4 ms·

> The whole point of the military is that you have no idea whether or not the order you are given is a good, or just idea, and it's not your job to make that de

> The whole point of the military is that you have no idea whether or not the order you are given is a good, or just idea, and it's not your job to make that decision. You carry the order out. This simply isn’t true. Silo staff will know if the US is suffering a massive ground invasion or ICBM bombardment, and will have a very clear idea of whether launching nukes is reasonable. Even given your maximum implausibility example of all silos ordered to launch all nukes, to get even one launched a number of people in the chain of command need to be convinced that risking the destruction of human civilization is justified, knowing full well that no order will protect them from war crimes or crimes against humanity charges. The only post WWII example in history (I’m pretty sure it’s only happened once) of an order being given to launch a nuke was refused by the officer in charge. You haven’t added any basis to support this “what if” speculation. Your scenario also ignores the fact that there are other better (and better readied) tactical options. There is no scenario where the US will be tactically dependant on using a nuke to destroy a site, so your “if I don’t launch the nuke Americans will die” scenario is perhaps the least plausible part of your comment.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Even given your maximum implausibility example of all silos ordered to launch all nukes, to get even one launched a number of people in the chain of command need to be convinced that risking the destruction of human civilization is justified. IIRC there was even one such incident where a nuclear unit got some sent some routine training codes that turned out to be the codes for "launch against China" codes. They basically called back and asked to triple check the code and eventually it all got sorted out without any nukes being launched.
- vkou 7y ago
  That was because erroneous codes were sent to one silo. What happens when the correct codes are sent to all the silos? So, you get on the phone, and call someone at HQ, to confirm the orders. And they confirm that the orders are, indeed, correct. Command sent them down 5 minutes ago, and yes, we confirmed it. What are you going to do? If your answer is 'Not launch', you are not silo material, and have probably been weeded out long before you got to the point where you can ask this question.
- masonic 7y ago
  "launch against China" codes Silo personnel have no choice of target. It's simply a launch-or-don't action against the (externally chosen) target.
vkou 7y ago
> This simply isn’t true. Silo staff will know if the US is suffering a massive ground invasion or ICBM bombardment, and will have a very clear idea of whether launching nukes is reasonable. If they are being ordered to carry out a first strike, they have no idea of whether or not that first strike is reasonable, or not. And it's not their job to second-guess. > There is no scenario where the US will be tactically dependant on using a nuke to destroy a site, so your “if I don’t launch the nuke Americans will die” scenario is perhaps the least plausible part of your comment. Tactical nuclear strikes aren't launched out of silos. If a silo gets an order to fire, it's not a tactical launch, it's a strategic 'the world is ending (Possibly because we decided to end it)' launch order. Most silo operators will carry that order out.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > If they are being ordered to carry out a first strike, they have no idea of whether or not that first strike is reasonable, or not. A first strike of nuclear ICBMs is never going to be reasonably justified. Even if we ignore the fact that there is absolutely no basis for speculation that the POTUS would ever order such a strike, there is no basis to speculate that silo personnel will comply with an order that is clearly unlawful, a crime against humanity, a war crime, and risks the complete destruction of human civilization. Out of all speculative scenarios, this has to be the least plausible.
  - vkou 7y ago
    This is just wishful thinking. The facts are: 1. The United States has a first-strike policy, and has invested billions of dollars in making sure that it can actually carry it out. 2. It adheres to it on the basis that its command staff believe that there is some moral calculus under which a first-strike is not genocidal or unlawful. 3. A first strike is not even abhorrent to average Americans. Around half of American citizens support a nuclear first strike if it results in saving American lives. 4. There are morons that believe that a nuclear war is winnable. Some of those morons become politicians, while others become generals. As far as I'm aware, there is no anti-moron filter on either occupation, that keeps those people away from positions of power. You may observe that your moral hangups, and the international-court legality of a first strike has zero bearing on any of those four points. And those four points are what will drive people to act the way they will act. Let's recap: * A first strike is not illegal under American law. It is a heavily studied topic, on which hundreds of thinkers, paid by the Pentagon, have produced thousands of documents that argue about when it can be used, and how it can be best used. * A first strike is not ever going to be an out-of-the-blue-POTUS-woke-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed event. * It is going to be a decision that is made in the middle of a geopolitical crisis, after weeks, or months of threats, escalations, and counter-escalations, and the occasional shot, or shell, or conventional missile being fired. It is going to be a dramatic, but possible decision to make in that context. * Because it is permitted by law, and because it has been argued for so exhaustively, and because the military has deliberately implemented procedures for carrying it out, the people who will be arguing for it will not have the same moral revulsion that you and I hold against it. * Those people also happen to be convinced that there is such a thing as a winnable nuclear war. In this context - when a silo operator receives the order to fire, when they know that there's a military and political crisis going on, and people are dying, many of them are going to follow their orders. After, they will have plenty of time to ponder whether or not the International Crimes Court at the Hague is going to hold their decision against them. What we need is a modern "Day After" moment. It's been a generation and a half since that film. The new crop of armchair generals, politicians, and office holders, who grew up with no memory of war, need to be reminded of its horrors. If a media mogul who owns a national television station is reading, I emplore you to consider broadcasting that film on the next Fourth of July. Or, alternatively, after the next State of the Union address.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>Even given your maximum implausibility example of all silos ordered to launch all nukes, to get even one launched a number of people in the chain of command need to be convinced that risking the destruction of human civilization is justified. IIRC there was even one such incident where a nuclear unit got some sent some routine training codes that turned out to be the codes for "launch against China" codes. They basically called back and asked to triple check the code and eventually it all got sorted out without any nukes being launched.

vkou 7y ago
That was because erroneous codes were sent to one silo. What happens when the correct codes are sent to all the silos? So, you get on the phone, and call someone at HQ, to confirm the orders. And they confirm that the orders are, indeed, correct. Command sent them down 5 minutes ago, and yes, we confirmed it. What are you going to do? If your answer is 'Not launch', you are not silo material, and have probably been weeded out long before you got to the point where you can ask this question.
masonic 7y ago
"launch against China" codes Silo personnel have no choice of target. It's simply a launch-or-don't action against the (externally chosen) target.

vkou 7y ago

> This simply isn’t true. Silo staff will know if the US is suffering a massive ground invasion or ICBM bombardment, and will have a very clear idea of whether launching nukes is reasonable. If they are being ordered to carry out a first strike, they have no idea of whether or not that first strike is reasonable, or not. And it's not their job to second-guess. > There is no scenario where the US will be tactically dependant on using a nuke to destroy a site, so your “if I don’t launch the nuke Americans will die” scenario is perhaps the least plausible part of your comment. Tactical nuclear strikes aren't launched out of silos. If a silo gets an order to fire, it's not a tactical launch, it's a strategic 'the world is ending (Possibly because we decided to end it)' launch order. Most silo operators will carry that order out.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> If they are being ordered to carry out a first strike, they have no idea of whether or not that first strike is reasonable, or not. A first strike of nuclear ICBMs is never going to be reasonably justified. Even if we ignore the fact that there is absolutely no basis for speculation that the POTUS would ever order such a strike, there is no basis to speculate that silo personnel will comply with an order that is clearly unlawful, a crime against humanity, a war crime, and risks the complete destruction of human civilization. Out of all speculative scenarios, this has to be the least plausible.
- vkou 7y ago
  This is just wishful thinking. The facts are: 1. The United States has a first-strike policy, and has invested billions of dollars in making sure that it can actually carry it out. 2. It adheres to it on the basis that its command staff believe that there is some moral calculus under which a first-strike is not genocidal or unlawful. 3. A first strike is not even abhorrent to average Americans. Around half of American citizens support a nuclear first strike if it results in saving American lives. 4. There are morons that believe that a nuclear war is winnable. Some of those morons become politicians, while others become generals. As far as I'm aware, there is no anti-moron filter on either occupation, that keeps those people away from positions of power. You may observe that your moral hangups, and the international-court legality of a first strike has zero bearing on any of those four points. And those four points are what will drive people to act the way they will act. Let's recap: * A first strike is not illegal under American law. It is a heavily studied topic, on which hundreds of thinkers, paid by the Pentagon, have produced thousands of documents that argue about when it can be used, and how it can be best used. * A first strike is not ever going to be an out-of-the-blue-POTUS-woke-up-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-bed event. * It is going to be a decision that is made in the middle of a geopolitical crisis, after weeks, or months of threats, escalations, and counter-escalations, and the occasional shot, or shell, or conventional missile being fired. It is going to be a dramatic, but possible decision to make in that context. * Because it is permitted by law, and because it has been argued for so exhaustively, and because the military has deliberately implemented procedures for carrying it out, the people who will be arguing for it will not have the same moral revulsion that you and I hold against it. * Those people also happen to be convinced that there is such a thing as a winnable nuclear war. In this context - when a silo operator receives the order to fire, when they know that there's a military and political crisis going on, and people are dying, many of them are going to follow their orders. After, they will have plenty of time to ponder whether or not the International Crimes Court at the Hague is going to hold their decision against them. What we need is a modern "Day After" moment. It's been a generation and a half since that film. The new crop of armchair generals, politicians, and office holders, who grew up with no memory of war, need to be reminded of its horrors. If a media mogul who owns a national television station is reading, I emplore you to consider broadcasting that film on the next Fourth of July. Or, alternatively, after the next State of the Union address.