Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#91

Post by highaltitude »

Nuclear warheads have multiple safeguards against detonating without intention. While there are actually quite a few not specifically mentioned this article is a good start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

  Even in the event of fire, explosion, etc warheads are
 unlikely to detonate unintended.  Missle failures are quite
 common and a few have happened during atmospheric nuke
 tests and no detonation occured and many of these test
 weapons had few of the safeguards on duty weapons have.

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#92

Post by OJFord »

roryisok wrote: post #28
OJFord wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was discharged “on the claim that my sole aim was to discredit their public image”, he says. I mean, I don't know what he expected... Part of me wonders if WikiLeaks is the modern-day Blighty wound: want to leave, can't leave for X months, make something up, get discharged for discrediting public image.

Have you read the document? There's a lot of awfully specific detail for "making things up"

I haven't, I don't really agree with it: there's whistle-blowing, and then there's WikiLeaks, with its absurd scale.

I certainly don't subscribe to "I pay my taxes; I've a right to know ...!" which is incorrect, silly, and less secure for all of us.

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#93

Post by i336_ »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #84
i336_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my whistleblowing moment Can you go into further detail? Not asking to reveal what you don't want to, but I am of course curious what you mean.

I was asked the impossible, to write a complex piece of software with no ability to test it and it had to work first time without defects, and I had no specification, no one to talk to about it and no idea what hardware it would even run on. There is the impossible and then there is just the "are you even serious" type of impossible, they were serious although I still think its funny because its obvious insane to spi…

Wow. That is insane, yeah.

I'm wondering what this software did, or what sector this was in. Obviously I'm just curious for curiosity's sake, but I guess the actionable bit of what I'm asking is whether what you experienced was endemic to the industry it was in, or if (more broadly) there's anything I can file away (other than the major red flags you described) to help me know whether I'm on a path that will lead to this type of insanity.

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#94

Post by yummypaint »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #84
i336_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my whistleblowing moment Can you go into further detail? Not asking to reveal what you don't want to, but I am of course curious what you mean.

I was asked the impossible, to write a complex piece of software with no ability to test it and it had to work first time without defects, and I had no specification, no one to talk to about it and no idea what hardware it would even run on. There is the impossible and then there is just the "are you even serious" type of impossible, they were serious although I still think its funny because its obvious insane to spi…

f22 raptor

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#95

Post by i336_ »

yummypaint wrote: post #94
PaulKeeble wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked the impossible, to write a complex piece of software with no ability to test it and it had to work first time without defects, and I had no specification, no one to talk to about it and no idea what hardware it would even run on. There is the impossible and then there is just the "are you even serious" type of impossible, they were serious although I still think its funny because its obvious insane to spi…

f22 raptor

Hmm. Interesting theory.

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#96

Post by pizza »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #84
i336_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my whistleblowing moment Can you go into further detail? Not asking to reveal what you don't want to, but I am of course curious what you mean.

I was asked the impossible, to write a complex piece of software with no ability to test it and it had to work first time without defects, and I had no specification, no one to talk to about it and no idea what hardware it would even run on. There is the impossible and then there is just the "are you even serious" type of impossible, they were serious although I still think its funny because its obvious insane to spi…

Wow! Is there any chance you would share more about this?

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#97

Post by roryisok »

OJFord wrote: post #92
roryisok wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the document? There's a lot of awfully specific detail for "making things up"

I haven't, I don't really agree with it: there's whistle-blowing, and then there's WikiLeaks, with its absurd scale. I certainly don't subscribe to "I pay my taxes; I've a right to know ...!" which is incorrect, silly, and less secure for all of us.

Please don't be put off by this being on Wikileaks. This is not just some disgruntled British soldier dumping a few hundred secret documents. This is a single, very thorough report he wrote himself, describing in detail all the horrible lapses in security and safety he personally witnessed around Britain's nuclear deterrent.

He has censored some of the most sensitive information for security reasons.

This is not about "I have a right to know", this is about the risk of a nuclear accident or terrorist attack because of gross negligence, and the chain of command attempting to silence it.

Re: Trident whistleblower: nuclear 'disaster waiting to happen' (2015)

#98

Post by lithos »

gech wrote: post #69
lithos wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An American officer isn't really allowed to blow off concerns (at least from a nuke) like they did in that rant. They actually can't if they want to keep their job. This rant pretty much falls into what every sailor that hates their job dreams about doing. Though they normally end up sadding out before it gets to this point (using real or fake psychological issues to disqualify themselves).

Ad hominem

I put a good amount of thought to think of a direct comparison to the IT world.

As it stands right now "everyone knows" that IT companies are skirting and breaking the law(s) when it comes to data collection and retention. It's just that it's such a huge and intentionally opaque subject that it's impossible to make good laws or even enforce them. Now let's say you have an almost senior person at one of the big 3 (or whatever number it's at now) that decides they're going give to high ranking elected officials every bit of data the company has them, their spouse, and their children (say Germany since their laws are pretty strict and have cultural history behind their laws) who that data has been sold to, how it's used, and similar. Then further more gives hints that there is knowledge inside that the company knew it was/might have breaking/broke x laws.

The first thoughts are going to be fanboy/hate, there are better ways to do this, why are they even keeping that job, and similar.

Also seeing how IT people react to sexual harassment claims I expect attacks that are just attacks. Rather than answering what can be of the question, and attempting* to satisfy some curiosity (which I attempted to do).

*rather horribly now that you've pointed it out. And sadly falling into other bad practices to explain what I see in the link for this post .

Post reply on HN