3 ms·

Comments here http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclear.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclea... suggest the US

Comments here http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclear.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclea... suggest the US just used 111111 as their code. (citation needed)

jackfoxy 17y ago
And on this blog is the thoughtful reply "It shouldn't be hard to arm a nuke. It should be hard to get access to it. If you stole one any competant EE could rewire the whole thing to do what he needs anyway. Those inclined to steal a nuke would have this know-how; they wouldn't be your average bank robber or shoe-bomber terrorist. Posted by: Savik at November 21, 2007 2:34 PM" Maybe back in the day a competent EE could rewire, but the modern arming mechanisms are ultra-sophisticated.
- dfox 17y ago
  ultr-sophisticated, but still any locking mechanism on nuke can be overcomed by sufficiently motivated adversary. And anyone who can steal the nuke is sufficiently motivated, no matter how ultra-sophisticated your lock is. Edit: and overcoming any kind of locking mechanism on nuke is certainly cheaper than building one yourself. What most people seem to forget is that problem with building nuclear weapons lies with logistics, not technical expertise.
  - jackfoxy 17y ago
    Agreed. All the locking mechanisms and codes are to prevent accidental and non-authorized triggering. After that you have to depend on guys with guns for security.
pvg 17y ago
It was reportedly 00000000, the source for this is a former US missile launch officer of some sort named Bruce Blair. Google him and the zeros, plenty of references, although I don't know if it's ever been confirmed by documents.
wrs 17y ago
Actually 00000000, according to Bruce Blair's first-hand account. He has been one of the go-to authors on nuclear weapons control issues for many years. (Received a MacArthur Prize for it, in fact.) See http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm.

jackfoxy 17y ago

And on this blog is the thoughtful reply "It shouldn't be hard to arm a nuke. It should be hard to get access to it. If you stole one any competant EE could rewire the whole thing to do what he needs anyway. Those inclined to steal a nuke would have this know-how; they wouldn't be your average bank robber or shoe-bomber terrorist. Posted by: Savik at November 21, 2007 2:34 PM" Maybe back in the day a competent EE could rewire, but the modern arming mechanisms are ultra-sophisticated.

dfox 17y ago
ultr-sophisticated, but still any locking mechanism on nuke can be overcomed by sufficiently motivated adversary. And anyone who can steal the nuke is sufficiently motivated, no matter how ultra-sophisticated your lock is. Edit: and overcoming any kind of locking mechanism on nuke is certainly cheaper than building one yourself. What most people seem to forget is that problem with building nuclear weapons lies with logistics, not technical expertise.
- jackfoxy 17y ago
  Agreed. All the locking mechanisms and codes are to prevent accidental and non-authorized triggering. After that you have to depend on guys with guns for security.

pvg 17y ago

It was reportedly 00000000, the source for this is a former US missile launch officer of some sort named Bruce Blair. Google him and the zeros, plenty of references, although I don't know if it's ever been confirmed by documents.

wrs 17y ago

Actually 00000000, according to Bruce Blair's first-hand account. He has been one of the go-to authors on nuclear weapons control issues for many years. (Received a MacArthur Prize for it, in fact.) See http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm.