4 ms·

> FYI, the US military has a strong policy against recognizing hostages. As a former member of a US military unit specifically tasked with hostage rescue, if y

> FYI, the US military has a strong policy against recognizing hostages. As a former member of a US military unit specifically tasked with hostage rescue, if your implication is hostages are expendable, you are 100% pulling shit out of thin air, movies, or both.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago
No, not at all. Nuclear policy when I was serving was to use all available means to prevent nukes from being taken. In other words, our presence on the ground wouldn't prevent an air strike. F-16s were twelve minutes away, so it wasn't beyond the pale. And yes, that meant if we somehow became hostages, we might be expendable. I'm sure USAF would have mounted a rescue if practical, but priority was no nukes lost. None of this is out of my backside, rather out of the mouths of officers during training and serving.
- kortex 5y ago
  I have a friend who works with the DoE and this squares with what I've heard. Nuclear/DoE tends to go above and beyond even other sensitive fields. It would not surprise me in the slightest to hear that contingency plans prioritized preventing material from falling into the wrong hands over basically all forms of collateral damage. I'm sure the NMCs are well aware they'd be hellfire missile'd before letting a nuke slip away, if those were the only choices.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Your friend shared top secret nuclear security plans with you?
    - kortex 5y ago
      No, lol. But they've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to the Fed and anything involving nuke sec, personnel are basically dogmeat in any situation where the poop hits the fan. Anyone ex-mil or who runs in those circles knows this; it's hardly a secret. Of course, you are expected to not let it get to that point. But re: the comment about hostages, yeah, Uncle Sam would not hesitate to disable a nuke or material, even if it meant casualties of NMCs held hostage. Civilian casualties, no idea. That is the kind of fodder of actual classified conops. But in the metaphorical trolley problem between "N civilian casualties" and "nuke gets away", yeah my guess is N will be nonzero.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago

No, not at all. Nuclear policy when I was serving was to use all available means to prevent nukes from being taken. In other words, our presence on the ground wouldn't prevent an air strike. F-16s were twelve minutes away, so it wasn't beyond the pale. And yes, that meant if we somehow became hostages, we might be expendable. I'm sure USAF would have mounted a rescue if practical, but priority was no nukes lost. None of this is out of my backside, rather out of the mouths of officers during training and serving.

kortex 5y ago
I have a friend who works with the DoE and this squares with what I've heard. Nuclear/DoE tends to go above and beyond even other sensitive fields. It would not surprise me in the slightest to hear that contingency plans prioritized preventing material from falling into the wrong hands over basically all forms of collateral damage. I'm sure the NMCs are well aware they'd be hellfire missile'd before letting a nuke slip away, if those were the only choices.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Your friend shared top secret nuclear security plans with you?
  - kortex 5y ago
    No, lol. But they've made it abundantly clear that when it comes to the Fed and anything involving nuke sec, personnel are basically dogmeat in any situation where the poop hits the fan. Anyone ex-mil or who runs in those circles knows this; it's hardly a secret. Of course, you are expected to not let it get to that point. But re: the comment about hostages, yeah, Uncle Sam would not hesitate to disable a nuke or material, even if it meant casualties of NMCs held hostage. Civilian casualties, no idea. That is the kind of fodder of actual classified conops. But in the metaphorical trolley problem between "N civilian casualties" and "nuke gets away", yeah my guess is N will be nonzero.