3 ms·

[Dr Jeffrey Lewis] added that “secrecy about US nuclear weapons deployments in Europe does not exist to protect the weapons from terrorists, but only to protect

by adolph 5y ago

[Dr Jeffrey Lewis] added that “secrecy about US nuclear weapons deployments in Europe does not exist to protect the weapons from terrorists, but only to protect politicians and military leaders from having to answer tough questions about whether NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements still make sense today. This is yet one more warning that these weapons are not secure.” *[Hans Kristenssen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists] added: “There are so many fingerprints that give away where the nuclear weapons are that it serves no military or safety purpose to try to keep it secret. Safety is accomplished by effective security, not secrecy. Granted, there may be specific operational and security details that need to be kept secret, but the presence of nuclear weapons does not. The real purpose of secrecy is to avoid a contentious public debate in countries where nuclear weapons are not popular.”

SkyMarshal 5y ago
>Safety is accomplished by effective security, not secrecy. This seems to depend on your threat model. Two threat models were explicitly mentioned here - terrorists, and contentious public debate. But it seems a third threat model, and the most important one given that nukes are anti-nation-state weapons, is to prevent nation state adversaries from knowing with certainty the location of those nukes. In which case, secrecy is still a necessary component of nuclear safety, or more specifically, deterrent effectiveness.
- pests 5y ago
  But they already know, per the quote above. >"There are so many fingerprints that give away where the nuclear weapons are that it serves no military or safety purpose to try to keep it secret."
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    I'd imagine it's more of a defense in depth approach. Why do your adversary's work for them? Unsophisticated adversaries (ie. random anti-nuclear agitators) might be dissuaded entirely due to the lack of information, and even sophisticated adversaries would have to take time and effort to verify those fingerprints and make sure they have the right spot. Unless there's a compelling reason to make the information public, I don't see why they would.
    - SkyMarshal 5y ago
      >I'd imagine it's more of a defense in depth approach. Yes exactly. One necessary, but not sufficient, layer of a multi-layer defense-in-depth security strategy.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  FAS has a biased agenda. I wouldn't weigh their opinion very heavily. Poorly kept secrets are a problem but not when they are well guarded.
- goalieca 5y ago
  The current location of nuclear armed submarines seem to be one of those secretive cases.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    And let's hope it stays that way, because it's the one thing that's keeping the world from going up in flames. If I were the supreme commander of a nuclear power, I wouldn't even want to know where the enemy subs are. I'd make sure the military isn't trying too hard to find them. That's because A in MAD stands for "assured". Nuke-carriyng submarines are often billed as first-strike weapons, but arguably their main role is being a backup - an assurance that, no matter how effective your first strike is, you are going to be glassed in retaliation. So, your submarines check the enemy, enemy submarines check you, and the standoff continues. If you can credibly threaten to detect enemy nuclear-armed submarines, then the enemy has a strong incentive to launch a first strike immediately, before you've completely neutered their subs.

by adolph 5y ago

SkyMarshal 5y ago

>Safety is accomplished by effective security, not secrecy. This seems to depend on your threat model. Two threat models were explicitly mentioned here - terrorists, and contentious public debate. But it seems a third threat model, and the most important one given that nukes are anti-nation-state weapons, is to prevent nation state adversaries from knowing with certainty the location of those nukes. In which case, secrecy is still a necessary component of nuclear safety, or more specifically, deterrent effectiveness.

pests 5y ago
But they already know, per the quote above. >"There are so many fingerprints that give away where the nuclear weapons are that it serves no military or safety purpose to try to keep it secret."
- pseudo0 5y ago
  I'd imagine it's more of a defense in depth approach. Why do your adversary's work for them? Unsophisticated adversaries (ie. random anti-nuclear agitators) might be dissuaded entirely due to the lack of information, and even sophisticated adversaries would have to take time and effort to verify those fingerprints and make sure they have the right spot. Unless there's a compelling reason to make the information public, I don't see why they would.
  - SkyMarshal 5y ago
    >I'd imagine it's more of a defense in depth approach. Yes exactly. One necessary, but not sufficient, layer of a multi-layer defense-in-depth security strategy.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
FAS has a biased agenda. I wouldn't weigh their opinion very heavily. Poorly kept secrets are a problem but not when they are well guarded.
goalieca 5y ago
The current location of nuclear armed submarines seem to be one of those secretive cases.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  And let's hope it stays that way, because it's the one thing that's keeping the world from going up in flames. If I were the supreme commander of a nuclear power, I wouldn't even want to know where the enemy subs are. I'd make sure the military isn't trying too hard to find them. That's because A in MAD stands for "assured". Nuke-carriyng submarines are often billed as first-strike weapons, but arguably their main role is being a backup - an assurance that, no matter how effective your first strike is, you are going to be glassed in retaliation. So, your submarines check the enemy, enemy submarines check you, and the standoff continues. If you can credibly threaten to detect enemy nuclear-armed submarines, then the enemy has a strong incentive to launch a first strike immediately, before you've completely neutered their subs.