding tube.
It does happen, I saw a full Commander laid out on the deck of a missile tender during a nuclear weapons security drill. When the marines come running and say hit the deck, you damn well better hit the deck. The new (to the tender) Commander didn't think he had to, why I can only guess. Myself and the enlisted guy beside me backed up against the wall and slid down to our butts and sat there. After being told 3 times by the marines, and ignoring them, lets just say the sound of the butt of a weapon against the back of the head is a sick sound. The Commander did try to have the marine brought up on charges, the CO of the tender informed him of who was actually in the wrong.
I worked with the Poseidon sub based missile system, the military makes NO JOKES about safety and deadly force is authorized to protect them, period. Security of anything nuclear, including say spent fuel from a boats nuclear reactor is guarded like For Knox and you will be killed if you try to access any of it you are not authorized and this was before 9/11. I can only imagine it has been even more tightly controlled since then.
So next time, make sure you know what your talking about before calling someone an idiot.
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Frying pan or fire? (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine at an air base guard post in Cold War Germany had a blacked-out limo pull up. The driver showed ID, and said there was a general in the back, and allow him through. My friend's orders was nobody gets in without ID, period. So he demanded those in the back roll down the window and present ID. They did not. He demanded this to the driver again, and he refused, getting all agitated and angry, threatening to just drive through.
So he pointed his weapon at the back of the limo and demanded ID immediately, or he shoots. At that point the general's aide rolled down the window, leaned into view and handed him the IDs of all in the back. He looked them over, gave them back, stood back, presented arms (what you do instead of saluting when you're armed), and they drove off.
I think this was a test, because he was given a commendation not long afterwards.
Where do you GET this garbage? (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how completely clueless you make yourself look to those of us who have worn a uniform?
In a macro sense, the U.S. military is a security organization. It is an extreme example of a hierarchical structure and it is designed for the security of the nation, so it is ideally-suited to handle security of all things nuclear. The U.S. military is far from perfect (because it it composed of imperfect human beings) but it actually is far more competent than many other human institutions. Each and
Re: (Score:2)
We had a lot of former SAC folks in TAC (later ACC) as they crosstrained out of the missle fields due to nuclear arms reductions.
SAC discipline was famous, as was their esprit de corps.
Too bad SAC was eaten by Air Combat Command. The fighter mentality has its place, flying fighters....and I'm a former TAC maintainer.
Re: (Score:3)
We are not in a military dictatorship.
Control of nuclear weapons should be entirely with the civilian government, even if that government is less than perfect.
We vote for our civilian leaders, we don't vote for the military.
And that's why the President is the "Commander-in-Chief", and the House and Senate both have Armed Services Committees. The military is controlled, governed, and policy is decided by the civilian leadership. Perhaps you should review Article 2 of the US Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you think civilians should be in charge of guarding the truth about UFOs and aliens as well, right? Other than private Bradley Manning, the military has done a good job of keeping its secrets. Civilian control would sooner or later bring about direct involvement from politicians in Congress who are members or chairs of various congressional committees. And from these congressmen, and sometimes from cabinet members of the executive branch, there tends to flow a steady series of leaks that get pu
Re: (Score:2)
... a bunch of politicians with little or no expertise in the area can come up with? That's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?
No, it is not a no-brainer, because your assumption that the military has more expertise is not true. The military rotates people regularly, and an officer's tour is often over before he even learns the job. We have had fourteen commanders [wikipedia.org] in Afghanistan in eleven years. As each one is rotated in, the former commander is usually promoted to CENTCOM, so the new commander was a huge incentive to not rock the boat or question the former commander's policies. Is it any wonder our strategy there has been a
Re: (Score:2)
At least we weren't taught to form squares against cavalry charges.
What the fuck are you supposed to do against a cavalry charge then? Form lines?
Re: (Score:2)
Deep V formations to channel the cavalry into the point of each V and hit them with enfilade fire from inside the invert of the V.
Re: (Score:2)
Sam: Hey...[rubs the board]
Spence: What's your problem?
Sam: Draw again. Draw it again. You're the ace field man. Draw it again. It's a simple diagram. Just draw it again. Draw what you saw. Draw it again! Draw it again!
Sam: [Spence remains silent. Sam takes the marker and draws on the board] Two shooters. Car comes through here. Shooters across each other. Kill each other dead. Oh my, where'd you learn that?
Re: (Score:2)
Duck into your APC and use the automatic cannon on them.
You're entirely right, based on pre-machine gun warfare, but he's also right in that there's little benefit in teaching outmoded means of warfare.
In a one-on-one tank battle the US is going to do very well, because they're very well trained and extremely well equipped. Shake up the battle conditions somewhat and the equipment may become less suited to the role and the training isn't as effective.
Of course, a policy of overwhelming firepower and treatin
Civilian control (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the military supposed to be under civilian control already? Have they gone rogue and I just haven't heard of it until now?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't the military do that anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd trust the military much more than I would Congress, especially now.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funny!
Yes but only at the highest level (Score:2)
The military is subordinate to the President (and in some ways to congress). The President is the ultimate command authority. However their day to day stuff? That's all internal. There aren't a bunch of civilian overseers who pass the final ok on everything. It isn't like a general makes a decision and then looks over at a civilian who gives the thumbs up or down to the plan.
So while the civilian government maintains the ultimate control, they can fire or promote military leaders, controls their budget, and
Re: (Score:2)
there is little civilian control over the details.
If that is true, why did civilian leadership revoke DADT? Isn't that a little detail?
No not at all (Score:2)
That is a high level policy. The details were the individual cases involved, the over all policy is something that is up to the civilian government.
A small detail thing would be if an individual was being prosecuted under it and the President stepped in and ordered that to stop. He has the authority to do that, but doesn't do that sort of thing in reality.
The individual DATA cases, those were all handled by the military.
The President can theoretically control any detail of the military being the commander i
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the military supposed to be under civilian control already?
No, you have that confused with our political syst... oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
the word you want is "oversight".
in theory, the civilians, not necessarily knowing what or how to run a war, simply tell the military "we're at war with X...go get them!", and the military does so.
sometimes they micromanage and screw things up. sometimes they dont have enough oversight and screw things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Kubrick/Southern/George's take (Score:4, Informative)
Major Jack D Ripper : Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Captain Lionel Mandrake : No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
Major Jack D Ripper : He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a compelling argument, to be sure. I'm not specifying in what way it is compelling, mind you.
More crap (Score:2)
The US Military gets a smaller portion of the US budget now than at any time in the nation's past. We spend far more on checks to senior citizens. Even a large portion of the pentagon budget goes to retired senior citizens who put-in full careers in uniform rather than to the current personnel or their weapons systems
if we are any sort of something-or-other "complex", we are a banking and wealth re-distributing complex that is dedicated to transferring as much money as possible from young workers to old AA
Who should wear the One Ring? (Score:5, Insightful)
Noone. It should be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I would welcome your solution if we could be certain everyone else would also dispose of their rings too. which leaves us at a bit of an impasse.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could get rid of at least 90% of them and still be capable of annihilating any country in the world and bringing about a global nuclear winter. You can always make more if something changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Master Blaster!
Seriously, that would be a rockin' flick. Max vs the Nazgul, Frodo busts a deal.
Why? (Score:2)
I don't get what that is supposed to accomplish. I can see that if it is a budgetary argument, that we spend too much maintaining them (we don't spend much on it but it always could be less). However if your argument is one of destruction then who cares how many the US has? It is all or nothing, going part way gets you nowhere. It is a silly feel-good measure with no actual use.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a finite chance of there being an accident with each one. The more you have, the higher the chance.
Not so easy (Score:2)
I would welcome your solution if we could be certain everyone else would also dispose of their rings too. which leaves us at a bit of an impasse.
It is not so easy because, while the knowledge on how to make nuclear weapons remains we are still are risk of rouge states or powerful terrorist groups eventually creating one. So really you need to eliminate the knowledge of how to make them at the basic physics level because anyone who understands enough basic nuclear physics behind how these things work will be able to figure out a means to make one given enough time and resources. Frodo had it a lot easier - destroying his ring got rid on the only per
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you try to take other peoples nukes (and you don't have any yourself) they are far far to likely to give their nukes to you instead. when there is no M(utually)A(ssured)D(estruction) only you will be on the loosing side of A(ssured)D(estruction). If we were to get rid ours and demand theirs they would blast us into a glow-in-the-dark stone age military included despite its size.
Congress! (Score:2)
They should have to vote on each and every target and its subsequent launch.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, just diffuse them. Don't ever launch them, outlaw that shit. Use 'em for powering space stuff or energy plants, never weapons. We've got other better more precision weapons. Think about Nuclear Retaliation... really? Even if fired on, or as a last ditch effort to win some war, wouldn't it be better not to launch a nuke? I mean, imagine you're now going to die... Soooo... what? You whip an Uzi out from under your death-bead pillow to take a few others down with you? FUCK THE LIVING! I'M DYING
Re: (Score:2)
the point of MAD is that it keeps you from being on the metaforical deathbed in the first place because the people that would put you there don't want you to kill them out of spite
having worked for both, (Score:2)
Computers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer [wikipedia.org] WOPR [wikipedia.org].
Or maybe Joshua...
Make it like Stargate Universe (Score:2)
It's civilian either way (Score:2)
I'm not sure how this changes the question, but either way the nuclear weapons complex is ultimately under civilian control. My understanding is that a nuclear device can not be deployed without an order from a civilian commander. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the order to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki solely under orders from a civilian?
Another thing to think about: Look at how other civilian government organizations are managed, and imagine a network of nuclear missiles under the s
Based on history, who do you trust? (Score:3)
100% of the wars the US initiated have been initiated by a civilian government.
The current structure is that the military is a tool used by politicians to exert pressure on foreign nations. Having a military layer between the civilians and the big red button seems better than no layer at all.
Seriously (Score:2)
DO NOT FIX WHAT'S NOT BROKEN
Just saying, when it comes to managing out nuclear weapons, what we have right now seems to be working just fine, so please please just leave it the hell alone!!
That said, I trust the military in this particular case over the civilian portion of the government. One thing about the military portion of the government is for all the DoD contractors there
SKYNET of course (Score:2)
Seriously this is slashdot.. wasn't this already polled about 100 times about who is gonna screw the pooch and end the world.
Military, Polititians, SKYNET, or Programming Snafu.
Who do you "trust" less? (Score:3)
I'm sorry but I'll listen to a general before some political reptile, politicians are the least trustworthy members of society.
In other words... (Score:2)
who gets to blow up the world?
Like why have the ability.... unless you are going to use it.
Civilian non-military control (Score:2)
We've seen the military purposes to which weapons were arbitrarily dropped on Japan. History teaches nuclear weapons did not end WWII with Japan, only destroying Japan's Emperor form of gov't. So...that precedent speaks to the country of Iran, its form of gov't today and nuclear weapons locked, loaded and ready for duty in the middle east. This is not a military decision nor should it be
More sub-muppet-IQ ramblings (Score:2)
arbitrarily dropped on Japan
Dude, stop the heavy drug use; your brain performance will improve slowly and you may even qualify to be a janitor someday
The civilian President of the U.S. (not the military) decided to drop the weapons on Japan (not an arbitrary target ... the nation that attacked Pearl Harbor). Even the target cities were carefully selected. Each did have a large population (cities get bombed in "total war", ask the people of London or Dresden) but also had significant military-industrial as
look at the results (Score:2)
I may be biased by living in San Diego, but the "civilian" oversight of nuclear energy has failed. We have a nuclear power plant here 60 miles from downtown which is bogged down in endless hearings and oversight. Taking the safety issues seriously is great, but it's obvious the government teams lack the expertise and will to actually help get the reactor running again or decide to shut it down permanently.
Meanwhile there are 3+ perfectly fine nuclear reactors running on aircraft carriers and subs docked r
You have SOME things right (Score:4, Interesting)
I was based in San Diego, and once lived up near the San Onofre plant (had a good friend who worked there). I would have no worries having my family live right nearby in San Onofre (the neighboring community, for those not familiar with the area). First, the plant has a containment facility designed to handle a direct impact by an airliner or a worst-case meltdown, and also designed for SoCal earthquakes. Second, while I have MANY issues with the horrendous civilian oversight of nuclear activity in the US, my main complaint is that they are far too stringent on things that do not matter and not strict enough to make me happy on some things that do. Having said that, however, the record is that the civilian overseers in the US are sufficiently cautious that no American plant has ever killed anybody. Even three Mile Island where the operators completely screwed-up harmed precisely zero people. Unlike Chernobyl, we mandate adequate containment.
You are correct that the US Navy has an amazing track record with nuclear power. I used to have a buddy who was an engineering officer on a boomer, and he and his associates were sterling. I never cease to be amazed that the US Navy can take a bunch of 18 year-old kids from high school and 22 year old college kids and teach them to be competent, disciplined, and exacting ..... and then put them in charge of nuclear reactors, jet aircraft, nuclear weapons, etc and have such results.
I have long thought that no nuclear plant in the US should be civilian ... working in these plants ought to be a second career we offer to the best members of our nuclear navy when they choose to retire and want a stable family life at a fixed street address. Such people could not only be trusted to be fully-competent and willing to sacrifice to protect their fellow citizens, but also would be competent to defend the facility should that need ever arise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now the fact that somebody on slashdot would down mod dr. strangelove... that's just pathetic, mods should have a requirement to check for hair on balls before assigning mod points
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I think we should base all our decisions on 50-year old fictional movies.
Ohhh, THEM! [imdb.com]
Clearly, we should be irradiating as much wild life as possible. These giant mutant creatures would feed millions!
Re: (Score:3)
Better put all in the hands of the military yes ? Those same fuck ass holes that wanted to start world war 3 during the Cuban missile crisis ?
And your basis for this opinion is... what? Something other than movies, I hope?
Those same fucktards warmongers that wanted to invade Cuba ?
If you mean the Bay of Pigs, you do know that that was a CIA operation, and that the CIA is a civilian agency, not a military one, right? If you mean the JCS recommendation during the missile crisis, that was their assessment of what it would take to remove the Soviet missiles. When Kennedy asked for their opinions, should they have lied to him and not given him honest analysis about what they thought it would take to ensure no
Re: (Score:2)
Those same fuck ass holes that wanted to start world war 3 during the Cuban missile crisis ?
..but didn't.
Those same fucktards warmongers that wanted to invade Cuba ?
..but didn't.
I trust the government much more than I trust even one military.
I expect the Government to determine policy - which includes whether to initiate or continue in military action. I trust the military to execute that policy.
So far the record in NATO member countries for the military obeying the dictates of the elected government has been exemplary. Why don't you trust them?
Re: (Score:2)
So far the record in NATO member countries for the military obeying the dictates of the elected government has been exemplary.
if you want to call four military coups in Turkey since they joined NATO exemplary... ^^
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. In fact control of nukes should neither be in the hands of civilian government or the military. America's nuclear arsenal should be auctioned off to private owners who can more efficiently manage the cost of maintaining such systems and assume responsibility for their use, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Studies show that private market factors can more efficiently deliver many goods or service than governments due to free market competition. Over time this tends to lead to lower prices,
uh, you do know Strangelove was a satire, right? (Score:2)
Or maybe you think we should make decisions about NASA based on the film "Mars Attacks".....
Oh, I get it, you think Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and The Onion are actually news. (eyes rolling)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but the debate here is about the nuclear weapons stockpile, not about nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't Pakistan have nukes? They're our allies, right?
Where do you get this garbage? (Score:2)
Depleted Uranium ordnance was created for used on a theoretical European battlefield during WWIII with Soviet tanks pouring into Germany. The Soviets had many more tanks than the US (the US prefers quality over quantity) so the idea was to maximize the ability to penetrate Soviet tank armor. Dust and fragments of rounds was not a major concern because any WWIII scenario was likely to involve a lot more radiation from actual tactical nuclear devices. DU was never really intended to be used in purely convent