Deliberate Unauthorized Launch (DUL)

Recently I finished Eric Schlosser’s account of US strategic nuclear forces, Command and Control.   Schlosser is probably best known for his somewhat scathing expose of America’s fast food industry, Fast Food Nation, which I reviewed in my blog dated 9/21/07, later followed by my own blog on fast food [11/24/07] and finally my critique of Morgan Spurlock’s attack on McDonald’s, Super-Size Me [8/18/11].

Here Schlosser’s analysis focuses on who controls the US’ nukes.  While he does go into some detail about the Manhattan Project and some of the development and testing of the H-Bomb, most of his concern is about nuclear accidents or deliberate unauthorized launch (DUL) of US nuclear weapons.   Fortunately there have been none, but a few US nuclear bombers did crash – including one in North Carolina – and an ICBM blew up in Arkansas in 1980.  He gives considerable attention to these issues.  Fortunately again, none of these accidents resulted in a detonation of a nuclear device, though the experts Schlosser quotes believe this was due as much to sheer dumb luck as any deliberate safety designs. 

This book led me to re-watch a few movies (listed below) that I had seen earlier, but also to read Red Alert and watch “Fail-Safe”.  

Kill the King.  Before I get into those, some discussion of the decentralization of US control is warranted.  Nominally we expect that the ONLY person with the authority to launch our nukes is the President.  In fact, he keeps in his possession “the football”, i.e. the launch codes.   Only he can decide to launch, right?  We didn’t elect the SAC generals or the Navy captains on the nuke subs – we don’t even know who they are.  Fair enough.

            The problem is that the President is, was, and always has been, extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack, a so-called “decapitation” attack.  We imagine the President MUST have some underground bunker protected by thousands of feet of steel-reinforced concrete, protecting him while the rest of us get blown up, right?  Well, not exactly.  First off, such a fortress was never developed in all these years.  Second, a Soviet ICBM attack would arrive in 30 minutes.  Even with immediate notice of the attack, the President would have only 30 minutes to run to the shelter – assuming it existed.  As a practical matter, he would only be protected if the attack happened to occur when he was IN the shelter.  Fat chance of that.  In fact, it was precisely for this reason that such a fortress was never built.

            Well, if the President is the only one who can order the launch, and he can be taken out fairly easily by a surprise attack, where does that leave us?  Plan R.   Logic suggests we need a “Plan R” to allow surviving SAC generals to retaliate against this hypothetical Soviet sneak attack.   The problem is – as noted below – we have no way of reining in rogue SAC generals.

Red Alert (1958), by Peter Bryant.  A rogue Strategic Air Command general, Quinten, launches a pre-emptive US nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.   Only the US President knows that the Soviets have installed a device which will detonate nukes in the atmosphere, destroying all life on the planet, if the USSR is attacked.  The President attempts to recall the US bomber fleet – note: ICBMs were not then in service, but are by their nature 100% unrecallable – but one bomber still gets through.   As a token of good faith to the Soviets, because he knows that last bomber will succeed at destroying a Soviet ICBM base and the town next to it, the US President agrees to allow the Soviets to destroy a US city of similar size.

            If this sounds like “Dr. Strangelove”, it’s because the movie was in fact based on the book – and some dialogue practically lifted verbatim from the book - although with substantial differences.   One big difference is that Bryant goes into considerable detail about the US nuclear weapons and the B52K’s immunity to interception.  The other is that Quinten, unlike Ripper, actually has a good reason for launching the nukes.  Quinten knows that in very short time the Soviets will have an ICBM force the US lacks.  At that time, a Soviet first strike would destroy the US and we would be powerless to respond.  However, the Soviets assume we would never strike first, so they have no defense against a US first strike – therefore our pre-emptive strike has 100% chance of succeeding.   Well, except for the Doomsday device, which General Quinten does not know about.

Fail-Safe (1964).  This movie came out at the same time as “Dr. Strangelove” but gets overshadowed by it.  Unlike that movie, which has a fair amount of dark satire and humor – even Peter Sellers in two roles – this one is 100% serious.   Henry Fonda plays the US President, Larry “J.R. Ewing” Hagman plays his Russian interpreter, and Walter Matthau is a cocky civilian scientist who claims to be an expert on nuclear strategy.  In this film it’s a computer glitch which sends the SAC bombers to destroy the USSR.   We manage to recall – or the Soviets manage to shoot down – all but one US bomber.  But even the President AND the bomber pilot’s wife can’t seem to persuade him to abort the mission.  So the President agrees to send our own nuclear bombers against New York City as a token of good faith, knowing his own wife, the First Lady, is shopping in Manhattan.

Dr. Strangelove (1964).  Ah, the Stanley Kubrick classic we all know and love.  SAC General Ripper initiates Plan R, sending his wing of B52s off to the Soviet Union.  Why?  He believes the Soviets have undermined us by fluoridating our water supply, compromising our bodily fluids.  The Soviets are summoned to the War Room (no fighting, please, gentlemen!) and inform us about the Doomsday device.   Why didn’t they tell us about it earlier?  Well, they were planning to but hadn’t gotten around to it yet.  George C. Scott is the rambunctious and belligerent Air Force general, and of course Sellers is the RAF executive officer to Ripper and the eccentric ex-Nazi Dr. Strangelove. 

            As implausible as this scenario sounds, Schlosser did note that the Air Force’s attempt to screen its personnel for psychological problems was not entirely successful.   Moreover, in the wake of our failure in Vietnam, drug use in the US military became rampant in the late 70s and early 80s; see Joacquim Phoenix’s cynical 2001 film, “Buffalo Soldiers”.  Yes, this included the SAC and the ICBM crews.  Moreover, security for our tactical and intermediate range nukes in Europe was horrendously lax.  Basically it was guys like Winger & Ziskey (Bill Murray and Harold Ramis) protecting not only the Urban Assault Vehicle, but also our Pershing missiles.   But again – by some miracle no nukes were stolen.

A few more, while I’m on topic, though not directly related to rogue nuclear attacks.

Trinity & Beyond.   This is a documentary, narrated in a normal voice by William Shatner (Kirk, TJ Hooker, Denny Crane, Priceline Negotiator) about nuclear weapons, starting with Trinity – our first test in New Mexico in 1945 – and going all the way up to the present day.  What’s intriguing about this is that it’s not just OUR programs the movie shows:  yes, the H-Bomb tests in the Pacific, but also the British tests in Australia, the French tests in Algeria, the Soviet 54 megaton test in the early 1960s, AND a discussion of the high altitude tests which induce EMP (electromagnetic pulse) and a third disc going on about actual civilian uses, i.e. nuclear demolitions.   The structural tests in the 1950s – lots of buildings blowing up and trees blowing over – are put into context here, so now we know where all those movies get their footage of this stuff from.  And there’s some stuff here about underground tests, which are fascinating in their own way:  a large circular depression suddenly erupts in the middle of the desert.   Mainly it’s some eerily mesmerizing eye candy of nuclear tests in the Pacific – mushroom clouds silhouetting palm trees.  Morbidly fascinating!  Enjoy!

The Day After (1981).  “Fail-Safe” and “Dr. Strangelove” both ended with the nukes going off.  Ok, fine.  But this one went further.  NYC, Washington, L.A., all seem like obvious targets for Soviet attack.  But Kansas City?  What’s there to attack?  As it happens, several ICBM silos.  

            Here’s an aside about our “nuclear umbrella”.  NATO supposedly defended Western Europe against conventional attack by Soviet Warsaw Pact forces.  Even with US troops in Germany, NATO was always outmatched on the ground.  Our forces would be merely speed bumps on the Red Army’s trip to Paris.  It was our nukes aimed at Moscow which were supposed to deter the Soviets from rolling down the Champs Elysees.   Soviet tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Ave or Fifth Avenue?  Not likely.  Soviet ICBMS raining down on Washington or Manhattan in response to US nukes launched at Moscow after Soviet tanks rolled into Paris?  Much more plausible.  The Europeans didn’t want to pay for tanks and planes.  They wanted the US to risk its cities to Soviet nuclear attack to deter the Soviets from invading theirs, when our own cities were effectively immune to Soviet conventional forces.  So NY and LA were in the crosshairs of Soviet rocket forces because Nigel, Pierre and Hans were too cheap to buy tanks and planes.  Not really in our best interests, eh?  When you think about it, probably not.

            And case in point:  US and USSR bumping ugly over Berlin results in Soviet mushroom clouds over Kansas City.  Jason Robards’ character’s car shuts down on the highway outside KC, thanks to EMP.  Then several huge mushroom clouds erupt.  That alone was terrifying.  But the movie didn’t stop there: the fallout, the devastation, the breakdown, the hungry farmers wondering how to plant in ruined soil, the hospital overwhelmed with casualties, and then everyone’s hair falling out – if they survived, that is.  This is what made the movie so memorable.  If you die in the nuclear attack, well then, your worries are over.  But even if you survive, what then?  The best case scenario is still a nightmare.   The movie shocked even Ronald Reagan.  Watch it, if you haven’t already.  

Supersize Me

Recently I watched “Super High Me”, Doug Benson’s marijuana version of Morgan Spurlock’s documentary on McDonalds and fast food.  Naturally, I followed it up with Spurlock’s original, “Supersize Me”. 

 Basic premise:  Spurlock spent 30 days eating nothing but McDonald’s, for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  Periodically he went to doctors and had himself weighed and tested.  He gained 20-30 lbs and his health went down dramatically; by one analysis, his liver took as much damage as a heavy drinker’s.  His wife complained that his energy and sexual performance were noticeably worse.  All the doctors advised him to stop eating fast food immediately.  He did enjoy the food, but not its impact on him.

 In addition to his own experiences, he talks about the huge pervasiveness of McDonald’s, the vast advertising campaigns of that company and all the others selling similar foods – compared to the miniscule advertising budgets for more healthy foods -  and the degree to which obesity is a problem in the country, and argued a direct correlation between that and the fast food industry.  This even included a discussion of the (unsuccessful) lawsuit against McDonald’s for causing obesity.

 But his methodology was completely bogus.  According to Spurlock, McDonald’s research classifies its “super heavy consumers” as visiting the restaurant 5-7 times a week, which is the most hardcore 22% of its customer base.  Assuming 3 meals a day, seven days a week, that’s 7 out of 21 meals, or 33%.  By its own calculations, McDonalds believes its most faithful customers are getting no more than a third of their food from the chain.  But Spurlock restricted himself exclusively to McDonalds – he ate breakfast, lunch and dinner there 7 days a week for 30 days, with absolutely no other source of food.  This is 21 visits a week, or 3 times the frequency of even the “super heavy consumers”.  No wonder he had health issues.

 You could do the same with wine or pizza.  Imagine that for 30 days, your only source of liquid was wine.  You’d be drunk most of the time, possibly get DUIs, get fired from your job, and do serious damage to your liver.  Or if your sole source of food was pizza, you’d expect to get scurvy at the least, as pizza has no vitamin C.  Neither of which shows that wine or pizza can’t be part of a nutritious diet – if neither is the SOLE element of your diet.  Come to think of it, there’s probably not ONE food which is so healthy, that you could live on that food alone to the exclusion of all others.  Whether it be fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, carbohydrates, or whatever, you’d be missing something and suffering accordingly.  So what did Spurlock’s experiment prove?  Actually, absolutely nothing.  He endangered his life and health, and yet didn’t prove anything.

 What does McDonald’s do?  From the very beginning, they have been, and are, a “burger joint”.  A burger is one particular type of food consumed at certain times by certain people.  Mr. Big Mac guy – apparently a big John Lennon fan – seems to be exception that proves the rule.  I’m not aware that McDonald’s has ever marketed itself as a healthy source of 100% of our nutritional needs – as opposed to a burger place you can hop off to for a burger every now and then.   A large supermarket, on the other hand, could make that claim.  Whether it be fruits, vegetables, meats, poultry, fish, breads, juices, milk, etc. theoretically such an establishment carries a varied enough selection to allow someone to build a healthy diet eating and drinking exclusively what that store carries.  McDonald’s has made no such claims, nor would I expect it to – nor should Spurlock expect to, or claim to.  This is the logical fallacy known as the “straw man attack”, where you knock down an obviously spurious claim which you attribute to your opponent in order to discredit him. 

 To add to the dishonesty of this, of course Spurlock uses the Michael Moore technique of “attempting” (without success) to contact the corporate spokesdroid, who of course refuses to return his phone calls.  Why should they?  This documentary had one sole purpose:  to crucify McDonald’s.  This was not a good faith analysis of the benefits, merits, and risks of the chain.  Spurlock was out to discredit and embarrass the company.  Any participation by a McDonald’s press agent would have been totally under Spurlock’s control to warp, twist, take out of context, or – and this is McDonald’s best case scenario if its spokesdroid said 100% the right things, none of which could be twisted out of context and used against them – simply ignored.    So why help Spurlock make its case?  Why give “the sanction of the victim”?  Why give him credibility?  And since this documentary was clearly biased against McDonald’s, why count it against them that they refused to show up at their own lynching?   Far from “hiding anything” this merely shows that someone at McDonald’s understands how to handle punks like this clown.

 Both Spurlock and Schlosser (in Fast Food Nation) put heavy emphasis on McDonald’s heavy marketing towards children.  Ronald McDonald, Grimace, Hamburglar, Mayor McCheese, etc., the Happy Meals with the free toys inside, the playgrounds, etc. all clearly appeal to, and are marketed at, children.  The idea is that children will bug their parents to go to McDonald’s, and the parents will be powerless to tell their children “NO”, or even “not today”.  But so what?  Whether for adults, or children, McDonald’s has never advocated or claim that its food be the sole source of nutrition for anyone.  This argument on Spurlock’s part puts too much emphasis on the children and not enough credit to parents for any discipline or self-control.  What we’re left with is yet another “the children!” (insincere weeping and wailing) irrational plea, instead of a truly coherent argument. 

 Plus, Spurlock was vague about how much McDonald’s he had been consuming before the experiment began, making his “control” questionable at best.  Since no one relies exclusively on McDonald’s for food, a more appropriate and meaningful experiment would have been to eat there ONE meal a day, for 30 days.  This would approximate the diet of the super heavy McDonalds’ customers.  Note “heavy” is my word, referring to the frequency, not necessarily the obesity, of the customers.

 Finally, and this is what differentiates fast food from tobacco, is that nowhere is it proven that fast food is addictive.  Does it taste good?  Definitely.  As Eric Schlosser notes, the food is scientifically designed, after extensive research, to taste good.  Why would we eat it if it didn’t taste good?  One of the Judge Dredd cartoons, back in the 2000 AD magazine, concerned “Umpty Candy”, a candy which was addictive solely due to its flavor and not any chemical dependency.  Perhaps an extreme, fictional example.

 As for fast food “causing” obesity, Spurlock played fast and loose.  A survey of nutritionists revealed that the vast majority believed that fast food played some role in America’s obesity problem. But what I didn’t hear was anyone – at least not a professional - saying fast food “caused” obesity; the obvious exceptions were the advocates and attorneys with vested pecuniary interests in making those arguments, and Spurlock himself.  There is a subtle distinction between saying A is a “factor” in causing B, and saying that A caused B.  This is the “necessary vs. sufficient” fallacy.  It is “necessary” that my car has gas in the tank to run.  But that doesn’t mean that having a full tank of gas will allow my car to run, is “sufficient”, if something else is wrong. 

 Let’s face it: there are a lot of overweight people in the US.  But it’s unreasonable to assume that 100% of them have simply flat out refused to go on any sort of diet or give up fast food when told to do so by their doctor or weight loss specialist.   Logic suggests that an appreciable percentage of them – maybe not a majority, certainly, but more than a nominal minority – have gone on diets and abstained from fast food.  Yet they are still overweight.  So while fast food probably has some role in promoting obesity, it cannot be the only factor.  And if it’s not the only factor, it can’t be said to “cause” obesity.

 So what we’re left with is:  McDonald’s food is delicious, but can be toxic if that’s ALL you eat.  You could say that about many things.  Does that mean we should ban them all?  Taken to its extreme, the arguments made by Spurlock and Schlosser would dictate that fast food, as a whole, should be banned, and that some central bureaucracy should dictate our diets to consist solely of bland, healthy foods with no concern about whether it tastes good or not.  Spurlock specifically did not advocate anything along the lines of “please exercise restraint in eating this food.  Once in awhile is OK, but not every day.”  His message was:  DON’T EAT THIS CRAP. 

 I used to eat fast food all the time.  I ate it without any concern about specifically limiting my diet or frequency.  Every Lent I’d typically remove fast food from my diet – which works out to be 6 weeks.  Starting in 1995, I changed my focus, and have it since then.  In general I keep my consumption of McDonald’s, or any other type of “fast food” down to about once or twice a week.   Roy Rogers, Chipotle, Firehouse and Wendy’s are my preferences these days anyway.  But ultimately it’s a matter of deciding, “NO, I am NOT going to eat at McDonald’s.”  As parents, it’s telling your children, “NO, we are not going to eat at McDonalds.”  I wouldn’t argue for a complete boycott, more like an intelligent rationing: we will go once a week, once a month, whatever is most appropriate, based on individual choice.  Last I checked, it’s a free country.

Fast Food Nation and Reefer Madness

My computer at my old office crashed, along with the next few planned blog entries, so I have to adlib here and come up with something quickly. As it happens, I finished off Reefer Madness, a book by Eric Schlosser, best known for Fast Food Nation. I may as well review both of them.

I went into FFN expecting it to be an all-out crucifixion of McDonald’s and the fast food industry: nasty, obnoxious artery-clogging filth; and evil, soulless corporations enslaving millions of hapless workers in hopeless, dead-end McJobs. I was wrong.

First off, nowhere in FFN does Schlosser condemn fast food as unhealthy. Sure, he doesn’t claim that it’s healthy or good for you, but simply the absence of positive nutritional value is not, in itself, an indictment of this class of food as poison. He falls well short of that. In fact, he goes into considerable detail about the conscientious efforts of the various chains – particularly Jack-in-the-Box – to guarantee that its food is safe and free from bacteria and other impurities which could cause food poisoning or disease. Any discussion of the long-term effects of a lifetime of McDonald’s consumption is outside the scope of his book.

He was particularly impressed with the skill of the industry at developing artificial colors and flavors, centered in their chemical plants located along the New Jersey Turnpike (which any of us familiar with that strip of highway has surely seen at some point). Note: artificial almond flavor is actually LESS dangerous than natural almond flavor, which contains trace elements of cyanide. Yep. Though the amount of cyanide in an almond is so small, you’d have to eat literally thousands, or even millions, to have a chance of dying. Death by almonds? Not likely.

He was also impressed with the scope, organization, planning and efficiency of McDonald’s. As I recall from my days as a business student in college, practically every management professor and textbook was impressed by the thoroughness with which McDonald’s structures its operations. The machines in each restaurant are specifically designed to work in a certain fashion with zero discretion left to the 16 year old no-experience, bad attitude slackers who make up the workforce.

Granted, that makes the job itself as soulless and dull as any on an assembly line in a factory – after all, the goal is to mass-produce fries, burgers, etc. and quickly serve them to hungry, impatient customers – but it means we, as customers, can count on the same food, in the same quality, and the same quick service (if not sincerely pleasant!) whether it’s a McDonald’s in New York, L.A., Paris, London, Moscow, or Tokyo, allowing for regional variations in menu and taste, which is by design, not any failure of the local operation to meet corporate standards.

Naturally the personnel practices of McDonald’s and other chains are never going to impress Michael Moore, but Schlosser falls far short of condemning the industry as feudal. That is reserved for the next book….

Despite its title, Reefer Madness is not just about marijuana, though 1/3 of the book is devoted to that subject. The theme of the book is America’s underground economy: marijuana, illegal immigrants, and pornography. Here is where Schlosser takes closer aim at questionable employment practices, particularly among illegal immigrants in California’s strawberry farms (and to a lesser extent Florida’s fruit industry). Not only does he roast the growers in California who mercilessly exploit the Mexicans, he explicitly questions the Invisible Hand of capitalism and invokes Adam Smith to specifically invoke the dreaded words “market failure”.
Unfortunately, he does little to suggest what the solution to that market failure is, beyond a passing idea of paying the workers a penny more per unit. But consider this: first of all, we already have minimum wage laws; second, these are illegal immigrants, who shouldn't even be in the country in the first place, much less working. What exactly is the argument that people who entered the country illegally and are violating the laws by working (albeit with the obvious cooperation of their employers) should receive the benefit of our labor laws? This issue was completely ignored.

On the other hand, these people do provide a valuable service, and they do something which no one else in the country is willing to do -"it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it". In fact, the growers may have a difficult time hiring Americans to pick strawberries even if they were willing to pay a decent wage and America's strawberry consumers were willing to pay a higher price. The guest worker solution - proposed by others and criticized by Schlosser - seems to be the most appropriate recognition both of the need for these workers in our economy and their illegal status.

Given how heavily he slams not only the industry but capitalism as an economic form, this is all the more reason why he should have spent an equal amount of time providing a solution – one which would not have caused more problems than it solved. I didn't hear much of that from him besides his cursory rejection of the guest worker proposal. All very well to sneer at “the invisible hand” and write off the Libertarians as naïve children who fail to recognize the true complexity of modern society and economics, but if you can’t propose a realistic solution, or a better alternative to other proposals, you should just shut up. Two words: RENT CONTROL.
The other two thirds of Reefer Madness concern marijuana, with a strong emphasis on how stupid many of these mandatory minimums are, and the hypocrisy of politicians who demand the death penalty for drug dealers – except when their own children are caught selling pot by the pound under their very noses. He’ll get no argument from me: amen, brother, he’s preaching to the choir…. Obviously marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, yet gets hammered as if it’s cyanide. Come on. Both the idiocy of the harsh drug laws and the rapant tyranny of the asset forfeiture laws (discussed briefly therein) could fill entire books.

The third part is porn. The majority of this section is a lengthy biography of Rueben Sturman, the man who singlehandedly created the US porn industry; covering Sturman basicially describes how the porn industry itself got started here. Here’s where Schlosser is more simply informative and isn’t up on his Marxist-Socialist soapbox. It's hard to tell whether Schlosser considers him a victim or a hero; on one hand he developed an important industry, on the other he evaded taxes until an IRS agent finally brought him down. Perhaps he's neither - or both.

Entertaining, on both counts. Unfortunately the porn section didn’t provide any samples…