Nuclear Weapons Create Their Own Security Codes With Radiation

Zothecula writes "Nuclear weapons are a paradox. No one in their right mind wants to use one, but if they're to act as a deterrent, they need to be accessible. The trick is to make sure that access is only available to those with the proper authority. To prevent a real life General Jack D Ripper from starting World War III, Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) Defense Technologies Division is developing a system that uses a nuclear weapon's own radiation to protect itself from tampering.

Comments

This is the voice of world control.

[mythosaz]

I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Love it, but a nuclear warhead going off in a silo, especially where the United States and the old Soviet Union put most silos, is a meh.

It'll do a lot of damage to the silo. It will kill the people in the silo. It *might* poison the groundwater for a couple of miles radius. But that's it.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[i kan reed]

"Do a lot of damage" is a funny way to phrase "Completely destroy"

Nuclear explosions are big. Really damn big. Have you looked at footage of underground nuclear tests?

This was a tiny little 1.2 kiloton bomb under 60 feet of packed soil. Silos aren't packed soil, and though the details are classified, I believe most bombs on ICBMs are somewhere in the megatonish range.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[wonkey_monkey]

I bring you peace.

It's bringing peace! Don't let it get away!

Break its legs!

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

And?

The silos are reinforced concrete, in a remote, protected area.

If it makes a huge hole in the ground, very few people will be impacted.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[i kan reed]

Oh, but it'll blow the fuck out of that silo. Regardless, we're talking about a substantial fallout cloud.

Not that it'll mean the end of the world as we know it, but Marxist Hacker 42 was definitely engaged in some understatement.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

but a nuclear warhead going off in a silo, especially where the United States and the old Soviet Union put most silos, is a meh.

Don't worry. Plenty of nuclear weapons floating around, on radio silence, and at a whim of basically 2 people on whether to launch or not, bringing an end to our civilization. Then again, we should worry about some nuts with a funny hat because they have a black flag?

That's right, rationality and humanity tend to mix as readily as oil and water.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[crypticedge]

Silos are a special reinforced concrete designed to withstand anything except a direct hit, and a direct hit wouldn't obliterate it. An in silo detention wouldn't be as bad as you think, but it wouldn't be pretty.

I'd go into more detail if I could, but you know, state secrets and all.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[TWX]

I'll have to give the Youtube link a try when I get home. Only time I saw the film it was on a multigeneration VHS tape, so who knows how awful it looked compared to its initial release...

There's a whole series of books starting with this one too, been meaning to read 'em.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Jawnn]

Cool! I was immediately thinking of Dr. Forbin's misadventure when I read the summary. Yeah, so what could possibly go wrong with letting the machines take more of role in securing themselves from "unauthorized access"?

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[LWATCDR]

Or in a sub in the UK or France maybe.
Who cares?

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[xaotikdesigns]

Pretty sure that silos are designed to minimize the fallout and such from an explosion. In fact, underground detonations typically have less fallout since not as much material makes it into the atmosphere.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

Colossus' point was not to kill, but to prove it has complete and total control over everything. Blowing up a missile silo signified control to the point where the typically impossible is possible. Thus proving to the humans that they must obey or they will be forced to obey, while showing Colossus can be kind and gentle when making its point.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[davester666]

I believe a nuclear weapon exploding inside a silo counts as "a direct hit".

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[morgauxo]

Even if the silo completely contained the blast and all fallout (unlikely) doing this would be a HUGE statement. If someone could cause the warheads to go off in the silo what else can they do? Can they launch the missiles? Can they target them? What if they took sides, they could destroy all of one side's warheads giving the other side complete power.

This would definitely get someone's attention.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Bengie]

A direct hit from above is one thing, a direct hit from the inside is another. The difference between a firecracker going off on the palm of your hand compared to a clenched fist.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Aighearach]

Yeah, the Russians even used them for underground construction, for storing natural gas, etc. It didn't work well overall, but the part of blowing a big hole underground that doesn't disturb the surface, that part worked pretty well.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[mirix]

The US had a similar program, but it never got as much use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

We need an detergent!!
Or was it an deterrent?

I'm confused...

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

A nuclear orderly detonation of the weapon inside the silo will not be contained, do not for a stupid minute think that is the case. It may or may not contain the blast of just the rocket propellent itself. A nuclear detonation will shoot a stream of material kilometers into the sky.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Freshly Exhumed]

Poor Dr. Forbin's descent was chronicled in a decades-long series of documentaries in which he became a psychopath and changed his name to Victor.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[xaotikdesigns]

Difference between internal and external pressures and how the forces are channeled. There is a big difference between how they would react.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Artifakt]

You left out his tragic end, drowning after his cruise ship hit an iceberg, and being replaced by his clone, Victor 2. Plus, if I recall correctly, there's some other monkey business in Dr. Forbin's sad history.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[CrimsonAvenger]

though the details are classified, I believe most bombs on ICBMs are somewhere in the megatonish range.

Try MIRV's in the 50-100 kt range.

The only MT range bombs we've ever put on ICBMs were the 5MT (reportedly) bombs on the Titans, which were decommissioned decades ago.

No comments about Soviet/Russian or Chinese or British or French weapons.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[BarefootClown]

"Do a lot of damage" is a funny way to phrase "Completely destroy"

Nuclear explosions are big. Really damn big. Have you looked at footage of underground nuclear tests?

This was a tiny little 1.2 kiloton bomb under 60 feet of packed soil. Silos aren't packed soil, and though the details are classified, I believe most bombs on ICBMs are somewhere in the megatonish range.

As pointed out elsewhere, silos are heavily-reinforced concrete. You'd have a gun barrel effect directing the blast straight up.

Further, the typical warhead on an American Peacemaker ICBM is a 300kt W87. Granted, there may be up to ten of them, but unless they exploded simultaneously, the detonation would destroy the other nine.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Megol]

As nuclear weapon constructors aren't stupid per definition all active weapons shouldn't be too big - it would just be a waste of plutonium.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[davester666]

whoosh and are the silos designed with an in-situ nuclear detonation? probably not.

Re: This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US no longer deploys MIRVed ICBMs. (SLBMs are another story.)

And Titan II missiles were armed with 9MT warheads.

Re: This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

The last Peacekeeper was dismantled almost 10 years ago.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[wampus]

Well, since this is slashdot we may as well assume that the people who designed the things completely overlooked the obvious.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[BoogieChile]

don't bother - it's a 1 1/2 hour stretch of various MPAA screens with a link to some sort of website where you sign up for a "FREE!!"* account that lets you stream movies *May include trojans, spamware, phishing and any other kind of malware we can shove down the pipe at you

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[mirix]

land based MIRVs were banned with START-II from early 90s.

Scratch that, I guess it never went into effect and Russia still has some, though the US did get rid of theirs. Doesn't make much difference as the US still uses them on sub launched stuff anyway.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[fnj]

As pointed out elsewhere, silos are heavily-reinforced concrete. You'd have a gun barrel effect directing the blast straight up.

Are you high? All the energy of a nuclear explosion is released within one microsecond. Matter does not have a chance to be displaced in one microsecond. For a 125 kT subterranean burst in solid rock, the melted cavity will be 40 to 120 meters in diameter. The crush zone will be 150 to 200 meters in diameter. To be contained, the blast would have to originate beneath 500 meters of rock. A Minuteman missile is less than 20 meters high. Your silo is not much deeper than the length of the missile; 25-30 meters at the most; and furthermore the warhead is at the top.

The lid of that silo is either going to be vaporized or ejected very quickly, but it's not going to prevent the vaporization and melting of the concrete walls, which might as well be tissue paper, and a bunch of the surrounding rock or soil, and then many tons of that radioactive material are going to blow into the atmosphere.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[arglebargle_xiv]

a nuclear warhead going off in a silo, especially where the United States and the old Soviet Union put most silos, is a meh.

It's not a meh, it's a myth. The physics package can only be triggered after a fairly complex set of conditions have been fulfilled, starting with launch authorisation, a period of high acceleration, a period of zero-G (long enough for the warhead to have moved outside the continental US), re-entry heat, and so on. And unlike any number of Hollywood movies, this isn't something you can bypass by uploading a hotfix, it's fixed-function stuff that can't be changed.

Another thing about these gee-whiz national-lab designs is that they've been coming up with them since the 1980s (and probably earlier than that, I wasn't around then). None of them ever get used. They eventually find their way into civilian applications (things like MEMs, PUFs) years or even decades after the national labs come up with them, but they're never used for arms control due to a mix of massive inertia, difficulty in turning a proof-of-concept into a fieldable item, and the fact that deploying them typically requires renegotiating international treaties.

(This is a very abbreviated description of something that'd take a book to cover).

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[dbIII]

Loved that movie.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[dbIII]

Why are you sure about that? Wouldn't such a criteria of having the missiles deep enough to minimize fallout make them very difficult to launch?
It's a bit different to an underground test with a single very deep hole and no need to fire a rocket from the bottom of it.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[dbIII]

That assumes there's still a pit to work as a gun barrel. The fireball radius is likely to be greater than the depth of the pit, so you'd have a crater possibly in nanoseconds.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Anonymous Coward]

calm down, it's mr. Burns!

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[AK Marc]

No, we assume they knew about it, but middle management said "that'll never happen, just protect it from outside threats." Our experience with middle management is that they have the obvious pointed out to them, and they dismiss it, then order the opposite be done.

Re:This is the voice of world control.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

by do a lot of damage, I mean completely collapse it. Most nuclear silos though are a hell of a lot deeper than 60 feet, and are built out of reinforced concrete, not packed earth.

Yes, cold war was great

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have another one.

Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a fancy internal tamper-evident seal for the benefit of the weapon to check itself. If you've got the skills and equipment to be taking one of these apart in the first place, I don't think this is going to stop you from grabbing the fissile material and reimplementing the rest minus the tamper-evident shit. The fissile material is the hardest thing to get in the first place--and the rest is peanuts. I'm sure Iran can mount an angle grinder on a robotic arm. I'd like to see cryptography stop that.

If you don't have that level of skill, this isn't going to stop someone from faking the authorization to launch, since they can obviously get that far. That's not what this is intended to do. This invention is intended to disable all the other active components if one of them is modified or replaced.

Re:Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

Like you've ever fucking detonated a nuke. It's not as simple as just getting enough of it all in the same place (unless you have plutonium. And where the fuck did you get plutonium?)

Re:Tamper Evident

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It might not be much of a win for occupational safety and health; but a nuclear warhead does have a substantial chunk of conventional explosives built into it, which could be used to express displeasure at attempted tampering a bit more vehemently than bombs do today. Still not 100% foolproof; but raises the odds a bit.

What I would be curious to know about this radiation 'fingerprinting' is whether it can resist DoS attacks where beam sources, distributed radioactive dust/liquid or other means are used to push the sensors out of the 'correct' range of values and cause the PAL to fail safe.

Re:Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're fucking with these things, you clearly have the skills and experience to rebuild the rest of the nuke. The principles are well known, and you're going to have a few nuclear physicists on your payroll anyway. The target would be the fissile material. That's the only piece that's really well and truly difficult to acquire. Why the fuck else would you go after a nuclear weapon?

Lemme put it this way: if you can break in to play with the thing in the first fucking place, you can apply the rubber hose. It's at least as well guarded as the POTUS. Might as well grab the football too. If you don't want to go that route, you've probably got the technical talent on staff (see Iran, N. Korea) to rebuild the rest of the bloody thing and fissile material is the limiting factor--not explosive lenses.

It doesn't matter if *I* can do it. Do I look like a nation-state with access to nuclear physicists and special forces, which are the bare minimum to play with this stuff?

Re:Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

They are designed to miss-fire on purpose upon tamper-detection.

That means it actually does fire, but without doing it "properly".

This ruins the fuel and the weapon making it no longer reusable for another bomb. It detonates in such a way that the fuel does change chemical structure but not in the way that produces an actual large explosion.

Re:Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

Orly? And how would you know that? It didn't seem to be in TFA. Or are you talking out of your ass?

Re:Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

I can't speak for the other AC but I found out about PALs through a google search for "W88 Tamper Security".

Re:Tamper Evident

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay though: the password is set to "00000000". That's at least as secure as my luggage! Source:http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

Re:Tamper Evident

[psycho12345]

I don't know how much the parent knows, but it is known that various elements, either added or part of a nuclear reaction will "poison" it and absorb neutrons, limiting or completing killing the chain reaction. So I imagine if you contaminate the fissile material with such elements, it will make a chain reaction/detonation not possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison/

Re:Tamper Evident

[lgw]

It might not be much of a win for occupational safety and health; but a nuclear warhead does have a substantial chunk of conventional explosives built into it, which could be used to express displeasure at attempted tampering a bit more vehemently than bombs do today. Still not 100% foolproof; but raises the odds a bit.

Rest assured, this is an idea that has occurred to silo/missile designers. I used to work with a guy who was an officer for a nuke base in his prior career. He didn't go into detail, of course, but he mentioned a couple of times that silo nukes were a step beyond merely "tamper resistant", and that messing with one would not be a good life strategy - even normal maintenance made him nervous.

Re:Tamper Evident

[crunchygranola]

The AC is right. This IUC tamper resistance scheme has nothing at all to do with launch authority controls.

Re:Tamper Evident

[dbIII]

and that messing with one would not be a good life strategy - even normal maintenance made him nervous.

Of course, it's poisonous, highly radioactive and encased in explosive - lots of reasons not to mess with it even with no chance of it going critical.

Re:Tamper Evident

[lgw]

That's just the "physics package", which is a very small part of a silo-launched missile. I got the impression that every maintenance hatch on the missile was protected by a large explosive charge, just as a security feature.

"ready for immediate use by the US President"

[Anonymous Coward]

So one of those White House runners just needs to get to the big red button under the President's desk, then.

Re:"ready for immediate use by the US President"

[12WTF$]

Monica got there years ago...

Right mind?

[gstoddart]

No one in their right mind wants to use one, but if they're to act as a deterrent, they need to be accessible.

See, the problem with this is that it assumes the people you're trying to have these things act as a deterrent are, in fact, in their right minds.

And many of the people we seem to be having conflict with these days ... they're very much of the opinion of "our way or death to all".

So, what do you do if the people you're concerned about aren't in their right minds, and nothing you do will act as a deterrent?

Assuming a rational adversary is not necessarily a reasonable thing any more.

Re:Right mind?

[Deadstick]

Putting that another way: If you examine the scene of an explosion and find arms, legs, a head and red goo, it's the signature of a person who was in his right mind from his perspective.

Re: Right mind?

[Anonymous Coward]

You stop making these weapons yourself and start making friends instead of enemies.

Re:Right mind?

[Ravaldy]

My understanding of this article is more about preventing our own nukes from being used against ourselves.

Re: Right mind?

[Anonymous Coward]

No can do. Part of "our way" that he was talking about is that they are forbidden to be friends with people that don't follow that way. Then they're back to "or death to all".

Re:Right mind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that or they can be manipulated by the people who stand to glow if we launch one in revenge.

For example, if we're blatant about making every holy site in Islam glow in revenge, than the people who are funding or otherwise tolerating the nutjobs will be motivated to stop supporting them, passively or actively.

Re:Right mind?

[oodaloop]

Yeah, the first country to develop one. If Japan, Germany, or Russia had developed it first, does anything think they would hesitate to use it?

Re: Right mind?

[alvinrod]

This assumes that people will decide to act accordingly.

If your solution were actually possible there would be no schoolyard bullies because all it would take is asking if they wanted to be friends. I'll let you tell me how well you think something like that would work. Meanwhile, I'll tell the kid getting picked on to take a course in self-defense.

Re:Right mind?

[xaotikdesigns]

Yeah, mutually assured destruction only works if the person of both parties want to live.

If you tell someone that you'll bomb them if they bomb you, but their bomb is a suicide vest, they probably aren't going to care.

Re:Right mind?

[MrL0G1C]

Yes.

Re:Right mind?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's awfully naive of you. Germany was already trying to bomb London as much as possible. Japan - depending on how many they had - could have taken out a large carrier group, but probably not much else, since they never actually got close to mainland America. And let's not overlook what they did to China. As for the USSR, the idea that they would have hesitated for a second is laughable when Stalin was leading them.

Let's also not ignore the fact that the US didn't use them right away; Truman and his advisers did put quite a bit of thought into whether or not to use it.

cell phone

[Blaskowicz]

This is why I wait for a nuclear powered smartphone. Lackluster security and one day of battery life don't cut it

Re:cell phone

[Jason Levine]

The good news is that your phone's battery life will now outlive you.

The bad news is that your phone was designed to have a battery life of one year.

Nonsensical explanation?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's amazing how a long article can say absolutely nothing meaningful about how a proposed system is supposed to work.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Blaskowicz]

It's not like they can tell much about how the system is designed. But anyway, the article tells all there is to it. Non-descript security system uses a very good hardware random number generator as a source for encryption/signing/whatever. It's like 10 RANDOMIZE TIMER 20 PRINT INT(RND(1)*6)+1 but better. Recent everyday CPUs may use thermal noise from built-in sensors instead.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear about a little thing called ITAR?

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[jandrese]

It seemed like they used a lot of words to say that there is a Geiger counter hooked up to a RNG on the Nuke to give it a good strong random number source. That's great, but the headline oversells that feature by a factor of a thousand or so.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The video gives a good explanation.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It does nothing of the kind.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem is that I have absolutely no idea how that is supposed to help you achieve anything like what is being described here.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I think there's a pretty strong case why there shouldn't be a problem with ITAR here. If this is supposed to be some kind of mathematically strong cryptographic protection, revealing its inner working should be no more detrimental to its safety than revealing the way that RSA works to the security of RSA-encrypted data.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

As a source for what exactly? An RNG is a nice thing to have, but how is it supposed to help you here if you have a specific one? All I've seen in the video amounts to "basically, we can initialize random codes using an internal rather than an external source". That's not much of a help. More specifically, the article seems to be alluding that using a hardware RNG based on the decay of the plutonium core or perhaps the tritium contents is somehow essential to the scheme employed (as opposed to using, say, using avalanche noise in a PN junction). But as far as I can tell, all you get here is a bunch of uncorrelated random number generators. The fact that they're based on the vicinity of a source of radiation shouldn't endow them with any special properties different from utilizing any other quantum or statistical mechanism of random number generation.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Blaskowicz]

Perhaps it's only to maximise the strength while keeping the codes conveniently short. "Less than 2^-18" isn't that great, it's what only 64 bits or slightly less would give (8 bytes, 16 hex characters)
It is potentially a perfect RNG, true randomness is happening there - God plays dice. So, someone somewhere must have had a nerdgasm.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that the warhead generates its own random numbers, which are likely displayed on the device in some way (behind some closed hatch I would guess). To tell the device to activate you would need to enter the last generated number, which requires a physical presence.

I don't see what that would do to prevent a Jack D Ripper, but it should at least keep out Random Q Hacker.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The problem is that the major property of a hardware RNG is precisely that right after generating the number, only the generator knows it. Generating something specifically in-device to make it more secret than in other scenarios and then displaying it for people to reenter somehow doesn't make to make any sense.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

ITAR only limits you from publishing an actual embodiment of the cryptographic device in something other than a dead-tree academic text. For instance, the source code of Applied Cryptography falls under ITAR, but the book itself (with the same source printed inside it) does not. This is based on legal advice (from a lawyer, not me), not on the text of ITAR itself.

But generally speaking, publishing most crypto is illegal, strong or not.

(b) Information Security Systems and equipment, cryptographic devices,
software, and components specifically designed or modified therefore,
including:

(1) Cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment,
assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components or software with the
capability of maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or
information systems, except cryptographic equipment and software as
follows:

(i) Restricted to decryption functions specifically designed to allow the
execution of copy protected software, provided the decryption functions
are not user-accessible.

(ii) Specially designed, developed or modified for use in machines for
banking or money transactions, and restricted to use only in such
transactions. Machines for banking or money transactions include automatic
teller machines, self-service statement printers, point of sale terminals
or equipment for the encryption of interbanking transactions.

(iii) Employing only analog techniques to provide the cryptographic
processing that ensures information security in the following
applications:

a. Fixed (defined below) band scrambling not exceeding 8 bands and in
which the transpositions change not more frequently than once every
second;

b. Fixed (defined below) band scrambling exceeding 8 bands and in which
the transpositions change not more frequently than once every ten seconds;

c. Fixed (defined below) frequency inversion and in which the
transpositions change not more frequently than once every second;

d. Facsimile equipment; ...

(iv) Personalized smart cards using cryptography restricted for use only
in equipment or systems exempted from the controls of the USML.

(v) Limited to access control, such as automatic teller machines,
self-service statement printers or point of sale terminals, which protects
password or personal identification numbers (PIN) or similar data to
prevent unauthorized access to facilities but does not allow for
encryption of files or text, except as directly related to the password of
PIN protection.

(vi) Limited to data authentication which calculates a Message
Authentication Code (MAC) or similar result to ensure no alteration of
text has taken place, or to authenticate users, but does not allow for
encryption of data, text or other media other than that needed for the
authentication.

(vii) Restricted to fixed data compression or coding techniques.

(viii) Limited to receiving for radio broadcast, pay television or similar
restricted audience television of the consumer type, without digital
encryption and where digital decryption is limited to the video, audio or
management functions.

(ix) Software designed or modified to protect against malicious computer
damage, e.g., viruses.

(2) Cryptographic (including key management) systems, equipment,
assemblies, modules, integrated circuits, components or software which
have the capability of generating spreading or hopping codes for spread
spectrum systems or equipment.

(3) Cryptanalytic systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated
circuits, components or software.

(4) Systems, equipment, assemblies, modules, integrated circuits,
components or software providing certified or certifiable multi-level
security or user isolation exceeding class B2 of the Trusted Computer
System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) and software to certif

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Pinhedd]

You're right, it's not a revolutionary step in security. Amplifying and cascading samples of thermal noise is good, but sampling radioactive decay is better. Presumably it would also shift additional security into the warhead itself rather than relying on an external and potentially fallible component.

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[hamster_nz]

All I got from it was that they were going to use the radioactive material as a random number generator for securing communication between components, so nobody could hotwire it.

Well, I think that is what was said!

Re:Nonsensical explanation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oblig. xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/538/

Ripper didn't tamper with anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently neither the OP nor David Szondy at Gizmag actually watched that movie. Plan R was written specifically to authorize base commanders to launch nuclear weapons. The micromanaging NCA removed all possibility of rogue launches long ago.

MPAA/RIAA will sue...

[Anonymous Coward]

So DRM for Nuclear Weapons eh ? How about getting rid of the weapons in the first place ?

Re:MPAA/RIAA will sue...

[nedlohs]

So that only the other guys will have them? The other guys having shown as little restraint as us in resorting to warfare to get their way.

Just make it inert

[jopsen]

It's a lot cheaper and safer to make an inert nuclear weapon... Just don't tell anyone :)

Dark Star comes to mind

[Crashmarik]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And as the bomb thinks things through

Bomb#20: In the beginning, there was darkness. And the darkness was without form, and void.

Boiler: What the hell is he talking about?

Bomb#20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness. And I saw that I was alone. Let there be light.

Random Number Generation

[bradgoodman]

So from what I am guessing - they are referring to using the radioactive decay of the materials for true random number generation. This concept isn't new - the unpredictability of radioactive decay has been a know source of "truly random" numbers. The article infers that it could use this to generate a key that could be shared with an external authentication mechanism - but you could do this with any random number source. You'd think they would have mentioned something like "quantum entanglement between the weapon and the president" (which might have been interesting) - but no.

Re:Random Number Generation

[Blaskowicz]

Irradiate the president to authenticate him (can't be replaced by an impostor). Sound fun.

Starting The Long Watch

[postagoras]

The small ship displayed the insignia of an admiral- yet there was no living thing of any sort in her. This trip she carried nothing but a lead coffin- and a Geiger counter that was never quiet.

Ezra Dahlquist? Martin? Rivera? Wheeler?

Who is General Jack D. Ripper?

[Required Snark]

General Jack D. Ripper is a character in Stanly Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove, a black comedy about nuclear holocaust. The character was played by Sterling Hayden.

Ripper gets WW III rolling:

United States Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) is commander of Burpelson Air Force Base, which houses the SAC 843rd Bomb Wing equipped with B-52 bombers. The 843rd is currently on airborne alert, in flight just hours from the Soviet border.

General Ripper orders his executive officer, Group Captain Lionel Mandrake of the UK Royal Air Force, to put the base on alert. Ripper also issues 'Wing Attack Plan R' to the patrolling aircraft, one of which is commanded by Major T. J. "King" Kong (Slim Pickens). All of the aircraft commence an attack flight on Russia, and set their radios to allow communications only through the CRM 114 discriminator, which is programmed to transmit only communications preceded by a secret three-letter code known only to General Ripper.

Mandrake discovers that no order for war has been issued by the Pentagon, and tries to stop Ripper, who locks them both in his office. Ripper tells Mandrake that he believes the Soviets have been using fluoridation of United States' water supplies to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of Americans. Mandrake realizes that General Ripper is insane.

Re:Who is General Jack D. Ripper?

[dbIII]

An amusing thing is the failsafes in the movie were vastly more elaborate than in reality - on both sides of the cold war.
However that's not an entirely insane idea since the person trusted physically with a nuke could do a lot whether there were failsafes or not - hence the code of all zeros when the Rand corporation's later recommendation of launch codes was enforced. It fit the dual needs of their being a code and not getting in the way of someone with a legitimate reason to detonate it.

Real deterrence

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not create a mobile, mechanized launch vector with an AI programmed to make the decision to retaliate so that deterrence exists not only in capability, but is stronger in being out of the hands of the authorities and their potential unwillingness to launch?

(Notwithstanding guerilla/mercenary soldiers based off of oil rigs or anything like that.)

Did the Cold War ever really end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Constant reminder that Dead Hand is still fully functional.

Will it be anything like the last code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the code was '00000000'? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nuclear-missile-code-00000000-cold-war_n_4386784.html

lottery pedantry

[Anonymous Coward]

You’d have a better chance of winning both Mega Millions and Powerball on the same day than getting control of IUC-protected components.

since their drawings happen on different days, the chance of winning both on the same day is zero.

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Replace the CPUs that care about the key in each component. Desolder, copy the firmware, edit firmware, flash, solder back on. Of course, that takes time and expertise, but there are schmucks out there that would do this for enough money.

not want to use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

the assumption is wrong. several countries developing such weapons have already announced their plans to use it.

Nobody in their right mind

[mythix]

"Nuclear weapons are a paradox..."

but... history...