A three-star navy admiral and a 2 star air force general given the heave-ho for things that appear to have nothing at all to do with their duties or assignments. You have to wonder how long this can go on. In the past we accept that to err was human and while we were hoping for the best we were happy to accommodate some minor personal foibles and accepted that clay feet were more the norm than not. We kind of expected total professionalism while on duty.
It does make one wonder what happened when it really mattered and the nukes started rolling around. How many people involved got fired?
I sure hope that the powers-that-be are concentrating as much on the safety of our nuclear arsenal as they are on what our admirals and generals get up to when they are not at work.
3 comments:
I was nodding my head north-south while reading the linked FAS document... until I got to the final paragraph, to wit:
The Blue Ribbon Panel and Defense Science Board have misread the Minot incident by failing to take into consideration the realities of the post-Cold War world. Instead of recommending a revitalization of the nuclear bomber force, their main conclusion should have been that there no longer is a need for an operational nuclear bomber mission and that nuclear weapons should be removed from the bomber bases.
Uh, no. Not EVEN, the point being the bombers are the only "recallable" element of the Triad.
I also find it interesting that USAF resurrected SAC as a result of the Minot incident. That said, your main point (I think) about relieving senior leaders for personal misconduct seems to be getting out of control... with the emphasis on "seems."
I admit I didn't read the whole article since all of it wasn't germane to my points but felt that having cited it, I must include the whole of it. From my point of view, the manned penetrating nuclear bomber suffers from several very serious and a few minor flaws in both concept and execution. The first is down to the USAF. It sold the B1 and the B2 as the nuclear weapon and then kept the B52 as both a bomber and a strategic nuclear weapon delivery platform. It's fine to say that the buys got too expensive to replace the entire fleet but still, flying a 60 year old design into the teeth of 21st century air defenses by choice is NOT going to sell any sane member of Congress that the USAF needs either a newer new bomber or is really being honest about the need for such a bomber. One or the other must be so. There's more but maybe that's worth a post.
The other little flaw is one you touched on and that is all the wonderful movies made over the decades about the 'fully recallable nuclear bomber" because I still laugh when I watch Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe was an interesting movie that got legs as more and more about the inadequacies of actually flying around with nuclear bombs became known to the public and to Congress.
Holding people to a higher standard is a worthy goal and one might say that character is king of all the traits we deem essential in our top leaders but then we don't actually demonstrate that do we. The PC crowd have garbaged the nature of command because now all the power is on the other stocking clad foot. At the higher levels its a choice both partners make.
Touché on "Strangelove" and "Fail Safe." I saw "Fail Safe" on Turner Classic Movies this summer, coincidentally. The movie has held up rather well over the years, but then again, ANY movie with Henry Fonda in it holds up pretty well.
Post a Comment