4 ms·
Well, the payload is encrypted using OTPs. But if the gist of the question was really "why use such old tech when newer tech is available?": I suspect these me
by eob 5y ago
Well, the payload is encrypted using OTPs. But if the gist of the question was really "why use such old tech when newer tech is available?":
I suspect these methods of communication remain because of their robustness against attack and simplicity to implement. It's a guarantee that even if all the modern networks go down, commands can still be issued from anyone, to anyone using off-the-shelf hardware.
- 015a 5y agoPlus, you know, oftentimes the people commenting for the US nuclear defense systems to modernize are the same people who put Log4J everywhere they could (meaning: Silicon Valley engineers). Its funny how hypnotic the word "modernize" is; totally divorced from any measurable success outcomes. More efficient? Possibly. But as we learned with COVID; when you stress an Efficient system, it breaks. Militaries tend to be pretty highly stressed; and it would be best if they don't break. One thing is for certain: There is much the maintainers of these antiquated systems could learn from more recent engineering practices; but there is just as much we could learn from them.
- Jerrrry 5y agoKeep It Simple, Stupid Simple systems fail expectedly, complex systems fail catastrophically.
- euroderf 5y agoAnd, related: Fail-safe systems fail by failing to fail safe.
- RF_Savage 5y agoB-1's run K8s these days.
- treesknees 5y agoThey don’t. There was talk of a future plane potentially running it, probably as a part of R&D purposes. This rumor was generated from a single person posting on LinkedIn. Very different than the active US military running k8 on their bombers. https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/kubernetes_b_21_bomber/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/kubernetes_b_21_bombe... > The B-21 is expected to fly in 2025
- RF_Savage 5y agoAh. Good to know. That rumor was making quite the rounds back then.
- ngc248 5y agohmmm maybe write a B-1 operator for k8s, so that k8s can deploy B-1s as required :)
- bendbro 5y agoThat was not what I was suggesting. Copying my edit from above: I'm specifically talking about these unencrypted parts: 1. The number of "Skyking do not answer"s indicates the severity of the message. 2. The fact that it is known that messages to Skyking are for a nuclear force. I wouldn't want an adversary to know when or with what severity I am commanding my nuclear force. It leaks significant information that an adversary can use, for instance, to judge your response to some action the adversary took.
- renewiltord 5y agoPerhaps it's an honest signal that I have lifted my big stick. You know I have the stick. I know I have the stick. Now you know you did something that made me lift the stick. Gives you the chance to undo it. After all, neither you nor I want me to swing the stick.
- batman-farts 5y ago> I wouldn't want an adversary to know when or with what severity I am commanding my nuclear force. It leaks significant information that an adversary can use, for instance, to judge your response to some action the adversary took. I seriously doubt that the people directly wielding these weapons actually want to use them. A small information leak indicating potential escalation like this, while still hiding exact deployment orders, may actually be desirable.
- bendbro 5y ago> I seriously doubt that the people directly wielding these weapons actually want to use them. A small information leak indicating potential escalation like this, while still hiding exact deployment orders, may actually be desirable. I agree, but I would argue you could decouple notifying the world and notifying your force, but perhaps that would remove the teeth behind the message. And further, it could be entirely possible they've already decoupled and Skyking is just theatrics
- dragonwriter 5y ago> I wouldn't want an adversary to know when or with what severity I am commanding my nuclear force. Usually (when the primary potential enemy is an opposing superpower held in check via MAD), you either want exactly that (as a palpable thread signal to get the other side to back down in an escalating crisis, or as the palpable absence of such a signal when you are just doing routine exercises) or MAD has completely failed and we’re all going to die.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago>all the modern networks go down, commands can still be issued from anyone, to anyone using off-the-shelf hardware. Yep, and if there's any single salient characteristic about Nuclear C3, it's redundancy. Normally the launch crews, subs, command posts, bombers, tankers, and strategic reconnaissance aircraft would get their message over secure terminals, but there are many other ways to get a valid EAM (to include via voice transmission). There's a famous (and perhaps apocryphal) story about Jimmy Carter touring the SAC underground. He supposedly told the senior controller he wanted to talk to the boys in the launch control centers, so they set up the circuits and told the crews to STAND BY FOR A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This caused quite understandable consternation, as the crews were certain most of the comms networks had been taken out and the nation was somehow in the midst of a general nuclear exchange (though their detonation detection systems were not sounding). A voice message from the President never occurred again.
- op00to 5y agoThat’s a great story! I wonder how many times something like that happens in a presidency. I’d say at least 3 almost nuclear wars by our own mistake.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]