Air Force strips 17 officers of power to launch nuclear missiles (leader, party)

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

He is certainly far more qualified than his immediate predecessor.

"His predecessor" flew combat aircraft while serving in the National Guard. Now, again, just what relavent experience did Obama have prior to serving as the head of the US armed forces?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by northnut

I don't get it. So the blame continually comes down to Obama. So when something is done about it, you STILL blame him. Why?

Here's a newsflash. The president actually has some real responsibilities. One of them, as commander- in-chief of the US military, is military readiness. No different than when GWB was in office you know. Or are you trying to say that things are different now? That the president has no responsiblity for the military? One or the other, my friend.

So, exactly what "has been done" to address the failure of leadership that lead to the decay of readiness of our nuclear forces?

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

So, exactly what "has been done" to address the failure of leadership that lead to the decay of readiness of our nuclear forces?

Relieving a bunch of incompetent officers of their duties seems to be a good start.

[btsilver]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Well, these are officers responsible for the strategic nuclear defense of this country. And Obama (like it or not) is the commander in chief of the US armed forces. So yes, much as he tries to avoid it, as president he actually has some real responsibilities. Unlike say a "community organizer".

Oh my God. You guys are serious? This is not some Obama conspiracy to eliminate non supportive Air force officers.

[northnut]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Here's a newsflash. The president actually has some real responsibilities. One of them, as commander- in-chief of the US military, is military readiness. No different than when GWB was in office you know. Or are you trying to say that things are different now? That the president has no responsiblity for the military? One or the other, my friend.

So, exactly what "has been done" to address the failure of leadership that lead to the decay of readiness of our nuclear forces?

Uh, no. I don't believe I mentioned Bush at all & I also never mentioned that it's different with Obama & that he has no responsibilities. Those are your words. Have no idea where you even got that.

What I asked was, when he does take care of the situation, you still blame him. For what exactly? And why?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by btsilver

Oh my God. You guys are serious? This is not some Obama conspiracy to eliminate non supportive Air force officers.

I never said it was. I am asking what lead to the circumstances that resulted in unqualified or inadequately trianed officers in this position in the first place. And what are we doing to ensure that it does not happen again. Strategic readiness of our nuclear forces has been a major keystone of our armed forces for decades.

[JobZombie]

The inspection successfully did its job discovering this unacceptable dereliction of responsibilities. Better to find out now those unable to perform their mission than during an actual launch.

[gomexico]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

I never said it was. I am asking what lead to the circumstances that resulted in unqualified or inadequately trianed officers in this position in the first place. And what are we doing to ensure that it does not happen again. Strategic readiness of our nuclear forces has been a major keystone of our armed forces for decades.

Good questions, all. And I don't doubt that the announcement that some officers have been reassigned and/or are going to undergo a 'refresher' course is the result of performance reviews or observed problems which led to the action that seems to have been taken. There are others in the service to assume the responsibilities so I'm going to assume the nuclear weapons systems involved haven't been left unstaffed. The military has in-place a discipline which will allow for, demand a thorough review of that situation in North Dakota and with other such units and I don't doubt that the report will land on the desk of the General in charge of that particular service, the Secretary of that particular branch of the military, the desks of the Joint Chiefs and ... eventually the President. Then, as is customary and necessary .... the appropriate committees of the U.S. Congress will have a look at the report and have its own questons. The President has the confidence of the majority of Americans who participated in the most recent election and one of the evaluations made by the electorate was his competency as Commander in Chief. He has demonstrated his abilities as Commander in Chief and that should be a settled issue. For someone to suggest the President has line authority at the base level or even a bit higher, is a supposition borne of ignorance of the military command structure. Yes, at the end of the day .... the buck stops on the President's desk. I have no doubt that if/when the President is called upon to act and make a decision he'll consult the commanders in the field and other advisors and make the right decision. In due course the facts of the matter will become known.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Relieving a bunch of incompetent officers of their duties seems to be a good start.

1. Were the officers "incompetent" or was their management (higher level officers) derelict in their duty as far as ensuring that these officers were properly trained?

2. Have we done anything to address what caused the problem, or are we just throwing low level personel under the bus?

3. How high does the responsibilty go?

[skoro]

The military simply can't tolerate marginal performers in such a vital role.