Notes from the No Lone Zone - A computer scientist looks at ICBM security.(crypto.com)

44 pointsby wmorein17 anni fa13 comments

Notes from the No Lone Zone - A computer scientist looks at ICBM security.

http://www.crypto.com/blog/titans/

13 comments

Cool place. I visited it around 2000.

The actual silo is sealed in with glass because it's contaminated with rocket fuel. You can look into the silo from various levels but you can't enter. Apparently one drop of the fuel they used will penetrate your flesh and start destroying bone. They have photos of the Air Force guys in their "Rocket Fuel Handler's Outfit".

Normally I'm a big fan of Matt Blaze. But it kind of pisses me off that he implies that the museum needs to be justified on some liberal-arts, big picture basis:

    It's worth asking whether displaying this terrible artifact of our 40 years
     on the edge of oblivion for all to see really makes good sense.

I hate this crap. First of all, we are still just as much "on the edge of oblivion". Russia and now China have plenty of nukes pointed at us. We just don't talk about it as much.

Second, I don't consider it a "terrible artifact". It's an awesome engineering project. And it helped preserve the freedoms we have today.

Third, and most importantly, I don't give a fuck if there's some point or purpose to the place, or if it makes anyone contemplate anything. I'm an engineer and a hacker; as a teenager I dreamed of getting into one of these silos; I appreciate the effort that went into building this amazing thing, and I'm very grateful to the people who have preserved it.

To me, each airman who served here, and each volunteer who helps with the museum is worth 1000 of Barbara Kingsolver and her kind.

pyre17 anni fa

It's just a lead-in to the comments by Barbara Kingsolver. He knows that it's not 'over.' See later on:

  > But more importantly, a few hundred of the successors to the
  > Titans, the "Minuteman III" missiles, remain active in silos
  > throughout the northern US, run by crews and following procedures 
  > essentially similar to those here. ICBMs are not yet history,
  > even if the original motivation for building them now is.

> Second, I don't consider it a "terrible artifact". It's an awesome engineering project. And it helped preserve the freedoms we have today.

We arguably wouldn't have a lot of the advances we have today without WW2, but I'm not ready to shake Hitler's hand and congratulate him on a job well done. Just because something causes a good outcome doesn't mean that referring to it as 'terrible' is the opposite of the truth.

If some 'mad scientist' starts kidnapping homeless people off the streets and torturing them to death in his/her basement. Suppose through this process he/she discovers a cure for cancer. I'm not about to say that he/she "led the heroic fight to free us from the evils of cancer." But I'm not about to throw out the results (cure for cancer) either just because the method (torturing people to death) was misguided.

idlewords17 anni fa

It's an awesome engineering project whose purpose is to kill tens of millions of people. This stuff has been technical catnip to several generations of scientists and engineers, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to step back and consider the moral element, even in a geeky article.

anamax17 anni fa

> It's an awesome engineering project whose purpose is to kill tens of millions of people.

And your alternative is ....

> This stuff has been technical catnip to several generations of scientists and engineers, but I think it's perfectly legitimate to step back and consider the moral element

Yes, let's consider the moral element. You clearly think that this was wrong, so what was correct?

Note that these weapons worked exactly as intended. They were never used. Your alternative has to do at least as well.

jgrahamc17 anni fa

At the risk of being shouted at for recommending my own book, The Geek Atlas. This location is in there, as are two nuclear bunkers (one in the US where Congress would have hidden, and one in the UK where the Prime Minister would have gone). And there are other significant nuclear sites for people who are interested such as the spot where the Trinity Test was performed: http://geekatlas.com/.

bmalicoat17 anni fa

It is crazy to think how advanced these bases were by 1960s' standards and even crazier to think we didn't blow each other up! It's also kinda sad that so many of the silos fell into disrepair or were actively deconstructed. Hopefully I'll get a chance to visit one before they are all gone, if only to relive a small part of GoldenEye.

gojomo17 anni fa

My earliest introduction to the "two man policy" was the haunting opening scene of 'WarGames'. "Turn your key, sir."

fuzzmeister17 anni fa

Could anyone recommend any good movies dealing with nuclear war, or the threat thereof? I've always been fascinated by the subject.

vanschelven17 anni fa

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

nvn117 anni fa

Not sure how accurate it is but I enjoyed Thirteen Days: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146309/

Fog of War also features the subject and is excellent: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/

EDIT: Falcon and the Snowman is also great and it's kind of related so it's worth a mention: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087231/

shabble17 anni fa

Doesn't look like anyone else has mentioned _Threads_ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/) a British, very harrowing, gritty look at the outbreak and aftermath of a nuclear strike.

dcminter17 anni fa

The Bedford Incident in an oblique sort of way.

gojomo17 anni fa

Some famous ones I enjoyed are 'Dr Strangelove', 'WarGames', and 'The Day After'.

I also enjoyed the lesser-known 'Miracle Mile' and 'Matinee (1993)'.

Haven't seen 'On the Beach', but it's an early (1959) well-reviewed film on the topic. Haven't seen 'Thirteen Days', but it covers the Cuban missile crisis -- perhaps the closest the world came to using nuclear weapons after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.