Page 2 of 2 Previous
Both officers involved in that case were given what the military calls nonjudicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rather than being court-martialed. One was ordered to forfeit $2,246 in pay for two months and received a letter of reprimand, according to Lt. Col. John Sheets, spokesman for Air Force Global Strike Command. The other launch officer, who admitted to having committed the same violation "a few" times previously, was given a letter of admonishment, Sheets said.
Kowalski said the crews know better.
"This is not a training problem," he said. "This is some people out there are having a problem with discipline."
The other confirmed blast door violation happened in May at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. In that case, a person who entered the capsule to do maintenance work realized that the deputy crew commander was asleep with the door open and reported the violation to superiors. Upon questioning, the deputy crew commander initially denied the accusation but later confessed and said her crew commander had encouraged her to lie, Sheets said.
The crew commander was ordered to forfeit $3,045 in pay for two months, Sheets said, and also faces an Air Force discharge board, which could force him out of the service. The deputy crew commander was given a letter of reprimand. A letter of reprimand does not require the officer to leave the service but usually is a significant obstacle to promotion and could mean an early end to his or her career.
The AP was tipped off to the Malmstrom episode shortly after it took place by an official who felt strongly that it should be made public and that it reflected a more deeply rooted disciplinary problem inside the ICBM force. The AP learned of the Minot violation through an internal Air Force email. The AP confirmed both incidents with several other Air Force officials.
Sheets said the Minot and Malmstrom violations were the only blast door disciplinary cases in at least two years.
The willingness of some launch officers to leave the blast door open at times reflects a mindset far removed from Cold War days when the U.S. lived in fear of a nuclear strike by the Soviet Union. It was that fear that provided the original rationale for placing ICBMs in reinforced underground silos and the launch control officers in buried capsules — so that in the event of an attack the officers might survive to launch a counterattack.
Today the fear of such an attack has all but disappeared and, with it, the appeal of strictly following the blast door rule.
Bruce Blair, who served as an ICBM launch control officer in the 1970s and is an advocate for phasing out the ICBM force, said violations should be taken seriously.
"This transgression might help enable outsiders to gain access to the launch center and to its super-secret codes," said Blair, who is now a research scholar at Princeton University. That would increase the risk of unauthorized launch or of compromising codes that might consequently have to be invalidated in order to prevent unauthorized launches, he said.
"Such invalidation might effectively neutralize for an extended period of time the entire U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal and the president's ability to launch strategic forces while the Pentagon scrambles to reissue new codes," he added.