3 ms·

From what we know, supposedly Dead Hand is usually switched off except in times of crisis, and it has humans in the loop that turn the launch keys, along with r

From what we know, supposedly Dead Hand is usually switched off except in times of crisis, and it has humans in the loop that turn the launch keys, along with repeated attempts to contact the Kremlin. In my mind it makes things safer because there's less pressure to launch a counterattack before any missiles actually hit - revenge will be had.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
Which also shows the danger of escalation: If the other side is on high alert because there's an ongoing crisis, the risk of civilization-ending mistakes are much higher.
Trombone12 6y ago
While in the US, there are people furiously arguing for having ICMBs in silos that you have to launch as soon as you have a warning because if the nukes are coming for the silos the nukes will be "wasted". But this fact that the silos will be targeted and destroyed is actually a feature because it means it's North Dakota that gets to become a wasteland and that's not really a bit of the US you care about, or so the reasoning goes. The nuclear sponge they call it (the ICBMs silos needing to be targeted by enemy nukes, not North Dakota proper).
- ethbr0 6y ago
  This line of reasoning (which is absolutely logical) is why hard target capability for nuclear weapons has a lot of dramatic consequences. If your silos can largely survive an enemy missile, and retain the ability to launch, you can wait for more information to come in. If you silos are expected to be wiped out, say, because the US re-fused their warheads [0] to increase the probability of a silo kill, then it's use-it-or-lose-it with a 15 minute decision time. [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
  - iso947 6y ago
    Nuclear subs on the other hand will continue to exist and can launch. Why you’d want to us another matter - so your country has just been turned to glass. Why bother retaliations, it’s not going to get your country back, it’s just going to make it worse for any of your citizens that survived.
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      The enemy has to know you will launch no matter what or you don't have a deterrent.
    - vbezhenar 6y ago
      Vengeance is one of the basic human behaviours. It does not have to be rational.
Animats 6y ago
Yes. There's a lot to be said for that. The USSR's later leadership didn't want to give the Premier the authority to start WWIII. That authority belonged to the Politburo, and, having gotten rid of Stalin, those who had power after him didn't want that much power in one person again. Hence the Dead Hand system. The Premier could activate that in an emergency. All it really did was, if Moscow was destroyed, and the Premier's bunker wasn't communicating, and the General Staff bunker wasn't communicating, was start a timer of several hours. If nobody in authority checked in during that time, it released the launch codes to regional commanders, who could then decide on their own what to do. So a lot of people could stop a retaliatory strike, and no one person could start it. The USAF's SAC had the actual info needed to launch missiles in the hands of SAC commanders, a much weaker system. While General Power was head of SAC, the arming codes for the missiles themselves were set to all zeros. This was not known by the civilians supposedly overseeing the US military.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago

Which also shows the danger of escalation: If the other side is on high alert because there's an ongoing crisis, the risk of civilization-ending mistakes are much higher.

Trombone12 6y ago

While in the US, there are people furiously arguing for having ICMBs in silos that you have to launch as soon as you have a warning because if the nukes are coming for the silos the nukes will be "wasted". But this fact that the silos will be targeted and destroyed is actually a feature because it means it's North Dakota that gets to become a wasteland and that's not really a bit of the US you care about, or so the reasoning goes. The nuclear sponge they call it (the ICBMs silos needing to be targeted by enemy nukes, not North Dakota proper).

ethbr0 6y ago
This line of reasoning (which is absolutely logical) is why hard target capability for nuclear weapons has a lot of dramatic consequences. If your silos can largely survive an enemy missile, and retain the ability to launch, you can wait for more information to come in. If you silos are expected to be wiped out, say, because the US re-fused their warheads [0] to increase the probability of a silo kill, then it's use-it-or-lose-it with a 15 minute decision time. [0] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
- iso947 6y ago
  Nuclear subs on the other hand will continue to exist and can launch. Why you’d want to us another matter - so your country has just been turned to glass. Why bother retaliations, it’s not going to get your country back, it’s just going to make it worse for any of your citizens that survived.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    The enemy has to know you will launch no matter what or you don't have a deterrent.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    Vengeance is one of the basic human behaviours. It does not have to be rational.

Animats 6y ago

Yes. There's a lot to be said for that. The USSR's later leadership didn't want to give the Premier the authority to start WWIII. That authority belonged to the Politburo, and, having gotten rid of Stalin, those who had power after him didn't want that much power in one person again. Hence the Dead Hand system. The Premier could activate that in an emergency. All it really did was, if Moscow was destroyed, and the Premier's bunker wasn't communicating, and the General Staff bunker wasn't communicating, was start a timer of several hours. If nobody in authority checked in during that time, it released the launch codes to regional commanders, who could then decide on their own what to do. So a lot of people could stop a retaliatory strike, and no one person could start it. The USAF's SAC had the actual info needed to launch missiles in the hands of SAC commanders, a much weaker system. While General Power was head of SAC, the arming codes for the missiles themselves were set to all zeros. This was not known by the civilians supposedly overseeing the US military.