AF finds Problems at Montana Nuke Base

[unhappycamper]

AF finds Problems at Montana Nuke Base
November 13, 2008
Associated Press

BILLINGS, Mont. - Air Force officials said Nov. 12 that a recent nuclear inspection found deficiencies in a unit responsible for 150 ICBMs in Montana, but added that there was no threat to public safety.

The inspection of the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, near Great Falls, evaluated the unit's readiness to execute nuclear operations and found "deficiencies in several areas", according to an Air Force statement.

Capt. Sharbe Clark with Air Force Space Command said Wednesday that further details of problems could not be disclosed. She said the public was not at risk.

The 341st oversees security, maintenance and operations of intercontinental ballistic missiles across north-central Montana. The Air Force will reinspect the unit within 90 days.

The Air Force statement suggested there would be no shake-up among Malmstrom's commanders as a result of the inspection, saying "the right leadership is in place at the 341st."


Rest of article at: http://www.military.com/news/article/af-finds-problems-at-montana-nuke-base.html?col=1186032369229

[machI]

1. Not only is our nuclear arsenal proving to be dangerous to Americans, it is financially wasteful too

I would hope the Defense spending reviews conducted by the Obama Administration recommends our nuclear weapons policy be modified and the money saved moved to better health care for the military, dependents, and retirees.

We would be better served by reducing our nuclear force to the order of

10 ICBMs
10 Tomahawks
100 Gravity bombs

We should get rid of our SLBMs and their submarines, the B-52, B1, and the B2 bombers, and the money reallocated to building a higher quality military.

[Realityhack]

2. I agree with reducing the arsonal... but your numbers are low. n/t

[machI]

3. I think my numbers are still too high

It is not the number of nuclear warheads that constitute the major part of the expense. It is the infrastructure of a nuclear strike force that is eating our lunch.

The cost of physical security, maintenance, storage, and the delivery systems are draining the budget.

Boots on the ground are what it takes in this world. Bin Laden is not impressed by a Minute Man III sitting in a silo, however a team of Delta Force commandos tracking him through the mountains will get his attention.

[Realityhack]

4. 10 ICBM's is too high?

I think perhaps you live in a fantasy land.

"Bin Laden is not impressed by a Minute Man III sitting in a silo, however a team of Delta Force commandos tracking him through the mountains will get his attention."

And I am sure that the US command thinks otherwise... not. You do realize there are security threats OTHER than OBL right?

[machI]

5. I made a rough mental calculation of what 10 ICMBs could do

Assume about 80% success rate at 100 Ktons per warhead, three warheads per missile would put about 2.4 Megatons across 12 to 15 targets. Say for speculation purposes the targets are near population centers and result in 80,000 deaths per target ...

The ability to kill around 1,000,000 people with a single wartime act in a couple of days time is too high. Ten ICBMs are more than enough.

[Realityhack]

6. I think it is clear that you are doing the wrong calculation.

10 ICBMs with 0 sub launched isn't much of a second strike capability. Very easy to neutralize. Furthermore you are no longer talking about destruction of the initiating country... only large losses.

[Angleae]

7. One warhead per missile

Warheads on land-based missiles are restricted to one by arms control treaties.