Air Force Grapples with Nuclear Weapons Security
The U.S. Air Force last week issued revised procedures (pdf) for nuclear weapons maintenance and accounting. Meanwhile, the Air Force continues to suffer serious lapses in nuclear weapons security.
The new procedures include increased supervision and auditing requirements for weapon storage, handling and transport.
“Nuclear weapons require special consideration because of their political and military importance, destructive power, cost, and potential consequences of an accident or unauthorized act,” the Air Force reiterated.
See Air Force Instruction 21-204, Supplement 1, “Nuclear Weapons Maintenance Procedures,” updated 28 May 2008.
Recurring defects in nuclear weapons security were identified in a recent inspection at Minot Air Force Base, Air Force Times reported last week. Security “broke down on multiple levels during simulated attacks across the base, including against nuclear weapons storage areas,” the paper said, citing an undisclosed inspection report from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. See “5th Bomb Wing flunks nuclear inspection” by Michael Hoffman, Air Force Times, May 30.
The emerging federal metascience community is asking fascinating questions that are equally vital for democratic legitimacy: beyond “did this program work” to “how does the federal R&D enterprise itself work, and how could it work better?”
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.