

Notes from the No Lone Zone - A computer scientist looks at ICBM security. - wmorein
http://www.crypto.com/blog/titans/

======
crucini
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.

~~~
idlewords
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.

~~~
anamax
> 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.

------
jgrahamc
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/>.

------
bmalicoat
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.

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

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

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

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

