AP Exclusive: Air Force security failed nuke test

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Armed security forces at a nuclear missile base failed a drill last summer that simulated the hostile takeover of a missile launch silo because they were unable to speedily regain control of the captured nuclear weapon, according to an internal Air Force review obtained by The Associated Press.

The previously unreported failure, which the Air Force called a "critical deficiency," was the reason the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana flunked its broader safety and security inspection.

The security team was required to respond to the simulated capture of a Minuteman 3 nuclear missile silo, termed an "Empty Quiver" scenario in which a nuclear weapon is lost, stolen or seized. Each of the Air Force's 450 Minuteman 3 silos contains one missile armed with a nuclear warhead and ready for launch on orders from the president.

The review obtained by the AP through a Freedom of Information Act request sought to examine why the security force showed an "inability to effectively respond to a recapture scenario." It cited their failure to take "all lawful actions necessary to immediately regain control of nuclear weapons" but did not specify those actions.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140522/us-nuclear-missteps-2ccb7e9e62.html

---

This image provided by the U.S. Air Force shows Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, right, and Tech. Sgt. Justin Richie, a 341st Maintenance Operations Squadron team trainer, riding in a work cage on Nov. 20, 2012, inside the T-9 maintenance trainer at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. Armed security forces at a nuclear missile base failed a drill in the summer of 2013 that simulated the hostile takeover of a missile launch silo because they were unable to speedily regain control of the captured nuclear weapon, according to an internal Air Force review obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/U.S. Air Force, Beau Wade)

[DeSwiss]

1. ''Empty Quiver''

- We should be so lucky.

K&R

[center]
''Your tax dollars being fired indiscriminately from guns......''[/center]

[MillennialDem]

2. ICBMs are outdated. SLBM and bomber aircraft are all that is needed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Actually...

...ICBMs are the big-block Chevys in that they provide most favorable performance ratio in terms of kilotons delivered per dollar spent.

Maintenance and staffing cost on subs and bombers is rather high.

[MillennialDem]

4. Old reply I know but

ICBMs cannot be recalled like bombers and they are on a 30 minute (or less) timer to be launched. This is very very dangerous and risky. False alarm launches are problematic. Launch or not? Tick tock tick tock...

With bombers under a false alarm you just recall them once you get more information.

Subs can be used for second strike as needed.

Sure ICBMs give us a lot of bang for the buck, but are unacceptably dangerous.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Not being argumentative but...

...a sub launched missile has the same post-launch issues as a silo launched ICBM.

Why are you preferring subs?

[MillennialDem]

6. And so does a bomber once the bomb bay door has been opened or the missile/rocket launched from the

plane.

There is no NEED to rush a launch from subs is the thing. Nor is there a need to rush a bomber.

ICBMs have to leave their silos in 30 minutes - or less.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I see your point