Air Force, how do we fix these failings and apparent cover ups?

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:42:58 -0400

It seems like this just keeps coming back, a little worse each time. I don't know enough about the Air Force's systemic processes or climate/culture to have a valid opinion, so I ask those who are in a better position to speak, how does this get fixed?

Are these your black sheep, or is this a symptom of an overall systemic issue?

Air Force nuke crew failings worse than reported

Failings exposed last spring at a U.S. nuclear missile base, reflecting what one officer called "rot" in the ranks, were worse than originally reported, according to Air Force documents obtained by Th...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 10:24 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:24:37 -0400

Probably an overall systemic issue.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2014 10:28 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 04 May 2014 22:28:30 -0400

Hi, I work at an ICBM wing. Don't worry everything is just fine. Sometimes you gotta clean house.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2014 12:40 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 05 May 2014 00:40:16 -0400

I am not entirely sure that this has been blown out of proportion. It is also political. My cousin worked with Titan II Missiles. These are attacks on the nuclear arsenal.

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made May 5 at 2014 9:32 AM

TSgt Scott Hurley — Mon, 05 May 2014 09:32:10 -0400

I think I can answer this a little bit better than others since I was in SAC.

This problem lies with the fact when SAC and TAC merged in 1992, the TAC regs became the new Air Combat Command (ACC) Regs. All former SAC basses raised the red flags on this. Not one SAC reg became an ACC reg. Also, the Land Based Nuclear Missiles were also reassigned to US Strategic Command. Now those assets are a part of Global Strike Command which was activated after the B-52 that flew from Minot to Barksdale with Nukes loaded, and the failure at Minot AFB concerning an exercise concerning Nukes. From what I read, some of the land based ICBMS are still assigned to USSTRATCOM. From all this, it was failure to keep the high SAC standards concerning the Nuclear mission.

Watch "A Gathering of Eagles" with Rock Hudson, and you can see what a SAC base has to go thru for an inspection when Nukes are involved. With this instance, it is a lack of leadership, and understanding their roles. It is because of the mentality of "the cold war is over, so why do I have to keep up this high standard?" mentality that has permeated into the force since the deactivation of SAC. And the fact that the SAC regs were not converted to either STRATCOM or ACC regs that allowed this to happen. From what I understand, Global Strike Command had to find the old SAC regs to dust them off.

Response by SFC Stephen Carden made May 5 at 2014 11:32 AM

SFC Stephen Carden — Mon, 05 May 2014 11:32:10 -0400

Is there any kind of psych eval before a person is assigned to this job? It has to take a certain personality type to sit for 12 or 24 hours in a bunker!

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made May 5 at 2014 2:03 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Mon, 05 May 2014 14:03:38 -0400

So, there are a few things that are/were in play here.
1. Not many years ago, they had merged nukes and space into one command....of course, space was the cool new kid on the block. Almost all the focus was placed on space, allowing standards to fall away in the nuke field....then came nuclear winter 2008/9 when they discovered issues. Space and Nukes were split and new focus placed back on nukes.
2. I feel that the issues at Malmstrom were a dark little secret that has been present for many years. Unfortinately, some leaders and decided to use the "monthly proficiency training test" as a standard for all things good (and bad). 90% was to be the passing rate, but if you did not score 100%, command would impact you in such ways as holding promotions etc....
3. It appears that almost everyone involved in some of the issues at Malmstrom came from the Acadamy. There are a couple different possible reasons for this.... Missile operators are often acadamy grads that did not qualify to fly an above ground platform (aircraft), so this was the next best thing... I have also heard that the Acadamy is also looking into similar behavior among the students...as the drug dealing scandle also originated at the Acadamy (all were grads and it dated back to school).
4. add politics and stir....

There may be much more playing a role in this whole thing.... nukes being flown across the country, blast doors being propped open.... but much is also an integrety issue. I don't see parents disciplining their kids as much as in the past, resulting in kids that have less respect etc... The military as a whole is a reflection of the people of the country. You have rot in society, you will see some of that rot come to the military...it can be no other way...where do you get new recruits O or E??