5 ms·

No, the article recounts the base sending out a live warning to base personnel. If you've sent an alert to the soldiers on the base, you've decided the warning

No, the article recounts the base sending out a live warning to base personnel. If you've sent an alert to the soldiers on the base, you've decided the warning is genuine, so the conclusion must be that they don't inform the surrounding areas as soon as they've accepted a warning as accurate.

KineticLensman 6y ago
> No, the article recounts the base sending out a live warning to base personnel. More precisely, it said "After the strike never materialized, the sprawling installation's command post put out a notice stating that "the missile launch was then assessed to be part of a training exercise" and wasn't deemed a threat to the base" > If you've sent an alert to the soldiers on the base, you've decided the warning is genuine Or that you are checking. It may be a false alarm, in which case you will at least get a test of your readiness drills, which may find bugs in the process. Sometimes better to start getting ready while there is still time, and then stand down. Rather than wait until it is too late.
- Trombone12 6y ago
  Look, you got to read the whole thing, and don't ignore the bit that says: "The Command Post followed proper procedure and provided timely and accurate notifications to personnel in the Kaiserslautern Military Community"
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    Why does everything have to be about pointing fingers and blame? The fact still stands: There wasn't a public alert. Your comment adds nothing more to the discussion than writing "RTFM!"
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Idk if it's different abroad, but some bases send out alerts for silly reasons. I used to visit a base that required everyone who was logged in on a computer to confirm they were still save every time there was a lightning strike near base. So during thunderstorms you'd have to confirm multiple times per day that you haven't been zapped to death
bonestamp2 6y ago
I don't think it's clear in the article if the initial alert was sent out manually or by an automated system. The first mention of it sounds manual, but then later it sounds like it may have been automated, since they're trying to move the blame down one level to whoever initiated the training exercise that caused the alert.
- Cu3PO42 6y ago
  I don't think the training exercise refers to one executed by the US (or its allies).
tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
> If you've sent an alert to the soldiers on the base, you've decided the warning is genuine, Or you potentially decided that the threshold for warning the base is much lower. Because in the worst case, you've just had an unannounced missile drill that's good for response times anyways. If you're on a military base, having a few such alarms per year seems like reasonable training. If you do this to civilians, by the second alarm of this sort they'll start figuring out how to make the alarms stop.
- craftinator 6y ago
  > Or you potentially decided that the threshold for warning the base is much lower. This is really the correct point of view for this. In the military, being horribly inconvenienced and having your plans ruined is normal life. We often had unplanned drills of various types in Japan, with no forewarning. You do your job, wait a while, then they announce the all clear and you go back to life. However, the one or two times people messed up and alerted the local Japanese government, it was a HUGE deal. Heads rolled, people got punished, and apologies had to be written.
  - hodgesrm 6y ago
    > However, the one or two times people messed up and alerted the local Japanese government, it was a HUGE deal. Heads rolled, people got punished, and apologies had to be written. That's absolutely correct in my experience. The cover-ups extend to things like accidents involving nuclear weapons, of which there have been many. It's fair to say that the host countries play along in most cases. If there's no public disclosure of problems the host country government does not have to do anything about them.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      To be fair, there is a significant delta between “we saw a radar blip and went to high alert” and “we lost a nuke for a while”. I’d only call one of those a “coverup” if they didn’t tell anyone.

KineticLensman 6y ago

> No, the article recounts the base sending out a live warning to base personnel. More precisely, it said "After the strike never materialized, the sprawling installation's command post put out a notice stating that "the missile launch was then assessed to be part of a training exercise" and wasn't deemed a threat to the base" > If you've sent an alert to the soldiers on the base, you've decided the warning is genuine Or that you are checking. It may be a false alarm, in which case you will at least get a test of your readiness drills, which may find bugs in the process. Sometimes better to start getting ready while there is still time, and then stand down. Rather than wait until it is too late.

Trombone12 6y ago
Look, you got to read the whole thing, and don't ignore the bit that says: "The Command Post followed proper procedure and provided timely and accurate notifications to personnel in the Kaiserslautern Military Community"
- Daho0n 6y ago
  Why does everything have to be about pointing fingers and blame? The fact still stands: There wasn't a public alert. Your comment adds nothing more to the discussion than writing "RTFM!"
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Idk if it's different abroad, but some bases send out alerts for silly reasons. I used to visit a base that required everyone who was logged in on a computer to confirm they were still save every time there was a lightning strike near base. So during thunderstorms you'd have to confirm multiple times per day that you haven't been zapped to death

bonestamp2 6y ago

I don't think it's clear in the article if the initial alert was sent out manually or by an automated system. The first mention of it sounds manual, but then later it sounds like it may have been automated, since they're trying to move the blame down one level to whoever initiated the training exercise that caused the alert.

Cu3PO42 6y ago
I don't think the training exercise refers to one executed by the US (or its allies).

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

> If you've sent an alert to the soldiers on the base, you've decided the warning is genuine, Or you potentially decided that the threshold for warning the base is much lower. Because in the worst case, you've just had an unannounced missile drill that's good for response times anyways. If you're on a military base, having a few such alarms per year seems like reasonable training. If you do this to civilians, by the second alarm of this sort they'll start figuring out how to make the alarms stop.

craftinator 6y ago
> Or you potentially decided that the threshold for warning the base is much lower. This is really the correct point of view for this. In the military, being horribly inconvenienced and having your plans ruined is normal life. We often had unplanned drills of various types in Japan, with no forewarning. You do your job, wait a while, then they announce the all clear and you go back to life. However, the one or two times people messed up and alerted the local Japanese government, it was a HUGE deal. Heads rolled, people got punished, and apologies had to be written.
- hodgesrm 6y ago
  > However, the one or two times people messed up and alerted the local Japanese government, it was a HUGE deal. Heads rolled, people got punished, and apologies had to be written. That's absolutely correct in my experience. The cover-ups extend to things like accidents involving nuclear weapons, of which there have been many. It's fair to say that the host countries play along in most cases. If there's no public disclosure of problems the host country government does not have to do anything about them.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    To be fair, there is a significant delta between “we saw a radar blip and went to high alert” and “we lost a nuke for a while”. I’d only call one of those a “coverup” if they didn’t tell anyone.