5 ms·

Before the introduction of permissive action links (PAL), nuclear weapons could be operated and detonated by almost anyone. > The exact details are hazy, but

Before the introduction of permissive action links (PAL), nuclear weapons could be operated and detonated by almost anyone. > The exact details are hazy, but the broad contours are clear: the inspection team found the control of the forward-based nuclear weapons inadequate and possibly illegal. In Germany and Turkey they viewed scenes that were particularly distressing. On the runway stood a German (or Turkish) quick-reaction alert airplane (QRA) loaded with nuclear weapons and with a foreign pilot in the cockpit. The QRA airplane was ready to take off at the earliest warning, and the nuclear weapons were fully operational. The only evidence of U.S. control was a lonely 18-year-old sentry armed with a carbine and standing on the tarmac. When the sentry at the German airfield was asked how he intended to maintain control of the nuclear weapons should the pilot suddenly decide to scramble (either through personal caprice or through an order from the German command circumventing U.S. command), the sentry replied that he would shoot the pilot; Agnew directed him to shoot the bomb. https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s were a wild time. Tens of thousands of deadly devices in the hands of two superpowers armed to the teeth, and not a single rogue general. Not one single device sold to terrorists on the black market. It's a miracle we made it out alive.

baybal2 4y ago
akmarinov 4y ago
> Not one single device sold to terrorists on the black market. I mean, there’s this journalist investigation - https://www.businessinsider.com/you-can-buy-a-nuclear-warhead-on-the-black-market-2015-8?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/you-can-buy-a-nuclear-warhea...
- credit_guy 4y ago
  If any terrorist organization had ever put their hands on a nuke, they would have either used it or threatened to use it.
  - hedora 4y ago
    We'll find out soon. Apparently Trump scuttled the anti nuke deal with Iran on his way out of office, and they're enriching uranium again. Tehran says they're planning to level New York City ASAP (within the year). Among other things, they're lobbying to be taken off a list of terrorist organizations.
- imglorp 4y ago
  Nation states, sure, they've probably bought a few, but I think the evidence points to no terrorists. If a nation state has a nuke, it's in their interest to hold it as deterrent. As soon as it's used, anyone seeking accountability knows whom to visit. Eg Pakistan, Israel, NK have all been holding for years with motive to use them, but haven't. If a terrorist group has a nuke, it's in their interest to use it asap. If they delay, it might be taken away from them. If they use it, they achieve the attention and blood they seek, while the world doesn't know where they all live (assuming good opsec) and where they might have more. This might indicate they don't have any.
  - Someone 4y ago
    > Nation states, sure, they've probably bought a few […] If a nation state has a nuke, it's in their interest to hold it as deterrent. It also is in their interest to let ‘them’ know they have an atomic bomb. Of course, they could have done that secretly, but I think the world at large would know of it, anyways. Since that hasn’t happened (Pakistan and North Korea built their own devices, and so, likely, did Israel, all after buying it stealing the technology), I think it’s unlikely this happened. > If they [terrorists] use it, they achieve the attention and blood they seek, while the world doesn't know where they all live Terrorists don’t want to instill fear, they want to instill fear in the pursuit of political aims. Because of that, they would have to tell the world they were responsible. I think the world would figure out where they live from that. I agree with you that it’s unlikely terrorist groups are in possession of nuclear devices. It’s not a weapon that’s easily hidden (its radiation probably gives it away), and it’s expensive to obtain, and they wouldn’t have many, so losing one without using it would be a big loss.
    - galangalalgol 4y ago
      Is it thought that any of these lost wepons were an off the books way to provide non nuclear allies with a deterrent.
      - Someone 4y ago
        I don’t think that’s the case. Secretly having a bomb gives you the ability to strike hard, but on its own it doesn’t deter. If you want to deter, it’s not sufficient to have teeth, you have to show them or at least convince your enemy to believe you have them, and that only seems to be happening by countries that built their own such as Russia, North Korea and Pakistan. So, how would, say, Canada secretly having a bomb deter anybody from attacking it? Also, the USA already provides non-nuclear allies with a way to deter by storing on-the-book weapons in their countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing) That doesn’t have to happen off the books. Are you suggesting there are countries they trust enough to store nuclear bombs there, while they don’t want the world at large to know about that? I can’t think of any country that would qualify for that.
bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
I see your article mentions this, but I love to highlight this one story: Strategic air command opposed the installation of these locks. Their stated concern was they would interfere with a launch order, but some think they just resented civilian control. So they allegedly worked around them. For years, the passcode keeping nuclear war at bay was 00000000 https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.or...
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
> not a single rogue general There was a rogue soviet lieutenant colonel though, and thank god for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident#Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...
- dron57 4y ago
  Hardly rogue. In his own words - his job was to supervise the radar system and make judgement calls. He judged the detection of a single "missile" to be a false positive sincea a NATO would have consisted of a massed first strike rather than a single bogey. Petrov simply did his job.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- happyopossum 4y ago
  How was he a rogue? He was doing his job and he did it well, and saved a lot of lives. That doesn’t make a rogue.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    "the Soviet Union's strategy was an immediate and compulsory nuclear counter-attack against the United States (launch on warning), specified in the doctrine of mutual assured destruction." Immediate. Compulsory.
    - nautilius 4y ago
      Yeah, but there wasn't an attack.
    - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
      What’s not included is the confirmation that they are under attack.
logicchains 4y ago
>It's a miracle we made it out alive. It's a selection bias. In all the universes in which a nuclear war was triggered, we wouldn't be alive here today discussing it; we could only exist in a universe in which a nuclear holocaust didn't occur.

baybal2 4y ago

akmarinov 4y ago

> Not one single device sold to terrorists on the black market. I mean, there’s this journalist investigation - https://www.businessinsider.com/you-can-buy-a-nuclear-warhead-on-the-black-market-2015-8?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/you-can-buy-a-nuclear-warhea...

credit_guy 4y ago
If any terrorist organization had ever put their hands on a nuke, they would have either used it or threatened to use it.
- hedora 4y ago
  We'll find out soon. Apparently Trump scuttled the anti nuke deal with Iran on his way out of office, and they're enriching uranium again. Tehran says they're planning to level New York City ASAP (within the year). Among other things, they're lobbying to be taken off a list of terrorist organizations.
imglorp 4y ago
Nation states, sure, they've probably bought a few, but I think the evidence points to no terrorists. If a nation state has a nuke, it's in their interest to hold it as deterrent. As soon as it's used, anyone seeking accountability knows whom to visit. Eg Pakistan, Israel, NK have all been holding for years with motive to use them, but haven't. If a terrorist group has a nuke, it's in their interest to use it asap. If they delay, it might be taken away from them. If they use it, they achieve the attention and blood they seek, while the world doesn't know where they all live (assuming good opsec) and where they might have more. This might indicate they don't have any.
- Someone 4y ago
  > Nation states, sure, they've probably bought a few […] If a nation state has a nuke, it's in their interest to hold it as deterrent. It also is in their interest to let ‘them’ know they have an atomic bomb. Of course, they could have done that secretly, but I think the world at large would know of it, anyways. Since that hasn’t happened (Pakistan and North Korea built their own devices, and so, likely, did Israel, all after buying it stealing the technology), I think it’s unlikely this happened. > If they [terrorists] use it, they achieve the attention and blood they seek, while the world doesn't know where they all live Terrorists don’t want to instill fear, they want to instill fear in the pursuit of political aims. Because of that, they would have to tell the world they were responsible. I think the world would figure out where they live from that. I agree with you that it’s unlikely terrorist groups are in possession of nuclear devices. It’s not a weapon that’s easily hidden (its radiation probably gives it away), and it’s expensive to obtain, and they wouldn’t have many, so losing one without using it would be a big loss.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    Is it thought that any of these lost wepons were an off the books way to provide non nuclear allies with a deterrent.
    - Someone 4y ago
      I don’t think that’s the case. Secretly having a bomb gives you the ability to strike hard, but on its own it doesn’t deter. If you want to deter, it’s not sufficient to have teeth, you have to show them or at least convince your enemy to believe you have them, and that only seems to be happening by countries that built their own such as Russia, North Korea and Pakistan. So, how would, say, Canada secretly having a bomb deter anybody from attacking it? Also, the USA already provides non-nuclear allies with a way to deter by storing on-the-book weapons in their countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing) That doesn’t have to happen off the books. Are you suggesting there are countries they trust enough to store nuclear bombs there, while they don’t want the world at large to know about that? I can’t think of any country that would qualify for that.

bad416f1f5a2 4y ago

I see your article mentions this, but I love to highlight this one story: Strategic air command opposed the installation of these locks. Their stated concern was they would interfere with a launch order, but some think they just resented civilian control. So they allegedly worked around them. For years, the passcode keeping nuclear war at bay was 00000000 https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm https://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.or...

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

> not a single rogue general There was a rogue soviet lieutenant colonel though, and thank god for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident#Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alar...

dron57 4y ago
Hardly rogue. In his own words - his job was to supervise the radar system and make judgement calls. He judged the detection of a single "missile" to be a false positive sincea a NATO would have consisted of a massed first strike rather than a single bogey. Petrov simply did his job.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
happyopossum 4y ago
How was he a rogue? He was doing his job and he did it well, and saved a lot of lives. That doesn’t make a rogue.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  "the Soviet Union's strategy was an immediate and compulsory nuclear counter-attack against the United States (launch on warning), specified in the doctrine of mutual assured destruction." Immediate. Compulsory.
  - nautilius 4y ago
    Yeah, but there wasn't an attack.
  - BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
    What’s not included is the confirmation that they are under attack.

logicchains 4y ago

>It's a miracle we made it out alive. It's a selection bias. In all the universes in which a nuclear war was triggered, we wouldn't be alive here today discussing it; we could only exist in a universe in which a nuclear holocaust didn't occur.