Fukushima No. 1 engineer’s warning to Taiwan: Nuclear power unstable

[kristopher]

25. "Just go to one of DOE's nuclear weapons facilities"

I don't have to - I worked C^3 where we had nukes. The security is established and practices are In Accordance With the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute under discussion, which is modeled exactly on the statute guiding the DoD.

Let's clarify your position: you wrote:

I stated the guy in the picture REMINDS me of all the ignorant, pinhead, mal-content protestors that have challenged the security at the nuclear weapons facilities.
Those bonehead SHOULD be shot on sight - they are asking for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372#post33

Faced with criticism, you explained:

kristopher, That's the LAW as currently enacted.
If the guards see a person in the "kill zone", then they know the only way to get there is to climb over fences or cut through them as did the nun and her accomplices..i.e. they didn't "accidentally" trespass; they knew exactly what they were doing.
So if someone is in the "kill zone"; they didn't get there by accident. The US Congress enacted law giving the guards at US nuclear weapons facilities the authority to shoot and kill the people who were where they weren't authorized to be.
So no manner how you cut it; the only way that they don't wind up shot is if someone cuts them some slack.
That's what the Y-12 guards did; and the Obama Administration's Dept. of Energy went "nuclear" because the guards didn't shoot.
So I would bet that guards in the future aren't going to be so lax. As I said,they will literally, "shoot first and ask questions later".
PamW

My response was

14. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That is nothing but rightwing armchair warrior kill-fantasy bilge water.
How much time were you in uniform carrying a weapon Greg?

Fortunately caraher took a more constructive approach and and responded to me by providing the text of the law. What follows are caraher's words responding to me.

15. No kidding
I'm looking up the statutes from Pam/Greg/Rude Dog's sign. First up - 10 CFR 1047 on Deadly Force (boldface mine):

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:
(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).
(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.
(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.
Footnote(s):
1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.
(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:
(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.
(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

"DOE Manual 470.4-3" is full of details regarding things like training security forces. It's also not the most recent directive on the subject, but it is the one cited in the sign. I searched for all instances of "deadly force" in the document and found the following relevant passages:

Alternative to Deadly Force. Armed PF personnel must be assigned equipment that provides an alternative (i.e., intermediate force), in the appropriate circumstances, to the use of deadly force (e.g., side-handle or collapsible baton or chemical agents)."

Why assign them such equipment if their mandate is to shoot to kill?

PF officers will use the minimum force necessary under the circumstances to apprehend a suspected criminal.

Appendix A-3 details principles for the rules of engagement guards are to employ. It reiterates the language above:

The purpose of this Appendix is to provide the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) Headquarters and Field Elements guidance in developing the rules of engagement (ROE) for use of deadly force as established in 10 CFR Part 1047.
DOE’s Use of Deadly Force Policy, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 1047, defines the circumstances when deadly force is authorized; i.e., self-defense; serious offenses against persons; theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices, or special nuclear material; and apprehension. It also states, “Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed” (emphasis added). DOE has determined that the concept in the policy of, “or cannot reasonably be employed,” needs further site-specific amplification in the post September 11, 2001, environment. To ensure acceptable protection of critical assets, site specific ROE which define the circumstances, e.g., location, time, and distance at each site when lesser means of force cannot reasonably be employed are needed. These ROE must address the concept of hostile intent as described in this Appendix.

The determination of site-specific ROE must consider the type of materials being protected, site geography, building construction, PF strength and capability, adversarial task times, adversarial characteristics as described in the current DOE Design Basis Threat, and consequences of asset loss. The ROE must clearly state under what conditions the circumstances of hostile intent have been met. Depending on site-specific conditions, the circumstance of hostile intent may be met even if no shots have been fired. Hostile intent may be indicated by the following factors, among others: a single intruder inside a Protected Area, Exclusion Area, and/or Material Access Area; the presence of any number of armed intruders on site; vehicles crashing or failing to stop at a gate; and/or a perceived aerial insertion of any number of intruders by helicopter or other methods.

In other words, the "must shoot to kill" fantasy is, not surprisingly, unsupported by the laws and regulations on the sign. They are a figment of the imagination, not the orders of our Congress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458#post15