3 ms·
> 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 h
by 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 agoTo 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.
- hodgesrm 6y agoClearly, though there have been many more nuclear-related accidents than public records show. False alerts were also pretty sensitive back when I was in the military. Most of them were not even shared internally at the time.