Rep.SaludCarbajal
Bipartisan measure led by Reps. Carbajal, Bacon, and Gallagher included in year-end defense policy bill seeks to close gaps identified by independent review of U.S. nuclear systems
Last week, President Joe Biden signed into law language championed by Congressmen Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Don Bacon (NE-02) and Mike Gallagher (WI-08) to strengthen the cybersecurity practices for the United States’ nuclear weapons system.
Reports from the Government Accountability Office published in September 2022 and June 2023 found that the National Nuclear System Administration was delinquent in fully implementing federally-recommended cybersecurity practices.
The legislation first proposed earlier this year and approved today will set up a Cybersecurity Risk Inventory, Assessment, and Mitigation Working Group within the Department of Defense, requiring them to inventory nuclear systems at risk, and develop and implement a strategy for meeting the recommendations of the GAO report.
“There are some causes that may not seem worth Congress’ time at first glance. Closing gaps in the cybersecurity practices of our nation’s nuclear systems is not one of them,” said Rep. Carbajal. “I am glad that this bipartisan proposal received bipartisan support throughout our push for its inclusion this year, and that President Biden has also recognized that our proposal is a straightforward pathway to ensuring we have no reason to doubt the security of our most dangerous weapon systems.”
“Our nuclear forces are the backbone of our Nation’s strategic deterrence,” said Rep. Bacon. “We should put every effort into protecting our nuclear arsenal and be vigilant about cybersecurity risks. I thank Rep. Carbajal for leading this important amendment with me so that we can have confidence in the security of our nuclear weapons.”
“A ready and resilient nuclear force is critical to American deterrence. I am proud to co-sponsor this bipartisan effort to ensure that the systems keeping our nuclear forces capable are cyber secure—free from adversarial interference and prepared for action at all times,” said Rep. Gallagher.
The Working Group would be required to brief the Congress within 120 days of the enactment of the proposed language, and submit a completed strategy to the Armed Services committees by April 1, 2025.
The bipartisan proposal was included as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 (Section 3113).
The amount of I and Me in their statements just shows what the problem with politics is.
I hate people with egos like that.
Self-hate must be a bit of a burden. Is that why you vent here?
SBTONER – so you must really hate Trump! Good to hear!
Also, who do you think Anon is? Curious.
I don’t love the guy but Trump actually does what he says he will do. Tightened border security, restricted VISAs, Farm Bill 2018.
Yeah, the wall was a stupid idea and didn’t happen (thankfully, walls don’t work as history shows) but there was follow through with that administration.
Not a bunch of posturing like Biden and the left with the “WE saw the country through Covid and OUR economy is better than HIS economy was” but still hasn’t fulfilled most of their campaign promises.
To me, it’s common sense that the pandemic slowed the economy. To claim responsibility for the eventual uptick afterwards is just foolish and wishful thinking.
To what comment are you referring? I remember saying it but am not going to dig through the penalty box to find it
But you “hate people with egos” so…..
And do tell, how do these I and Me statements show what is wrong with politics?
“I am glad that this bipartisan proposal received bipartisan support…..”
“I thank Rep. Carbajal for leading this important amendment with me so that we can have confidence in the security of our nuclear weapons.”
“I am proud to co-sponsor this bipartisan effort to ensure that the systems keeping our nuclear forces capable are cyber secure—free from adversarial interference and prepared for action at all times,”
Yeah, what unbridled hubris and arrogance to display pride in working on a bipartisan effort to secure OUR nation.
Seems like you ran out of things to rant about so you pulled the same old “boo Salud” card that your pals here do every time he does anything, even if its a bipartisan security deal.
Sac – In my opinion they are all just selling their brand.
“I am proud…” “leading this important amendment with ME”
It’s like they fear that you forget who your politicians are and what THEY have accomplished, but who is it that actually rolls the ball? Voters.
While you, Sac, like to instigate by restarting days-old conversations. I know, I know, if I don’t like it, don’t read it. But edhat was like an online living room for a while. I too have been reading it for at least 14 years. That’s why all the contention is irksome to me, but I’m detaching from it — both edhat and its annoyances.
P.S. I usually agree with you. But I know that all this arguing is purposeless.
Did you see the article I posted about the status of The Ellwood (old BeachSide)?
YIN – I’ve been here just as long. Questioning rude, racist, homophobic, insulting or otherwise objectionable comments is not contentious to me, it is incumbent. Hate and cruelty have no place in our society and I’ll never stop calling people out for it, nor will I apologize for doing so, regardless of how irksome it might be.
On a lighter note though, I did see the article about The Ellwood and was actually looking at that today. I tried to see if there is a menu as I’d be curious to see how it compares. Definitely looking forward to having a cocktail and a meal there sometime soon!
Also, you mentioned in another thread something about coding for italics? Is there a way to do it here?
I appreciate your thoughts, I do. 🙂
Forgot to answer re: text formatting. I’m not sure if it’s supported. I don’t use it as I always forget or mistype it. I just use asterisks or caps.
I’ve really appreciated this chat. The only board I was previously a member of (a food board) had a private message feature. I do hope this conversation is left up.
@Yin yang – I agree with you. The constant arguing is annoying. Although.. this is not an issue unique to Edhat. Remember other local media stopped offering this service years ago. Since 2016, hate speech and divisive rhetoric online increased exponentially. To me it seems like the sites who have survived this either banned specific topics from discussion altogether or the strong community of the site band together to essentially runoff the disruptors/trolls/etc. I don’t see the shutting down of topics being viable for Edhat (since any topic can be divisive) and it limits my personal view of free and fair discussions. In my opinion the best option is for readers to band together. Readers like you and me, and countless others who read Edhat daily seem to have grown weary of the extreme weirdos on virtually every platform shouting their squeaky wheel of nonsense so we don’t have the mental energy to combat their misinformation with facts. But sac does. And while I don’t agree with how you go about it, I applaud the effort. If all of us readers band together to say “nope, that’s wrong” and “no that’s not factual” and “yes ma’am that is racist,” then the minority agitators will move on. Perhaps in this new year, we start to speak up a little more and keep this gem of a site running the way it was intended. To be a true voice for the community.
/ mic drop /
Now time for bed. Goodnight all.
I appreciate your say!
So many words when just a few letters would suffice:
WAAAAAHHHH!!!