We’ve witnessed what can only be described as how NOT to handle sensitive government technology and communications.

The installation of Starlink at the White House and the sloppy inclusion of a journalist in Signal chat for military strike planning represent a dangerous rejection of established safety protocols by those who apparently believe they are above the law and therefore untouchable.

Chernobyl Brain: Rules Are For Others

The Chernobyl disaster offers a powerful analogy for our current situation. What made that catastrophe so devastating wasn’t merely technical failure, but the Soviet organizational culture that enabled it: the casual bypassing of safety protocols, the dismissal of expert warnings, and the reckless improvisation during a sensitive procedure, all stemming from a Hegseth-like belief that catastrophic consequences simply wouldn’t apply to them.

When national security officials coordinate military strikes via a consumer device with a consumer OS and a consumer app on a consumer network, we’re witnessing a similar disregard for established protocols. The Germans recently learned this, as if anyone needs to be reminded the Russians are always listening to everything.

Just as Chernobyl operators manually overrode safety systems with a “we know better” attitude, today’s officials override digital safeguards by moving classified communications to platforms never designed for such use.

The most chilling parallel? The apparent belief that they are exempt from consequences. As Jeffrey Goldberg’s shocking report revealed, defense officials shared operational details, target information, and weapons packages WITHOUT OPSEC, likely and knowingly violating the Espionage Act in the process. When confronted about this breach, the official response demonstrated true Chernobyl Brain: “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”

Uh, what?

This response echoes the initial Chernobyl reaction: nothing to see here during symptoms of meltdown; the system is still functioning; no real harm done. It reflects a worldview where security breaches are inconsequential as long as nothing immediately explodes, a very dangerous miscalculation of accumulating risk.

Titanic Legs: Unsinkable Hubris

The Titanic’s tragedy stemmed largely from a belief in its own invulnerability. Its operators ignored iceberg warnings and maintained speed in dangerous conditions, confident in their “unsinkable” vessel. The casualties were considered an acceptable risk – until they weren’t.

This same hubris manifests in the White House’s technology decisions. The casual implementation of Starlink, described by experts as “shadow IT, creating a network to bypass existing controls” shows misplaced confidence that borders on deadly arrogance. Even more telling is the bizarre implementation: Starlink dishes installed miles away from the White House, with the connection routed back through existing (tapped) fiber lines.

Why take this approach? Because they can create exposure and weakness for the Russians to exploit. Because consequences are flaunted. Because the rules that govern everyone, including federal records laws, classified communication protocols, and basic security principles, are treated as inconvenient obstacles to be challenged and ignored rather than essential safeguards.

When pressed about the inadequate Starlink safety a White House source dismissively explained that “the old was trash” as if an outrage of personal convenience justifies creating national security vulnerabilities. This mirrors the Titanic’s rejection of caution in favor of speed… right to the bottom of the ocean.

Consequences For Thee, Not For Me

What makes these security breaches particularly troubling is the clear double standards at play. The administration that campaigned on “lock her up” regarding weak communication protocols now coordinates military strikes via weak communication protocols. The same officials who emphasize borders for safety, routinely remove all the borders in technology.

This goes beyond carelessness because backed by the belief that consequences are for others. When the White House spokesperson defends the Starlink implementation by saying, “Just like the [insert any random name] did on numerous occasions, the White House is working to improve WiFi connectivity on the complex,” the message is clear: words have no meaning anymore because rules are no longer for those in power.

Improve?

The installation of parallel wireless systems creates security blind spots, monitoring gaps, and potential backdoors into sensitive networks. The use of commercial messaging apps on weak infrastructure for classified communications exposes operational details to potential interception. And most notable of all we have absolute proof the White House accepts lip service from Hegseth, when he’s obviously in breach of laws. Yet the attitude persists: we are untouchable; the damage to Americans won’t affect us when we move like Snowden to an apartment in Moscow.

From Recklessness to Disaster

Both Chernobyl and the Titanic demonstrate how quickly perceived invulnerability transforms into catastrophe. In both cases, the disaster wasn’t a bolt from the blue – it was the logical conclusion of accumulated shortcuts, ignored warnings, and systemic arrogance.

When officials treat national security infrastructure like a pig pen where established rules don’t apply to their mud slinging, they aren’t simply being careless, they’re setting the stage for predictable disaster. The accidental inclusion of a journalist in military planning didn’t lead to immediate catastrophe, thanks to the professionalism of that journalist, but it revealed a system where such accidents are not only possible but probable.

As one security expert noted regarding the Starlink implementation: “This is extra stupid to go satellite to fiber to actual site.” This isn’t the language of political disagreement, it’s the exasperation of true professionals watching rank muddy amateurs dismantle critical safeguards because they believe themselves immune to consequences.

Inevitable Reckoning

History teaches us that no one is truly untouchable, no matter how much they believe otherwise. The Titanic’s “unsinkable” reputation didn’t prevent it from sinking. Chernobyl’s operators’ confidence didn’t prevent catastrophic fallout.

The current approach to national security technology in bypassing established systems, ignoring expert warnings, and treating classified information casually, isn’t sustainable for another minute. These aren’t merely political choices; they’re fundamental security vulnerabilities that accumulate and worsen with time. Ask me about quantum threats in Signal.

When the inevitable breach occurs, when classified information is compromised (if not already), when military operations are exposed, when critical systems are penetrated, the consequences won’t be limited to those who created the vulnerabilities. Like Chernobyl’s radiation or the Titanic’s icy waters, the damage will spread far beyond those responsible.

Until the American people understand that no one is truly untouchable when it comes to security fundamentals, we remain on a collision course with consequences that no amount of privilege or power can deflect.