Why? Because there is a lot of blithe ignorance out there about the known problems that we really should be facing but aren't because there's no money in facing them, and also a lot of ignoring of routine maintenance of systems that could very easily go catastrophically wrong.
So for nuclear launch doomsday scenarios, I'm not worried about a madman leader pressing the proverbial button, although that could happen. I'm worried about a nuclear launch because of a short in the wiring because management forced a maintenance crew to skip over inspection 105492.583.24(c) to save time for the last 5 years, or a software glitch leading to a War Games or 99 Red Balloons situation.
-- "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
Starting Score:
1
point
Moderation
+1
Insightful=1,
Total=1
Extra 'Insightful' Modifier
0
Karma-Bonus Modifier
+1
Total Score:
3
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Samantha Wright on Friday February 28, @08:31PM
(1 child)
In general, weapon systems are defined to fail safely—it is better to not fire at all. Moreover it seems Team Oligarchy has decided to avoid military reform (accidentally firing DoE people notwithstanding) so there's minimal chance of a real shake-up.
You must remember that all of these mechanisms are designed by people with the same fears as everyone else. In a situation of extreme neglect, the warheads may very well fail first.
Worry instead about critical civilian infrastructure: bridges, dams, water treatment facilities, chemical plants... more localized problems with far fewer eyeballs watching them.
Moreover it seems Team Oligarchy has decided to avoid military reform (accidentally firing DoE people notwithstanding) so there's minimal chance of a real shake-up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 28, @04:08PM (2 children)
Why? Because there is a lot of blithe ignorance out there about the known problems that we really should be facing but aren't because there's no money in facing them, and also a lot of ignoring of routine maintenance of systems that could very easily go catastrophically wrong.
So for nuclear launch doomsday scenarios, I'm not worried about a madman leader pressing the proverbial button, although that could happen. I'm worried about a nuclear launch because of a short in the wiring because management forced a maintenance crew to skip over inspection 105492.583.24(c) to save time for the last 5 years, or a software glitch leading to a War Games or 99 Red Balloons situation.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Samantha Wright on Friday February 28, @08:31PM (1 child)
In general, weapon systems are defined to fail safely—it is better to not fire at all. Moreover it seems Team Oligarchy has decided to avoid military reform (accidentally firing DoE people notwithstanding) so there's minimal chance of a real shake-up.
You must remember that all of these mechanisms are designed by people with the same fears as everyone else. In a situation of extreme neglect, the warheads may very well fail first.
Worry instead about critical civilian infrastructure: bridges, dams, water treatment facilities, chemical plants... more localized problems with far fewer eyeballs watching them.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Tuesday March 04, @02:44PM
Removing Chiefs of Staff, and the Judge Advocates General 'the conscience of the military', who advise on the legality of military things [military.com] is reform. Not of the good kind.