Slashdot Mirror


Launch Command Preserved In Power Failure, But Nuclear Designs Still Risky

With a follow-up to Tuesday's story, Martin Hellman writes "Slashdot reported that a system failure at Warren AFB in Wyoming affected 50 ICBMs and that 'various security protocols built into the missile delivery system, like intrusion alarms and warhead separation alarms, were offline.' Assuaging fears that America's nuclear deterrent might have been compromised during this failure, the source article notes that the missiles still could be launched from airborne command centers. Other reports cite an administration official offering assurances that 'at no time did the president's ability [to launch] decrease.' Given the difficulty of debugging software and hardware that is probably not a good thing. The history of nuclear command and control systems has too many examples of risky designs that favor the ability to launch over the danger of an accidental one."

28 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Why have them by baresi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exaggerated threats from relatively weak entities. Questionable need in 1950 never mind 2010.

    --
    RGdot.com
    1. Re:Why have them by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't apply here. The difference is that there's no plausible reason why a rock would repel tigers. Especially since I'm assuming you aren't in a place where tigers are likely to come.

      The point of nuclear weapons is to deter conflicts on the scale of the world wars from ever happening again, and so far they've done that admirably. They were never intended for the purpose of dealing with smaller scale outbreaks of violence even ones as large as the Iraq war.

    2. Re:Why have them by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, nuclear ICBMs weren't, but we certainly did have programs to develop tactical nukes and even backpack bombs. But we decided for various reasons that we shouldn't be using nukes on that scale, and should just use them for when we have no alternatives and need the massive effect for which they are the only tool, and because they are a very thorough deterrent.

    3. Re:Why have them by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Before nukes, you had tigers. After nukes, a hell of a lot less tigers. For those who aren't keen on link clicking, the first link shows a map of 18 countries annexed by the USSR prior to 1948. There's also North Korea (1945) and China (1949) though only the former had direct USSR military involvement. Since then, the USSR has only directly invaded one country, Afghanistan, that wasn't already occupied by it.

      The presence of considerable nuclear weapons do a great job of explaining this sudden change in tactics by the USSR.

    4. Re:Why have them by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      They were never intended for the purpose of dealing with smaller scale outbreaks of violence even ones as large as the Iraq war.

      Actually they were. It was later decided that this class of weapon countered MAD politics and may actually encourage wide spread use of larger nuclear devices. In turn, these weapons provided limited tactical value, not to mention a long list of logistical and security issues. As such, such weapon programs ceased to be.

    5. Re:Why have them by Peeteriz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nukes would definitely still be used for tactical purposes in any large-scale military conflict (which hasn't happened for quite a long time). NATO vs Russia, Russia vs China, China vs USA, India vs Pakistan, China vs India - if any of these pairs got into full-scale conflict, then definitely any tight grouping of 100.000+ soldiers+armor should fear a nuclear warhead, and such groupings would be inevitable.

    6. Re:Why have them by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Expect some bad mods for being right. Everyone likes to pretend that the Cold War didn't happen, and most of the people with the strongest opinions didn't live during it, have never served in the military or had relatives that did during the Cold War. Plenty of mistakes have been made along the way (Vietnam for starters), but having a strong military and nuclear deterrent since WWII wasn't one of them.

      While I understand why, most people under 30 don't fully appreciate the threat of the USSR after WWII as they are fortunate enough to not have lived under it. Ironically, the reason they haven't lived under that threat is due to what some are complaining about to begin with.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    7. Re:Why have them by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Informative

      then definitely any tight grouping of 100.000+ soldiers+armor should fear a nuclear warhead, and such groupings would be inevitable.

      Wrong answer. No military is going to group 100k soldiers in an area that can taken out by a single warhead, and never would have. Ever. Even in WWII we were only able to kill 100k people by striking civilians. This is the whole reason you have multiple military bases, to distribute you capabilities and make it impossible for an enemy to take out a significant portion with a single strike. With the exception of training bases, military posts generally have less than 10k people, and often less than 5k people stationed there, for this exact reason. The remainder of the work force on a base are civilians.

      And you won't see tactical nuclear weapons being used in the field likely ever, as that is the invisible line in the sand that would justify the enemy using nukes, perhaps on civilian targets. And there is no justification for using them against an enemy without nuclear capability. If an enemy used tactical nukes on us, we would still use them as a strategic weapon in retaliation, against fixed targets, not mobile troops. Even though we have them, tactical nuclear weapons make no sense, as they are solely a deterrent, a strategic weapon. Perhaps this is why they were all under SAC (Strategic Air Command) and not TAC (Tactical Air Command) during the Cold War, including all ICBMs (obviously excepting navel based warheads under the Nuclear Triad philosophy: Bombers, ICBMs, Submarines)

      So, such groupings are not only NOT inevitable, they are highly unlikely as there is no tactical or strategic advantage to such a grouping, and tremendous risks.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Why have them by pnewhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since then, the USSR has only directly invaded one country, Afghanistan, that wasn't already occupied by it.

      And how about the countries the US has invaded and the DOZENS of countries where the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders and put puppet governments in their place?

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    9. Re:Why have them by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the US launched an all-out strategic attack on an opponent

      China? Russia? What do you think the odds are that we would be doing a First Strike against any nuclear power? Correct answer: Zero, nada, zip. This means they would be used as a second strike, which is by definition, strategic positioning of weaponry, and the founding idea behind the Nuclear Triad. They wouldn't be bombing boots on the ground in China, too much chance for collateral damage, and the real goodies aren't even the soldiers (which can be handily taken care of with conventional weapons.) The real goodies are infrastructure. If the shit were literally to hit the fan and you have to second strike (as I discount ALL possibilities of a first strike by the US), you nuke dams, power plants, nuclear facilities, military installations, and maybe even factories and shipyards. Yes, soldiers would die, but the real target is infrastructure. If China landed troops on the west coast, tactical nuclear wouldn't be an option except as a hail mary. You don't piss in your own chili that way.

      While the Geneva Convention is against it, the most effective way is to nuke rice patties making them unusable for years, literally starving the troops. Same reason for bombing dams, to destroy the ability to feed themselves as arable land is now flooded with radiation and washed away in the resulting flood. Then, I'm not exactly a huge fan of the idea of "rules" of war. Seems pointless since one side always ignores, and the other side always cheats when they can. If you notice, every war since all the rules have been put in place has been a long slogging battle with more death than would be possible if the rules were ignored (Korea, still ongoing, Vietnam, lost, middle east, etc.) And yes, I am aware that I am in the minority on that point, which doesn't negate the truth of the matter.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    10. Re:Why have them by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      obviously excepting navel based warheads

      Yo momma so fat, they use her belly button as a missile silo.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Why have them by BornAgainSlakr · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, have you never read this, or were you being ironic with your signature?

      --
      IANYL, IANAL, TINLA, IANAMD, IANAP, ...
  2. Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit wasn't by RichMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So a previous president lost the biscuit for months at a time. That is the president would have been unable to authenticate to military command that he was giving a launch order. Why was that not considered a problem? When 50 missiles going into a still usable but wacky state is?

  3. Risky!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's "Risky." You need to know it's STILL RISKY. Risk we say!

    Be worried. Because their is risk. Don't think about the security those nooks have provided since WW2; there was and is absolutely no "risk" that another world wide conflagration might have or will happen without those risky missiles. But those nooks! The nooks are RiSkY you fool. RISKY. Don't worry about the risk to medical capabilities in the US as we legislate someones' idea of justice into medicine, either. No risk there at all. Running up 10% of our GDP as debt every year is also clearly risk free. So you just keep worrying about the nooks! They are Risky!

    1. Re:Risky!! by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what was the reason for all this? Simple ignorance. If we had actually talked with Russia which basically saved the West's asses from Hitler and included them with our projects, sharing intelligence and the like and had closer American-Russian ties perhaps we could have avoided the entire cold war. Perhaps with the opening of relations between the two countries conditions would be better for the Russians and Americans alike.

      Our current diplomatic process will lead to another war like this, only the leaders of both countries might not be sane enough to avoid nuclear war next time.

      Neither Russia nor the US wanted anything from the other country other than safety. If we had avoided mutual suspicion at the end of WWII and had closer ties, perhaps both nations could have prospered and accomplished much rather than simply building more bombs.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Risky!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't know much about Joesph Stalin, do you?

    3. Re:Risky!! by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what was the reason for all this? Simple ignorance. If we had actually talked with Russia which basically saved the West's asses from Hitler and included them with our projects, sharing intelligence and the like and had closer American-Russian ties perhaps we could have avoided the entire cold war. Perhaps with the opening of relations between the two countries conditions would be better for the Russians and Americans alike.

      Riiiiggghht... it was all a misunderstanding; Stalin was actually a nice, reasonable guy beneath that genocidal exterior and would have been a walk in the park to reason with.

  4. Re:Was this not the whole point? by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or at least, I hope they run good protection software.

    Like ... Search and Destroy. Or Avast! Nothing like pirates for protecting nuclear warheads.

    [note: this was an attempt at comedy.]

  5. Re:So, why didn't it happen the way we've been tol by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

    So why aren't we sitting in a post-apocalyptic wasteland right now?

    Have you been to Detroit recently?

  6. Canard. by blair1q · · Score: 4, Informative

    "risky designs that favor the ability to launch"

    There are multiple safeguards built into the system that have to be released in order to launch even one missile. None of the safeguards are coupled, meaning that there is no cascading effect. Each one has different inputs and a different means to activate it.

    One of the simplest is that it takes the near-simultaneous activation of two mechanical, key-locked switches to send the fire command to the missile, and these are separated by enough distance that one person can't do it alone. And it only gets to that point after a number of other manual steps have been taken to prep the launch.

    Even the President's order is not sufficient to start everything rolling. The people in charge of monitoring the threat systems go to him to ask for authorization. He doesn't go to them - they'd never believe him if he did, since there's no way he'd know there was a threat. And they don't make their decision lightly.

    At the point where it's necessary to launch a nuke, it will be blindingly clear to everyone that we should have made the process simpler, not that it is too simple.

    1. Re:Canard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      At the point where it's necessary to launch a nuke,

      And that time is now! We must preserve the purity and essence of our natural fluids. How can anyone not understand this?

    2. Re:Canard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the simplest is that it takes the near-simultaneous activation of two mechanical, key-locked switches to send the fire command to the missile, and these are separated by enough distance that one person can't do it alone. And it only gets to that point after a number of other manual steps have been taken to prep the launch.

      Not only that, with Minuteman systems a key turn by both the commander and deputy in a launch control center doesn't directly launch the 10 missiles they are in charge of; instead their key turns are registered as a launch "vote" within their squadron. The 50 missiles in the squadron do not actually receive the launch command until at least two of the five launch control centers in the squadron submit launch votes within a second or two of each other. This both prevents any of the launch control centers from individually launching their flight of missiles and allows for all enabled missiles in the squadron to be launched by just two launch control centers if the others are put out of action.

    3. Re:Canard. by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where is it incorrect?

      You need the POTUS and SECDEF concurring. SECDEF is the one who tells POTUS we're under attack. If POTUS went to SECDEF and said "launch a nuke", SECDEF would look at POTUS and go "what the fuck?"

      There's also the matter of illegal orders. The military personnel all the way down the chain to the jolly, candy-like buttons are responsible for knowing that what they are doing is not illegal, and for refusing to do it if it is.

      If we're not under attack, or Congress has not authorized war, tossing nukes at other nations - or our own - is murder, hence illegal.

      If we are under attack, or there is reason to go to war, everyone in the chain will know it and be in place to carry out their mission by the time POTUS is asked by SECDEF to authorize it.

      We're not going to wake up some morning to find that we've nuked Canada because the Commander in Chief was sleep-talking in nuclear authorization codes to an evil Secretary of Defense.

  7. Re:Was this not the whole point? by epine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ah, the evolution of language. In 1,278,698 I.D. use of the shift key diminished, but the point made was not lost on even the lowly four and five diggers.

    It's true: the M.A.D. doctrine (by which I mean M.A.D in newspeak) inverts the risk profile of the launch-fail condition. Deterrence is like that. In oldspeak, as we used to say, "when the cat's away the mice will play". No, those strange symbols are not mouse-whisker emoticons. We used to call them delimiters, back when both ends of a sentence had one, even though not of the same kind. Yeah, it was kinda weird, now that I think about it. But it grows on you after 40,000 hours of reading 600 wpm. You get used to it, ya know?

    Too bad we only have negative evidence that M.A.D. actually worked in the first place.

  8. Re:Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit was by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clinton never lost the biscuit. Did you see his waistline? ;-)

    Seriously though, Clinton didn't lose anything, his aide lost the codes but not the football itself (guess I'm assuming there's more to the football than just a folder of codes). The aide then covered that fact up for months before anyone checking on him bothered to do more than take his word for it.

    But Clinton was in no way involved in the loss or cover up of the situation.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  9. Citation needed by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the summary: The history of nuclear command and control systems has too many examples of risky designs that favor the ability to launch over the danger of an accidental one.

    [[Citation Needed]]

    Seriously - because the claim quoted above is not supported in either of the linked articles. In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw. (A difference roughly as subtle as a baseball bat upside the head - and that the writers are unaware of this is a sure and certain sign they aren't qualified to write on the topic.)

    The writer of the article cited above further compounds his error by using a situation from over three decades ago as 'proof' that a problem exists today - a situation which his own quote shows to no longer exist.

    1. Re:Citation needed by winwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw."

      If so, then the distinction between an operational flaw and a design flaw is a distinction without a difference. Or at least one without significance. If a system designed to prevent something from happening can be easily subverted when implemented as designed then it has a huge design flaw. It assumed (and required) that basic security practices would be followed (unique combinations). If this was not followed, it was worthless. This was by design.

  10. Re:Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit was by slick7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The president losing the launch codes is a little harder for the reds to exploit then possibly a systematic failure

    Unless it was the reds that "founf" the biscuit. They don't actually have to use it, all they have to do is put it into play. The time necessary to disregard, authenticate a new code is longer than a missle launch. Which is why the US nuclear threat is three pronged, land, sea, and air. The only missles that do not need a Permissive Action Link are sea launched, surface or sub-surface.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.