Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Soviets Built a Doomsday Machine; It's Still Alive

Posted by kdawson on from the dead-hand dept.

An anonymous reader points out a story in Wired introducing us to the Doomsday Machine built by the Soviet Union in the 1980s — and that remains active to this day. It was called "Perimeter." The article explains why the device was built, and why the Soviets considered it to be something that kept the peace, even though they never told the US about it. "[Reagan's] strategy worked. Moscow soon believed the new US leadership really was ready to fight a nuclear war. But the Soviets also became convinced that the US was now willing to start a nuclear war. ... A few months later, Reagan... announced that the US was going to develop a shield of lasers and nuclear weapons in space to defend against Soviet warheads. ... To Moscow it was the Death Star — and it confirmed that the US was planning an attack. ... By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, [an informant] says, was 'to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished.'"

3 of 638 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Doomsday Machine by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So the whole "Doomsday Machine" thing was an automated system based on ground sensors to launch the missiles in case US attacks.

    On the first page it explains all the conditions that must be met for this thing to go off. They include:

    1. Enabled by military
    2. No contact from headquarters
    3. Detected nuclear detonation
    4. Button press by guy in bunker

    It's not automated. All it does it make sure someone is always able to fire the nukes, no matter which parts of the country get bombed. If the US detonated some new bomb that removed all human life within Russian borders, down to 500 miles underground, this system wouldn't be able to launch because the guy with his finger on the button would have been vaporized.

    Actually the idea in the article that it was to keep the USSR generals and stuff from doing stupid things like launching first attacks because it would make sure they could always strike back was quite interesting.

    At this point, the thing that would worry me most is that it's sounds like it's targeted at the US. So if some group in Afghanistan decides to take revenge for their war 2-3 decades ago (or N.K. attacks to prove they're cool, or...), then if this system enables the button the terrified guy at the button can fire back in defense... which would promptly attack the US because in panic he didn't realize that was who this was designed to defend against.

    The article says there is a checklist he is supposed to follow too, but that's not a big comfort.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  2. That makes at least two... by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I got news for you...while I will not go into any more detail than this, while I was in the Air Force I worked on a system for three years for the Strategic Air Command that would automatically launch all of our ICBMs if the chain of command was ever knocked out. As far as I know that system or its successor is still operational (I've been out of the military for 29 years). I am always amazed that the world has managed to avoid a nuclear war...

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:That makes at least two... by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I got news for you...while I will not go into any more detail than this, while I was in the Air Force I worked on a system for three years for the Strategic Air Command that would automatically launch all of our ICBMs if the chain of command was ever knocked out.

      Of course you won't go into details - because the system you described never existed. It sounds more like you're confused (very confused) about how ABNCP/TACAMO or the ERCS worked.
       
      In fact, US policy was to keep man-in-the-loop to the lowest operational levels possible in order to prevent a 'Dead Hand' scenario. Strategic policy (implicit from the 60's and explicit from the 80's) was to prepare for nuclear war fighting, not 'wargasm'. Furthermore, it was US policy was to publicize such things - because (as TFA correctly points out) deterrence doesn't work if the other side doesn't know its supposed to be deterred.
       
       

      I am always amazed that the world has managed to avoid a nuclear war.

      Many people not familiar with either the psychology of deterrence or with how the systems worked are so amazed.