6 ms·

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, this is honestly a non-issue in my eyes. Nuclear C2 (Command and Control) has provisions for these types of scenarios thr

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, this is honestly a non-issue in my eyes. Nuclear C2 (Command and Control) has provisions for these types of scenarios through the usage of Permissive Action Links (PALs)[1]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link

sroussey 7y ago
Hopefully has protection from disassembly.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Oh, it does. The kind that self-disables via detonation if conditions are met that trigger what it believes is an intrusion or unauthorized disassembly attempt. To be clear the "detonation" is NOT the nuclear material going critical, or even a "dirty bomb" type explosion. It is akin to thermite on the electrical firing ICs/circuits to completely destroy the intelligent logic of managing the conventional explosives that triggers the nuclear material.
  - nerpderp82 7y ago
    The fissile material would still be available to build another bomb. You don't even need to use them, just disappearing the weapons and insinuating you know where they are is a powerful threat.
    - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
      Somewhat. If you don't have the knowledge (math and skills) you really can only threaten a dirty bomb in the worst case. Al-Qaeda did that for years. We didn't know if they were bullshitting or not until way later (they were full of shit).
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      Nukes make terrible dirty bombs the isotopes in questions are very stable and not highly radioactive, for a dirty bomb you want isotopes with a fairly short lifetime of years/decades. PU239 has a half life of 24,110 years and that's your best case for a dirty bomb, if the core is U235 then it has a half life of 703,800,000 years which means when it's not in any substantial mass in which the nuclear decay is can to turn into a chain reaction it's about as radioactive as cat litter or a banana.
  - jammygit 7y ago
    With 50 bombs to learn from, I would be amazed if the clever engineers in charge wouldn’t find a way past those measures given enough time and money
  - sliken 7y ago
    So you create the intrusion, then you can extract the various sub-critical pieces that if combined precisely (in position and in time) creates a nuclear explosion.
jiveturkey 7y ago
It's not simply a risk of a loose nuke. > It is feared that removing the weapons could signal the end of relations between the Nato allies, while leaving them in place could put the weapons of mass destruction at risk. From your wikipedia link: > The conventional explosives needed to start the chain reaction are tailored to the characteristics of the fissile material in the core of the weapon. If the detonation does not occur exactly as planned, such as in the case of a misfire, a nuclear reaction is unlikely to occur—the explosion will be no greater than the amount of conventional explosive (although radioactive material—the unreacted nuclear fuel—may be dispersed). The anti-tamper protection results in a misfire. One does not need to have a ballistic nuke to cause unspeakable damage. Misfire 50 nukes in a water supply, eg Lake Assad[1] and you could have a major humanitarian disaster on your hands. If a misfire is safe against dispersal (as some googling indicates might be true), why not detonate them in a bunker, then retrieve the nuclear material for incorporation into a dirty bomb? Now, yes thanks to PAL it may not be a risk like 9/11, but it's much more than a non-issue. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  Let us be clear and erase some baseless speculation: a "misfire" is 100x times better than a nuclear explosion. A "dirty bomb" is still somewhere between 10x and 50x better. Also for education purposes, the B61s in question are stored in hardened "storage bunkers"[1] under the control of US personnel at the airbase. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_S...
dogma1138 7y ago
These devices can be defeated however the skills required are likely beyond anything Turkey has, I doubt if you transfer these nukes in a faraday cage to some bunker in Russia or China they wouldn’t be able to disarm the PAL and arm the physics package. However it would likely take weeks or even months of careful reverse engineering of the mechanisms involved. The likely scenario if those nukes are put at risk is either some sort of a self destruct mechanism that is designed to disable to physics package without detonating the core itself and an immediate military response to deny any access to the area. The US can stage in Greece, Cyprus and Israel if need be as well as Saudi Arabia not to mention that they can move a carrier group into the region fairly quickly. And they would have to do so because if they don’t Russia is invading turkey in full force and after the purges in the Turkish military and their out dated equipment (they just rolled into a Syria in M60 Patton tanks) they don’t stand a chance against either really. However even a hint of this being possible would likely end Erdogan’s regime over night.
thrill 7y ago
A knowledgeable person can certainly take apart the devices and reuse the material. The devices are well protected and would require completely overwhelming well trained and equipped personnel who suffer no lack of clarity in their mission. If that did occur, the US certainly has significant options to prevent unauthorized parties from getting their hands on the devices.
RijilV 7y ago
Maybe, after all wasn't the launch code for US nukes all zeros? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-... I'm sure there's a large group contractors who have fancy presentations and complex systems to protect nukes. They're very highly motivated, fiscally, to convince everyone they've done a good job. As for if that's actually the case, has there been any peer review?

sroussey 7y ago

Hopefully has protection from disassembly.

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Oh, it does. The kind that self-disables via detonation if conditions are met that trigger what it believes is an intrusion or unauthorized disassembly attempt. To be clear the "detonation" is NOT the nuclear material going critical, or even a "dirty bomb" type explosion. It is akin to thermite on the electrical firing ICs/circuits to completely destroy the intelligent logic of managing the conventional explosives that triggers the nuclear material.
- nerpderp82 7y ago
  The fissile material would still be available to build another bomb. You don't even need to use them, just disappearing the weapons and insinuating you know where they are is a powerful threat.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    Somewhat. If you don't have the knowledge (math and skills) you really can only threaten a dirty bomb in the worst case. Al-Qaeda did that for years. We didn't know if they were bullshitting or not until way later (they were full of shit).
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    Nukes make terrible dirty bombs the isotopes in questions are very stable and not highly radioactive, for a dirty bomb you want isotopes with a fairly short lifetime of years/decades. PU239 has a half life of 24,110 years and that's your best case for a dirty bomb, if the core is U235 then it has a half life of 703,800,000 years which means when it's not in any substantial mass in which the nuclear decay is can to turn into a chain reaction it's about as radioactive as cat litter or a banana.
- jammygit 7y ago
  With 50 bombs to learn from, I would be amazed if the clever engineers in charge wouldn’t find a way past those measures given enough time and money
- sliken 7y ago
  So you create the intrusion, then you can extract the various sub-critical pieces that if combined precisely (in position and in time) creates a nuclear explosion.

jiveturkey 7y ago

It's not simply a risk of a loose nuke. > It is feared that removing the weapons could signal the end of relations between the Nato allies, while leaving them in place could put the weapons of mass destruction at risk. From your wikipedia link: > The conventional explosives needed to start the chain reaction are tailored to the characteristics of the fissile material in the core of the weapon. If the detonation does not occur exactly as planned, such as in the case of a misfire, a nuclear reaction is unlikely to occur—the explosion will be no greater than the amount of conventional explosive (although radioactive material—the unreacted nuclear fuel—may be dispersed). The anti-tamper protection results in a misfire. One does not need to have a ballistic nuke to cause unspeakable damage. Misfire 50 nukes in a water supply, eg Lake Assad[1] and you could have a major humanitarian disaster on your hands. If a misfire is safe against dispersal (as some googling indicates might be true), why not detonate them in a bunker, then retrieve the nuclear material for incorporation into a dirty bomb? Now, yes thanks to PAL it may not be a risk like 9/11, but it's much more than a non-issue. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...

GhettoMaestro 7y ago
Let us be clear and erase some baseless speculation: a "misfire" is 100x times better than a nuclear explosion. A "dirty bomb" is still somewhere between 10x and 50x better. Also for education purposes, the B61s in question are stored in hardened "storage bunkers"[1] under the control of US personnel at the airbase. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_S...

dogma1138 7y ago

These devices can be defeated however the skills required are likely beyond anything Turkey has, I doubt if you transfer these nukes in a faraday cage to some bunker in Russia or China they wouldn’t be able to disarm the PAL and arm the physics package. However it would likely take weeks or even months of careful reverse engineering of the mechanisms involved. The likely scenario if those nukes are put at risk is either some sort of a self destruct mechanism that is designed to disable to physics package without detonating the core itself and an immediate military response to deny any access to the area. The US can stage in Greece, Cyprus and Israel if need be as well as Saudi Arabia not to mention that they can move a carrier group into the region fairly quickly. And they would have to do so because if they don’t Russia is invading turkey in full force and after the purges in the Turkish military and their out dated equipment (they just rolled into a Syria in M60 Patton tanks) they don’t stand a chance against either really. However even a hint of this being possible would likely end Erdogan’s regime over night.

thrill 7y ago

A knowledgeable person can certainly take apart the devices and reuse the material. The devices are well protected and would require completely overwhelming well trained and equipped personnel who suffer no lack of clarity in their mission. If that did occur, the US certainly has significant options to prevent unauthorized parties from getting their hands on the devices.

RijilV 7y ago

Maybe, after all wasn't the launch code for US nukes all zeros? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-... I'm sure there's a large group contractors who have fancy presentations and complex systems to protect nukes. They're very highly motivated, fiscally, to convince everyone they've done a good job. As for if that's actually the case, has there been any peer review?