Air Force Updates Procedures for Handling Nuclear Weapons
The U.S. Air Force last week issued revised procedures (pdf) for securely maintaining and transporting nuclear weapons.
The move follows an incident last August in which crewmen at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota mistook missiles armed with nuclear weapons for unarmed missiles and flew them across the country without authorization.
Though the Minot AFB event is not mentioned in the new procedures, the origins of that mishap are implicitly addressed: “Do not co-mingle nuclear and non-nuclear munitions/missiles … in the same storage structure, cell, or WS3 [weapons storage and security system].”
“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 Instruction observes.
The new policy prescribes detailed auditing and tracking procedures to promote accountability of nuclear weapons, along with weapons maintenance, personnel certification, and secure transport.
The document was approved for public release.
See “Nuclear Weapons Maintenance Procedures,” Air Force Instruction 21-204, 17 January 2008.:
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.