5 ms·

I'm always wondering what PR is behind articles of journalists visiting nuclear silos. This one looks like a first-person account, so was a military allowed to

by tajen 10y ago

I'm always wondering what PR is behind articles of journalists visiting nuclear silos. This one looks like a first-person account, so was a military allowed to write about his job? How comes he writes so well? He could have been a journalist... Also, was the piece read, checked and corrected by a commandant before being published? If so, which parts were left out? Why did they leave the part where he admits not dressing with the uniform, installing a hammoc, playing video games and so on? Last question, he describes his role as reading a console, decrypting and triggering a button at request, and at the same time saying human error is the most probable cause for a nuclear winter: Why do we need a person to transcribe a machine message to another missile-launching machine? Couldn't both machines be wired up together? Sure it would allow hacking the launch of the missiles, but at the same time, if he receives the correct message, he's going to send them anyway...

XorNot 10y ago
Because you can't account for all eventualities. He is presumably trained in other aspects of maintaining and operating the base. And probably more importantly: because presumably when given that order, he might know some context a machine doesn't and actually disobey.
mcguire 10y ago
From the bottom of the article: "John Noonan is a policy advisor and defense writer. He served as a Captain in the United States Air Force, assigned to the 321st Missile Squadron in Cheyenne, Wyoming."
chrisseaton 10y ago
> How comes he writes so well? Why does it surprise you that someone in the military can write so well? There's a great history of brilliant writers and poets coming from the military. Many people join the military before doing something else with their lives so you get a tremendous mix of talents and passions in units. I found that a surprising number of people turn out to be excellent sketchers and painters when working in the military, for example.
- visakanv 10y ago
  Yep. Some of the best writing most of the world never sees happens in internal memos in large organizations. Leaders need to be able to communicate clearly, memorably, etc. Any decent manager typically learns to write well in order to get shit done.
  - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
    Likewise, one of the most poignant commentaries on life and death I've ever read came out of the military. I wish I could find it again, it was on HN within the last year or so I believe.
smnplk 10y ago
Maybe he has a ghost writer.
pdkl95 10y ago
> Why do we need a person to transcribe a machine message Because it prevented World War III. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar... > he's going to send them anyway The good judgment of Stanislav Petrov shows that this isn't guaranteed. Automation that can harm people always requires a human fail-safe. Leaving judgment to a mechanism only implies either hubris that assumes all possible situations have been accounted for, or enough narcissism to not care about the (possibly deadly) errors.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Sounds like confirmation bias. If an algorithm had made the right call against human judgment, would you be arguing for the opposite position?
  - chunky1994 10y ago
    It's more that we don't have strong enough decision making computers/algorithms to rival a human's capabilities in cases where the action (in this case not having lots of weapons but apparently only one being launched) isn't exactly a binary decision. A computer could theoretically have advocated that this wasn't an actual nuclear launch, but the only way that would happen is if a programmer had been clever enough to have written an algorithm to account for the situation when writing the transcription machine. A human can currently do a much better job when the outcome is that millions of people die , especially if its a sensor error. That's not to say that humans are infallible, just that we do not currently have the level of AI required to replace one.
  - glorp 10y ago
    In Dr. Strangelove, the absurd behavior of buffoonish humans contributes to the doomsday scenario. Idiots blindly following the orders of a madman on one side, and psychos constructing a completely automated self-destruct mechanism attached to a retaliatory weapon on the other side. Both are bad, but people playing the game at all, were the real problem.
    - 10y ago
kalleboo 10y ago
It sounds like someone wants funding to replace a bunch of "outdated, prone-to-error" tech with something new and expensive.
madengr 10y ago
"he's going to send them anyway" Maybe not, which is why they have the daily intelligence briefs.

by tajen 10y ago

XorNot 10y ago

Because you can't account for all eventualities. He is presumably trained in other aspects of maintaining and operating the base. And probably more importantly: because presumably when given that order, he might know some context a machine doesn't and actually disobey.

mcguire 10y ago

From the bottom of the article: "John Noonan is a policy advisor and defense writer. He served as a Captain in the United States Air Force, assigned to the 321st Missile Squadron in Cheyenne, Wyoming."

chrisseaton 10y ago

> How comes he writes so well? Why does it surprise you that someone in the military can write so well? There's a great history of brilliant writers and poets coming from the military. Many people join the military before doing something else with their lives so you get a tremendous mix of talents and passions in units. I found that a surprising number of people turn out to be excellent sketchers and painters when working in the military, for example.

visakanv 10y ago
Yep. Some of the best writing most of the world never sees happens in internal memos in large organizations. Leaders need to be able to communicate clearly, memorably, etc. Any decent manager typically learns to write well in order to get shit done.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  Likewise, one of the most poignant commentaries on life and death I've ever read came out of the military. I wish I could find it again, it was on HN within the last year or so I believe.

smnplk 10y ago

Maybe he has a ghost writer.

pdkl95 10y ago

> Why do we need a person to transcribe a machine message Because it prevented World War III. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar... > he's going to send them anyway The good judgment of Stanislav Petrov shows that this isn't guaranteed. Automation that can harm people always requires a human fail-safe. Leaving judgment to a mechanism only implies either hubris that assumes all possible situations have been accounted for, or enough narcissism to not care about the (possibly deadly) errors.

icebraining 10y ago
Sounds like confirmation bias. If an algorithm had made the right call against human judgment, would you be arguing for the opposite position?
- chunky1994 10y ago
  It's more that we don't have strong enough decision making computers/algorithms to rival a human's capabilities in cases where the action (in this case not having lots of weapons but apparently only one being launched) isn't exactly a binary decision. A computer could theoretically have advocated that this wasn't an actual nuclear launch, but the only way that would happen is if a programmer had been clever enough to have written an algorithm to account for the situation when writing the transcription machine. A human can currently do a much better job when the outcome is that millions of people die , especially if its a sensor error. That's not to say that humans are infallible, just that we do not currently have the level of AI required to replace one.
- glorp 10y ago
  In Dr. Strangelove, the absurd behavior of buffoonish humans contributes to the doomsday scenario. Idiots blindly following the orders of a madman on one side, and psychos constructing a completely automated self-destruct mechanism attached to a retaliatory weapon on the other side. Both are bad, but people playing the game at all, were the real problem.
  - 10y ago

kalleboo 10y ago

It sounds like someone wants funding to replace a bunch of "outdated, prone-to-error" tech with something new and expensive.

madengr 10y ago

"he's going to send them anyway" Maybe not, which is why they have the daily intelligence briefs.