10 ms·

The President and the Bomb, Part IV

111 points by Fej 7y ago

DanielBMarkham 7y ago
50 years ago, NATO doctrine was the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but only in response to being overrun. The idea being that a Soviet invasion of Europe was an existential threat. We either do this or all die. But these guidelines were documented and well-known. There's a good case to be made for the use of tactical nuclear weapons at some extreme case, the nature of that case might vary. But it is very important to make sure everybody knows what conditions have to be met for this to happen. We have many more weapons that are much more dangerous than tactical nukes. If we want to isolate them because of the fear of escalation, that's fine. If we want to include them in the mix of options that's fine too. But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. That's the much more severe problem to deal with than what kind of guts make up a particular delivery system.
- madengr 7y ago
  I could see Israel using them if overrun (which is easy given it is a small country surrounded by adversaries).
  - earlINmeyerkeg 7y ago
    Did a plane carrying a nuke get shot down during the yom kippur war? Or am I getting that confused with Sum of All Fears?
    - pc86 7y ago
      This is the type of thing you can easily just search for.
      - i_haz_rabies 7y ago
        It's also the type of thing that can spark discussion, much like how basically any factual question you ask in everyday conversation could also be easily searched for.
  - Animats 7y ago
    That's known as the "Samson option".[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
- mikestew 7y ago
  But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. Dr. Strangelove: "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?" Not much of a deterrent if no one knows about it.
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That seems like a very good strategy if you want to use nukes as a deterrent. I don't think this follows if you are planning on actually using them. > That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. This is tempered quite a bit by the target's economic ability. South Africa doesn't have an "unlimited ability to quickly escalate". Neither does Pakistan or North Korea. Those countries do have nukes, but they are so poor, it's just not plausible they have many, or particularly high yield ones at that. Your point does hold for the US, Russia and China, though.
  - bracobama 7y ago
    Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 and has yet to deviate from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty it acceded to in 1991. It also recently ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Do you know something we don't?
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 You probably know better than I do. I tend to believe that once countries get nukes, they don't tend to give them up, but I could certainly believe that South Africa doesn't have any anymore.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Fortunately (in this case), knowledge and technology isn't permanent - it takes a lot of work to maintain. Unless they have secretly trained scientists and engineers, and maintain secret facilities for most of the supply chain, they've probably lost the ability to make a nuclear weapon by now.
      - bracobama 7y ago
        While many states do explore what is called 'nuclear hedging' where they remain non-nuclear but conduct research and development to shorten the potential time of their nuclear breakout (a contemporary example being Iran), South Africa is definitely not a part of this club as their rhetoric and supporting actions simply do not align with this strategy.
- naravara 7y ago
  Sadly I can't find a non-JSTOR link[1] but there is an argument out there about the general value of maintaining a "nuclear taboo" in preventing escalation of the type you're talking about. The idea being that even if you can do more destruction with conventional weapons, anchoring some emotional weight around nukes maintains momentum behind nuclear disarmament and discourages nuclear armed nations from going to war with each other. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286
  - DanielBMarkham 7y ago
    Yeah, there's a lot more to this topic. I had to drastically simplify in order to make it into a reasonable-sized HN comment. What we're seeing is a breakdown of the bipolar world. At the same time, we're seeing the potential for massive destruction from a number of new attack vectors, and smaller and smaller actors are capable of wielding them. And warfare itself has changed from army-on-army to desultory, infinitely-lived affairs many times done using proxies and fake information. That changes a lot. The _message_ of using tactical nukes may very well be more important to control than the actual use of them.
- cuspycode 7y ago
  The idea of "tactical" nuclear weapons needs to go away. Nuclear weapons are strategic by their very nature. In my opinion, any use of nuclear weapons at all should result in a full strategic nuclear response against the offending country. Otherwise there is no credible disincentive against using nukes in casual warfare.
  - bhickey 7y ago
    MAD goes out the window once the missiles are up. The whole point of a credible second strike is to discourage a first strike. However this isn't subgame perfect... which means players should want to strike first, breaking MAD.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    I commented elsewhere, but the US inventory is being upgraded such that many (currently) strategic weapons can also technically be used as tactical. Lower dial-a-yields, variable fuzes, and higher precision guidance all add up to more tactical use.
merpnderp 7y ago
His primary example of justification of low yield nukes is bunker busting. But the US already has conventional bunker busting weapons that can either breach or effectively bury forever any bunker the US would want to bust. Without that example, his question becomes a whole lot more hypothetical and less important for modern policy decisions.
- AcerbicZero 7y ago
  The more recent nuclear accidents with power production, such as at Fukushima highlighted how reactionary (perhaps correctly) a large portion of people are in regards to radiation/nuclear events. I have serious doubts there are many plausible situations in which a US president would authorize even an extremely low yield nuclear strike, considering the domestic and international backlash, and the optics of it in general. If you want to be extra cynical about it, it would seem that the military industrial complex stands to make much more money off of continuous low intensity conflict, where they can develop advanced conventional weapons, bill the US government for the R&D, and then sell watered down versions to ~1/4th of the world. Nuclear weapons are just a little too good at their job, making them bad for business.
ezzzzz 7y ago
in reference to the 'Crazy President' Problem: >that isn’t how mental illness works (it tends not to flare up in a totally unexpected way among otherwise “sane” people) This might not be how Mental Illness works, but it could present itself in the case of Alzheimer's/dementia. I don't have a study to link to, but plenty of anecdotes having worked as a caregiver. I've worked with patients in early stages of dementia that could go from being completely lucid and rational, to being completely unaware of their surroundings, and back to baseline within the span of a few minutes. I'll leave any speculation on Trump's cognitive facilities to somebody else.
- solveit 7y ago
  Do they become mostly useless, or do they act erratically but effectively, as some sleepwalkers are known to do? For instance, some people are capable of driving while asleep. I imagine it's not outside the realm of possibility that a sleepwalking president could operate mechanisms that will start a war.
  - ezzzzz 7y ago
    Apparently my comment upset some people, I want to reiterate I was not insinuating anything about the President's current cognitive state, just stating it's something to look at. Both Sanders and Biden are tiptoeing on octogenarian status, making this concern as much of a consideration for them, or any other future president of an advanced age. Anyway, to answer your question, I'm just a layperson, so I can't speak to exactly what is happening 'under the covers' when someone in the early stages of dementia experiences an acute episode. Trying specifically to recall my experiences as a caregiver, I'd say there is just a general confusion. They would seemingly not be aware of things like time (i.e. what year), no idea where they were or why (my experience was working in homes and in a hospital as a pca), no idea who I was, no idea who family members were, etc. Asking for deceased loved-ones was pretty common, they might even try to call them on the phone. It's all pretty variable. The point is, it's not hard to reason that having anybody in such a state being in charge of military power is a bad idea.
Animats 7y ago
There's something to be said for the USSR's old "Dead Hand" system.[1] This is often misunderstood. It's not a "doomsday machine". The idea was that the Premier of the USSR did not have the authority to launch a nuclear first strike. That authority belonged to the Politburo. (They'd survived Stalin; they didn't want a dictator again.) So the USSR built a system to enforce that policy. The Premier could only activate the "Dead Hand" system, which allowed a launch only after 1) nuclear explosions had been detected near Moscow, and 2) communications had been lost with the General Staff bunkers. Even then, all it did was give the codes and authority to regional commanders to launch. So the Premier could effectively order a retaliation strike, but not a first strike. This is tighter control than the US had, or has. Not only does the US president have launch authority without congressional approval, there was a period during which SAC had their bombs set to an arming code of all zeros, so that they could drop them without authority from higher. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
- solveit 7y ago
  > there was a period during which SAC had their bombs set to an arming code of all zeros, so that they could drop them without authority from higher. Did they know that the codes were all zero? I mean, terrible security either way, but...
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Yes, it was on purpose, but it wasn't necessarily all about launch authority. It was military disagreement with civilian government over how to implement contradicting policy and law, regarding security, safety, and readiness. The government (executive + civilian agencies) saw it as an authority (command/control) issue, but the military saw it as readiness and ability to always respond to an attack. In the context of flying bombers around the clock to ensure a first-strike survival, you don't want to have your counter-strike hindered by a misplaced code. This was also before the survivable comm systems were fully deployed, so some autonomy was required to ensure MAD as a deterrent. Anyway, there was a government mandate for the bombs to be secured with a code. The military commanders didn't want this, saw it as impeding their mission, and instead of fighting the rule, they "complied" by implementing the systems, then loophole-ing it by setting all zeros. To elaborate some on the military thought process: The previous methods of arming were more about safety than security (ensuring the bomb wouldn't be armed during takeoff/ landing, a crash, in the event of a bail-out, etc). One design was pulling a pin to drain ball bearings, but was mechanical and failed too often. Also, I believe it usually failed safe (or uncertain), which the military also saw as a problem. Before that, the package actually had to be installed (or at least opened and activated) in flight. Which had it's own problems. Point being, the military had spent years trying to streamline the arming process while making it more reliable, and now they had to comply with a rule that they viewed as unnecessary and in contradiction to their stated mission of readiness. There was also a political struggle of bomb custody, as initially the bombs were to be (and were) in the possession/control of a civilian agency, and only a fraction in possession of the military at any given time (during peace). So there was some ongoing tension from that also playing into things. To borrow from Dan Carlin, there was some logic to the insanity. The whole history of it is fascinating, and this is only one tiny aspect of one of many many topics.
beamatronic 7y ago
Realistically we aren’t going to use any of these things, it would be the end of humanity.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  They've already been used.
FpUser 7y ago
All I see is a slow conditioning of people that using nukes is ok. This is just insane and all it does is telling to nuke free nations that they were the ultimate fools when signing NPT. One big fat lie. Guess what may eventually come out of this.
- bracobama 7y ago
  My prediction is a mass exodus from the NPT by the non-nuclear weapon states if the 2020 Review Conference goes to hell. Which I think is likely when considering the disintegrating state of modern nuclear arms control agreements and the nuclear modernization programmes being conducted by practically all nuclear powers in contravention of NPT Article VI.
cerealbad 7y ago
in a multipolar world you might see precise attacks during periods of tension targeting military facilities - base trade conflict. this minimizes loss of life and it creates a real sellers market for turnkey anti-missile solutions. the regional hegemon (china, russia, usa) can build their anti-antimissile hypersonic weapons to keep their edge while smaller countries in those regions develop accurate missile guidance and missile defence. this is a type of lukewarm war which is good for everyone, doesn't disrupt trade and can be used to justify military spending in a time of relative peace. after all the point of war is to win your opponents resources, nuclear weapons make nuclear war pointless. small tactical nukes might still be useful to have as a final deterrent against all out ground invasion, but the superpowers are unlikely to allow any new nuclear development.
lb1lf 7y ago
<cough> Who's Next (Tom Lehrer) First we got the bomb and that was good, 'Cause we love peace and motherhood. Then Russia got the bomb, but that's O.K., 'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way! Who's next? France got the bomb, but don't you grieve, 'Cause they're on our side (I believe). China got the bomb, but have no fears; They can't wipe us out for at least five years! Who's next? Then Indonesia claimed that they Were gonna get one any day. South Africa wants two, that's right: One for the black and one for the white! Who's next? Egypt's gonna get one, too, Just to use on you know who. So Israel's getting tense, Wants one in self defense. "The Lord's our shepherd, " says the psalm, But just in case, we better get a bomb! Who's next? Luxembourg is next to go And, who knows, maybe Monaco. We'll try to stay serene and calm When Alabama gets the bomb! Who's next, who's next, who's next? Who's next?
- idclip 7y ago
  All my upvotes sir
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw
AmericanChopper 7y ago
This whole narrative just seems like fear mongering to me. For starters, there’s no evidence that military personnel would follow even a lawful order to launch nuclear weapons, especially if there was no evidence of an existential crisis taking place. The only example I can think of in history is the Soviet submarine that was given orders to launch nukes, if it was engaged by the US, during the Cuban middle crisis. Well it was engaged by the US, and the officers onboard refused to use them. The president doesn’t have a button that launches nukes, and I can’t see anybody following an order to, in absence of the US being overrun or hit with a nuke first. Secondly, I can’t see it ever being a good tactical decision. The highest yield conventional bombs are on-par with the lowest yield nukes. If you want to launch a single massively destructive device, there’s already better options. If you want to target an underground facility, then weapons designed to target underground facilities are going to do a better job than just scaling up the yield anyhow. If you’re just looking for a massive effect on target, then a barrage of smaller weapons is going to do a better jobs of that anyway, and do so more reliably. Finally, even if you find the perfect tactical use case, it could never make sense strategically. Using a nuke of any size will provoke the maximum response from any potential adversary, regardless of whether they have any stake in the conflict to begin with, and will deter any hope of support from our allies. This is plainly obvious to anybody. All of this is nothing more than an implausible and baseless “what if”.
- vkou 7y ago
  > For starters, there’s no evidence that military personnel would follow even a lawful order to launch nuclear weapons, especially if there was no evidence of an existential crisis taking place. The whole point of the military is that you have no idea whether or not the order you are given is a good, or just idea, and it's not your job to make that decision. You carry the order out. People who get into ethical quagmires while holding their finger on the trigger of an end-of-the-world weapon don't get posted in Minutemen nuclear bunkers. Also, the beauty of MAD is that even if 90% of your silos refuse to carry out the order, 10% will - and then the other side will retaliate, and because most of your silos did not launch, their retaliatory strike will be far more destructive. So if you're the guy who didn't launch the missiles, when given the order, you're the bad guy, who let millions of his countrymen die - because your missiles, which you refused to launch could have destroyed enemy launch sites. Since someone on your team will launch (Thus starting a war), upon receiving on order, if you want to minimize casualties on your side, you have to launch as well. All in all, it's complete lunacy to give two men the power to end the world.
Gunax 7y ago
> This is why, in my ideal world, I’d like there to be some kind of additional checks in place on the use of nuclear weapons. I am quite curious what he thinks. I just don't see how there is time. 15 minutes. That's the time you get to respond before the nukes hit you and you potentially lose any ability to strike at all.
- pps43 7y ago
  15 minutes is the US thing. Everyone else is ok with retaliating later. Maybe weeks later. UK and France rely on submarines. China even stores warheads and missiles separately. It's unnecessary and dangerous to try to decide the fate of the world in 15 minutes.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    The calculus on this is also changing as fuzes are replaced with variable upgrades and as targeting systems are updated. Which completely changes how the nuclear inventory might be allotted in an all out (or really any) attack. For example: With higher accuracy from ICBMs, the US ends up needing fewer bombs to hit the same number of targets. Meaning we might be able to assume that enough silos (plus subs) would survive a first strike to delay a response decision. A flip side is that the new fuzes allow lower dial-a-yields, and combined with more precision, strategic weapons can technically take on a more tactical role, potentially increasing the justification for their use. (Which might also play into the whole mid range missle treaty collapse.) There are obviously many other angles to consider, but the US response window is likely to at least shift, if not completely change.
thrillgore 7y ago
I must be the only one here who thinks a ban on all nuclear weapons is the only option, right?
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  Is something an "option" if it can never be implemented? The incentives for a nation to have a nuclear arsenal seem extremely high.
- masonic 7y ago
  Because the bans on production of weapons systems worked so well against Germany in the 1930s?
untitled_ 7y ago
Seriously the way everything is going, everything will escalate into another massive war. Although I highly doubt another 'world war' will come into question.

111 points by Fej 7y ago

50 years ago, NATO doctrine was the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but only in response to being overrun. The idea being that a Soviet invasion of Europe was an existential threat. We either do this or all die. But these guidelines were documented and well-known. There's a good case to be made for the use of tactical nuclear weapons at some extreme case, the nature of that case might vary. But it is very important to make sure everybody knows what conditions have to be met for this to happen. We have many more weapons that are much more dangerous than tactical nukes. If we want to isolate them because of the fear of escalation, that's fine. If we want to include them in the mix of options that's fine too. But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. That's the much more severe problem to deal with than what kind of guts make up a particular delivery system.

madengr 7y ago
I could see Israel using them if overrun (which is easy given it is a small country surrounded by adversaries).
- earlINmeyerkeg 7y ago
  Did a plane carrying a nuke get shot down during the yom kippur war? Or am I getting that confused with Sum of All Fears?
  - pc86 7y ago
    This is the type of thing you can easily just search for.
    - i_haz_rabies 7y ago
      It's also the type of thing that can spark discussion, much like how basically any factual question you ask in everyday conversation could also be easily searched for.
- Animats 7y ago
  That's known as the "Samson option".[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
mikestew 7y ago
But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. Dr. Strangelove: "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?" Not much of a deterrent if no one knows about it.
nordsieck 7y ago
> But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That seems like a very good strategy if you want to use nukes as a deterrent. I don't think this follows if you are planning on actually using them. > That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. This is tempered quite a bit by the target's economic ability. South Africa doesn't have an "unlimited ability to quickly escalate". Neither does Pakistan or North Korea. Those countries do have nukes, but they are so poor, it's just not plausible they have many, or particularly high yield ones at that. Your point does hold for the US, Russia and China, though.
- bracobama 7y ago
  Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 and has yet to deviate from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty it acceded to in 1991. It also recently ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Do you know something we don't?
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 You probably know better than I do. I tend to believe that once countries get nukes, they don't tend to give them up, but I could certainly believe that South Africa doesn't have any anymore.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Fortunately (in this case), knowledge and technology isn't permanent - it takes a lot of work to maintain. Unless they have secretly trained scientists and engineers, and maintain secret facilities for most of the supply chain, they've probably lost the ability to make a nuclear weapon by now.
    - bracobama 7y ago
      While many states do explore what is called 'nuclear hedging' where they remain non-nuclear but conduct research and development to shorten the potential time of their nuclear breakout (a contemporary example being Iran), South Africa is definitely not a part of this club as their rhetoric and supporting actions simply do not align with this strategy.
naravara 7y ago
Sadly I can't find a non-JSTOR link[1] but there is an argument out there about the general value of maintaining a "nuclear taboo" in preventing escalation of the type you're talking about. The idea being that even if you can do more destruction with conventional weapons, anchoring some emotional weight around nukes maintains momentum behind nuclear disarmament and discourages nuclear armed nations from going to war with each other. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286
- DanielBMarkham 7y ago
  Yeah, there's a lot more to this topic. I had to drastically simplify in order to make it into a reasonable-sized HN comment. What we're seeing is a breakdown of the bipolar world. At the same time, we're seeing the potential for massive destruction from a number of new attack vectors, and smaller and smaller actors are capable of wielding them. And warfare itself has changed from army-on-army to desultory, infinitely-lived affairs many times done using proxies and fake information. That changes a lot. The _message_ of using tactical nukes may very well be more important to control than the actual use of them.
cuspycode 7y ago
The idea of "tactical" nuclear weapons needs to go away. Nuclear weapons are strategic by their very nature. In my opinion, any use of nuclear weapons at all should result in a full strategic nuclear response against the offending country. Otherwise there is no credible disincentive against using nukes in casual warfare.
- bhickey 7y ago
  MAD goes out the window once the missiles are up. The whole point of a credible second strike is to discourage a first strike. However this isn't subgame perfect... which means players should want to strike first, breaking MAD.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I commented elsewhere, but the US inventory is being upgraded such that many (currently) strategic weapons can also technically be used as tactical. Lower dial-a-yields, variable fuzes, and higher precision guidance all add up to more tactical use.

merpnderp 7y ago

His primary example of justification of low yield nukes is bunker busting. But the US already has conventional bunker busting weapons that can either breach or effectively bury forever any bunker the US would want to bust. Without that example, his question becomes a whole lot more hypothetical and less important for modern policy decisions.

AcerbicZero 7y ago
The more recent nuclear accidents with power production, such as at Fukushima highlighted how reactionary (perhaps correctly) a large portion of people are in regards to radiation/nuclear events. I have serious doubts there are many plausible situations in which a US president would authorize even an extremely low yield nuclear strike, considering the domestic and international backlash, and the optics of it in general. If you want to be extra cynical about it, it would seem that the military industrial complex stands to make much more money off of continuous low intensity conflict, where they can develop advanced conventional weapons, bill the US government for the R&D, and then sell watered down versions to ~1/4th of the world. Nuclear weapons are just a little too good at their job, making them bad for business.

ezzzzz 7y ago

in reference to the 'Crazy President' Problem: >that isn’t how mental illness works (it tends not to flare up in a totally unexpected way among otherwise “sane” people) This might not be how Mental Illness works, but it could present itself in the case of Alzheimer's/dementia. I don't have a study to link to, but plenty of anecdotes having worked as a caregiver. I've worked with patients in early stages of dementia that could go from being completely lucid and rational, to being completely unaware of their surroundings, and back to baseline within the span of a few minutes. I'll leave any speculation on Trump's cognitive facilities to somebody else.

solveit 7y ago
Do they become mostly useless, or do they act erratically but effectively, as some sleepwalkers are known to do? For instance, some people are capable of driving while asleep. I imagine it's not outside the realm of possibility that a sleepwalking president could operate mechanisms that will start a war.
- ezzzzz 7y ago
  Apparently my comment upset some people, I want to reiterate I was not insinuating anything about the President's current cognitive state, just stating it's something to look at. Both Sanders and Biden are tiptoeing on octogenarian status, making this concern as much of a consideration for them, or any other future president of an advanced age. Anyway, to answer your question, I'm just a layperson, so I can't speak to exactly what is happening 'under the covers' when someone in the early stages of dementia experiences an acute episode. Trying specifically to recall my experiences as a caregiver, I'd say there is just a general confusion. They would seemingly not be aware of things like time (i.e. what year), no idea where they were or why (my experience was working in homes and in a hospital as a pca), no idea who I was, no idea who family members were, etc. Asking for deceased loved-ones was pretty common, they might even try to call them on the phone. It's all pretty variable. The point is, it's not hard to reason that having anybody in such a state being in charge of military power is a bad idea.

Animats 7y ago

There's something to be said for the USSR's old "Dead Hand" system.[1] This is often misunderstood. It's not a "doomsday machine". The idea was that the Premier of the USSR did not have the authority to launch a nuclear first strike. That authority belonged to the Politburo. (They'd survived Stalin; they didn't want a dictator again.) So the USSR built a system to enforce that policy. The Premier could only activate the "Dead Hand" system, which allowed a launch only after 1) nuclear explosions had been detected near Moscow, and 2) communications had been lost with the General Staff bunkers. Even then, all it did was give the codes and authority to regional commanders to launch. So the Premier could effectively order a retaliation strike, but not a first strike. This is tighter control than the US had, or has. Not only does the US president have launch authority without congressional approval, there was a period during which SAC had their bombs set to an arming code of all zeros, so that they could drop them without authority from higher. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand

solveit 7y ago
> there was a period during which SAC had their bombs set to an arming code of all zeros, so that they could drop them without authority from higher. Did they know that the codes were all zero? I mean, terrible security either way, but...
- beerandt 7y ago
  Yes, it was on purpose, but it wasn't necessarily all about launch authority. It was military disagreement with civilian government over how to implement contradicting policy and law, regarding security, safety, and readiness. The government (executive + civilian agencies) saw it as an authority (command/control) issue, but the military saw it as readiness and ability to always respond to an attack. In the context of flying bombers around the clock to ensure a first-strike survival, you don't want to have your counter-strike hindered by a misplaced code. This was also before the survivable comm systems were fully deployed, so some autonomy was required to ensure MAD as a deterrent. Anyway, there was a government mandate for the bombs to be secured with a code. The military commanders didn't want this, saw it as impeding their mission, and instead of fighting the rule, they "complied" by implementing the systems, then loophole-ing it by setting all zeros. To elaborate some on the military thought process: The previous methods of arming were more about safety than security (ensuring the bomb wouldn't be armed during takeoff/ landing, a crash, in the event of a bail-out, etc). One design was pulling a pin to drain ball bearings, but was mechanical and failed too often. Also, I believe it usually failed safe (or uncertain), which the military also saw as a problem. Before that, the package actually had to be installed (or at least opened and activated) in flight. Which had it's own problems. Point being, the military had spent years trying to streamline the arming process while making it more reliable, and now they had to comply with a rule that they viewed as unnecessary and in contradiction to their stated mission of readiness. There was also a political struggle of bomb custody, as initially the bombs were to be (and were) in the possession/control of a civilian agency, and only a fraction in possession of the military at any given time (during peace). So there was some ongoing tension from that also playing into things. To borrow from Dan Carlin, there was some logic to the insanity. The whole history of it is fascinating, and this is only one tiny aspect of one of many many topics.

beamatronic 7y ago

Realistically we aren’t going to use any of these things, it would be the end of humanity.

jacquesm 7y ago
They've already been used.

FpUser 7y ago

All I see is a slow conditioning of people that using nukes is ok. This is just insane and all it does is telling to nuke free nations that they were the ultimate fools when signing NPT. One big fat lie. Guess what may eventually come out of this.

bracobama 7y ago
My prediction is a mass exodus from the NPT by the non-nuclear weapon states if the 2020 Review Conference goes to hell. Which I think is likely when considering the disintegrating state of modern nuclear arms control agreements and the nuclear modernization programmes being conducted by practically all nuclear powers in contravention of NPT Article VI.

cerealbad 7y ago

in a multipolar world you might see precise attacks during periods of tension targeting military facilities - base trade conflict. this minimizes loss of life and it creates a real sellers market for turnkey anti-missile solutions. the regional hegemon (china, russia, usa) can build their anti-antimissile hypersonic weapons to keep their edge while smaller countries in those regions develop accurate missile guidance and missile defence. this is a type of lukewarm war which is good for everyone, doesn't disrupt trade and can be used to justify military spending in a time of relative peace. after all the point of war is to win your opponents resources, nuclear weapons make nuclear war pointless. small tactical nukes might still be useful to have as a final deterrent against all out ground invasion, but the superpowers are unlikely to allow any new nuclear development.

lb1lf 7y ago

<cough> Who's Next (Tom Lehrer) First we got the bomb and that was good, 'Cause we love peace and motherhood. Then Russia got the bomb, but that's O.K., 'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way! Who's next? France got the bomb, but don't you grieve, 'Cause they're on our side (I believe). China got the bomb, but have no fears; They can't wipe us out for at least five years! Who's next? Then Indonesia claimed that they Were gonna get one any day. South Africa wants two, that's right: One for the black and one for the white! Who's next? Egypt's gonna get one, too, Just to use on you know who. So Israel's getting tense, Wants one in self defense. "The Lord's our shepherd, " says the psalm, But just in case, we better get a bomb! Who's next? Luxembourg is next to go And, who knows, maybe Monaco. We'll try to stay serene and calm When Alabama gets the bomb! Who's next, who's next, who's next? Who's next?

idclip 7y ago
All my upvotes sir
dredmorbius 7y ago
https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw

AmericanChopper 7y ago

This whole narrative just seems like fear mongering to me. For starters, there’s no evidence that military personnel would follow even a lawful order to launch nuclear weapons, especially if there was no evidence of an existential crisis taking place. The only example I can think of in history is the Soviet submarine that was given orders to launch nukes, if it was engaged by the US, during the Cuban middle crisis. Well it was engaged by the US, and the officers onboard refused to use them. The president doesn’t have a button that launches nukes, and I can’t see anybody following an order to, in absence of the US being overrun or hit with a nuke first. Secondly, I can’t see it ever being a good tactical decision. The highest yield conventional bombs are on-par with the lowest yield nukes. If you want to launch a single massively destructive device, there’s already better options. If you want to target an underground facility, then weapons designed to target underground facilities are going to do a better job than just scaling up the yield anyhow. If you’re just looking for a massive effect on target, then a barrage of smaller weapons is going to do a better jobs of that anyway, and do so more reliably. Finally, even if you find the perfect tactical use case, it could never make sense strategically. Using a nuke of any size will provoke the maximum response from any potential adversary, regardless of whether they have any stake in the conflict to begin with, and will deter any hope of support from our allies. This is plainly obvious to anybody. All of this is nothing more than an implausible and baseless “what if”.

vkou 7y ago
> For starters, there’s no evidence that military personnel would follow even a lawful order to launch nuclear weapons, especially if there was no evidence of an existential crisis taking place. The whole point of the military is that you have no idea whether or not the order you are given is a good, or just idea, and it's not your job to make that decision. You carry the order out. People who get into ethical quagmires while holding their finger on the trigger of an end-of-the-world weapon don't get posted in Minutemen nuclear bunkers. Also, the beauty of MAD is that even if 90% of your silos refuse to carry out the order, 10% will - and then the other side will retaliate, and because most of your silos did not launch, their retaliatory strike will be far more destructive. So if you're the guy who didn't launch the missiles, when given the order, you're the bad guy, who let millions of his countrymen die - because your missiles, which you refused to launch could have destroyed enemy launch sites. Since someone on your team will launch (Thus starting a war), upon receiving on order, if you want to minimize casualties on your side, you have to launch as well. All in all, it's complete lunacy to give two men the power to end the world.

Gunax 7y ago

> This is why, in my ideal world, I’d like there to be some kind of additional checks in place on the use of nuclear weapons. I am quite curious what he thinks. I just don't see how there is time. 15 minutes. That's the time you get to respond before the nukes hit you and you potentially lose any ability to strike at all.

pps43 7y ago
15 minutes is the US thing. Everyone else is ok with retaliating later. Maybe weeks later. UK and France rely on submarines. China even stores warheads and missiles separately. It's unnecessary and dangerous to try to decide the fate of the world in 15 minutes.
- beerandt 7y ago
  The calculus on this is also changing as fuzes are replaced with variable upgrades and as targeting systems are updated. Which completely changes how the nuclear inventory might be allotted in an all out (or really any) attack. For example: With higher accuracy from ICBMs, the US ends up needing fewer bombs to hit the same number of targets. Meaning we might be able to assume that enough silos (plus subs) would survive a first strike to delay a response decision. A flip side is that the new fuzes allow lower dial-a-yields, and combined with more precision, strategic weapons can technically take on a more tactical role, potentially increasing the justification for their use. (Which might also play into the whole mid range missle treaty collapse.) There are obviously many other angles to consider, but the US response window is likely to at least shift, if not completely change.

thrillgore 7y ago

I must be the only one here who thinks a ban on all nuclear weapons is the only option, right?

landryraccoon 7y ago
Is something an "option" if it can never be implemented? The incentives for a nation to have a nuclear arsenal seem extremely high.
masonic 7y ago
Because the bans on production of weapons systems worked so well against Germany in the 1930s?

untitled_ 7y ago

Seriously the way everything is going, everything will escalate into another massive war. Although I highly doubt another 'world war' will come into question.