3 ms·

Military systems tend to have a lot of manual overrides because you don't want your nukes to not be able to fire because the internet is down. In some cases th

Military systems tend to have a lot of manual overrides because you don't want your nukes to not be able to fire because the internet is down. In some cases these overrides are what you use to test the equipment. The military in general tends toward manpower and process where the civilian world tends toward automation and stupid-proofing. Militaries invest a ton in manpower and process so often times it makes sense to leverage that rather than adding tech. I am not familiar with the specific missile in question.

srvmshr 5y ago
That is what I angled at in original comment as well. > Except for the launch programming, every launch sequence involves several mechanical steps. There are failsafes of course, but strategic assets typically contain safeguards so that your average Joe won't light up the fireworks. That makes it less likely an accidental launch. In modern militaries, the overrides are (most often) distributed across several different people so that one person doesn't have the full capacity to start a war. Re-arming by overrides lies within a chain of command, each doing a single vital link with full agreement of the process (Steps are usually checked & announced TBS). If we go by the version of events from Indian government, that 'misfire' likely never happened. The chances being low i.e a whole team of people collectively made a horrible launch from a weapon geared up to ready-to-fire condition. Unless they were absolutely clueless about their own job. If the tech is that dumb in the unlikely event, this is extremely unfortunate for Indian defense. It is a risk that needs addressing It is more plausible that scenario 2 happened : the telemetry & control garbled and the missile moved off course. According to Pak. government briefing, missile took a hard turn in its flight before entering their airspace. Being touted as India's top of line weapons platform, admitting this screw-up might have been embarrassing. Then again, we may never know unless someone speaks up in the back-channels

srvmshr 5y ago

That is what I angled at in original comment as well. > Except for the launch programming, every launch sequence involves several mechanical steps. There are failsafes of course, but strategic assets typically contain safeguards so that your average Joe won't light up the fireworks. That makes it less likely an accidental launch. In modern militaries, the overrides are (most often) distributed across several different people so that one person doesn't have the full capacity to start a war. Re-arming by overrides lies within a chain of command, each doing a single vital link with full agreement of the process (Steps are usually checked & announced TBS). If we go by the version of events from Indian government, that 'misfire' likely never happened. The chances being low i.e a whole team of people collectively made a horrible launch from a weapon geared up to ready-to-fire condition. Unless they were absolutely clueless about their own job. If the tech is that dumb in the unlikely event, this is extremely unfortunate for Indian defense. It is a risk that needs addressing It is more plausible that scenario 2 happened : the telemetry & control garbled and the missile moved off course. According to Pak. government briefing, missile took a hard turn in its flight before entering their airspace. Being touted as India's top of line weapons platform, admitting this screw-up might have been embarrassing. Then again, we may never know unless someone speaks up in the back-channels