6 ms·

> Either way-- laughable security for the military's crown jewels. The military would disagree. The all-zeros combination code was chosen on purpose because it

by maaku 12y ago

> Either way-- laughable security for the military's crown jewels. The military would disagree. The all-zeros combination code was chosen on purpose because it was felt that having a code at all was a reduction in security since the code revelation procedure became a single point of failure. These aspects of the nuclear security system were designed by politicians, and weren't exactly the best of ideas, so the military did what they needed to comply with the law but keep the nuclear arsenal secure and available.

Phlarp 12y ago
It always seemed to me that the military, specifically the Strategic Air Command appreciated that security and ease of use are trade offs, and consistently chose solutions very far to the "ease of use" end of that spectrum. SAC was considerably more worried that bomb security measures would inhibit swift retaliation than they were that poor security would allow for an unauthorized detonation. More civilized individuals might call that insane as opposed to laughable.
phillmv 12y ago
>These aspects of the nuclear security system were designed by politicians, This is false. I suggest reading Command and Control; it is illuminating and terrifying. The setup you described evolved from a tug of war between competing bureaucratic interests combined with ineffective oversight. The various military organizations fought to keep control and funding of prestigious nuclear weapons; the political arm dealt with the paradox inherent in having a system that was ready to be deployed at a moment's notice, but impossible to detonate accidentally. The compromise that emerged were these broken systems. To quote from Command and Control: >After the accident at Thule, the Pentagon had ordered SAC [Strategic Air Command] to impose some form of use control. Instead of relying on PALs, during the early 1970s the Air Force put a coded switch in the cockpit of every bomber that carried nuclear weapons. The switch permitted an arming signal to be sent to the bomb bay when the right code was entered. The lock had been placed on the bomber, not inside the bombs—and a stolen weapon could still be detonated with a simple DC signal. SAC was far more worried about its weapons being rendered inoperable during wartime than about someone stealing them or using them without proper authorization. During the late 1970s, a coded switch was finally placed in the control center of every SAC ballistic missile. It unlocked the missile, not the warhead. And as a final act of defiance, SAC demonstrated the importance of code management to the usefulness of any coded switch. The combination necessary to launch the missiles was the same at every Minuteman site: 00000000.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
Indeed, the military felt strongly that it was reasonable to increase the chance of causing Armageddon by accident, in order to hold sacrosanct their ability to cause Armageddon on purpose, and resented attempts to reverse that equation. It's weird how you say that like it was wise instead of horrifically insane, though.
- mikeash 12y ago
  They generally had great trust in their people, and didn't think the risk of someone deliberately disobeying orders and using a nuclear weapon was high. Meanwhile, they believed that the Soviets were looking for an opportunity to strike, and that the best and only realistic way to prevent a Soviet strike was to present them with certain devastating retaliation. They never planned to cause Armageddon, only have the capability to respond to the other guy causing it in such a way that they'd never want to cause it. The scary thing about the Cold War was that the participants generally had the best of intentions (aside from a few people like Curtis LeMay, and they never really got presented with the opportunity to express their evil side) but disaster could have easily happened anyway, purely by accident. And I really shouldn't put this in the past tense. All of this stuff is still there. We all seem to have just decided to collectively pretend that MAD went away when the USSR dissolved, even though there are still thousands of missiles and nuclear warheads ready to wreck civilization at a moment's notice.
  - Phlarp 12y ago
    > They never planned to cause Armageddon, only have the capability to respond to the other guy causing it in such a way that they'd never want to cause it. This was one school of thought within the command and control structure, but was, from my understanding both a minority opinion and one held more by political oversight members than by the actual generals holding the keys. Leslie Groves specifically felt that a nuclear exchange was inevitable, and that the US was in a position to win.
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    > They never planned to cause Armageddon, only have the capability to respond to the other guy causing it in such a way that they'd never want to cause it. In that case, they shouldn't have been fussed about an extremely small chance of failure. The Soviets would never dare bank on such a chance, therefore it wouldn't change the effectiveness of the deterrent. The only reason to act as they did is that they were worried about not being able to get revenge if the Soviets launched first. I vaguely recall a short story in which the Soviets launch their missiles, for whatever reason, and the U.S. President refuses to give the launch order. MAD has failed and America is doomed anyway; there is no value in adding hundreds of millions to the death toll simply to follow through on a threat.

by maaku 12y ago

Phlarp 12y ago

It always seemed to me that the military, specifically the Strategic Air Command appreciated that security and ease of use are trade offs, and consistently chose solutions very far to the "ease of use" end of that spectrum. SAC was considerably more worried that bomb security measures would inhibit swift retaliation than they were that poor security would allow for an unauthorized detonation. More civilized individuals might call that insane as opposed to laughable.

phillmv 12y ago

>These aspects of the nuclear security system were designed by politicians, This is false. I suggest reading Command and Control; it is illuminating and terrifying. The setup you described evolved from a tug of war between competing bureaucratic interests combined with ineffective oversight. The various military organizations fought to keep control and funding of prestigious nuclear weapons; the political arm dealt with the paradox inherent in having a system that was ready to be deployed at a moment's notice, but impossible to detonate accidentally. The compromise that emerged were these broken systems. To quote from Command and Control: >After the accident at Thule, the Pentagon had ordered SAC [Strategic Air Command] to impose some form of use control. Instead of relying on PALs, during the early 1970s the Air Force put a coded switch in the cockpit of every bomber that carried nuclear weapons. The switch permitted an arming signal to be sent to the bomb bay when the right code was entered. The lock had been placed on the bomber, not inside the bombs—and a stolen weapon could still be detonated with a simple DC signal. SAC was far more worried about its weapons being rendered inoperable during wartime than about someone stealing them or using them without proper authorization. During the late 1970s, a coded switch was finally placed in the control center of every SAC ballistic missile. It unlocked the missile, not the warhead. And as a final act of defiance, SAC demonstrated the importance of code management to the usefulness of any coded switch. The combination necessary to launch the missiles was the same at every Minuteman site: 00000000.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

Indeed, the military felt strongly that it was reasonable to increase the chance of causing Armageddon by accident, in order to hold sacrosanct their ability to cause Armageddon on purpose, and resented attempts to reverse that equation. It's weird how you say that like it was wise instead of horrifically insane, though.

mikeash 12y ago
They generally had great trust in their people, and didn't think the risk of someone deliberately disobeying orders and using a nuclear weapon was high. Meanwhile, they believed that the Soviets were looking for an opportunity to strike, and that the best and only realistic way to prevent a Soviet strike was to present them with certain devastating retaliation. They never planned to cause Armageddon, only have the capability to respond to the other guy causing it in such a way that they'd never want to cause it. The scary thing about the Cold War was that the participants generally had the best of intentions (aside from a few people like Curtis LeMay, and they never really got presented with the opportunity to express their evil side) but disaster could have easily happened anyway, purely by accident. And I really shouldn't put this in the past tense. All of this stuff is still there. We all seem to have just decided to collectively pretend that MAD went away when the USSR dissolved, even though there are still thousands of missiles and nuclear warheads ready to wreck civilization at a moment's notice.
- Phlarp 12y ago
  > They never planned to cause Armageddon, only have the capability to respond to the other guy causing it in such a way that they'd never want to cause it. This was one school of thought within the command and control structure, but was, from my understanding both a minority opinion and one held more by political oversight members than by the actual generals holding the keys. Leslie Groves specifically felt that a nuclear exchange was inevitable, and that the US was in a position to win.
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  > They never planned to cause Armageddon, only have the capability to respond to the other guy causing it in such a way that they'd never want to cause it. In that case, they shouldn't have been fussed about an extremely small chance of failure. The Soviets would never dare bank on such a chance, therefore it wouldn't change the effectiveness of the deterrent. The only reason to act as they did is that they were worried about not being able to get revenge if the Soviets launched first. I vaguely recall a short story in which the Soviets launch their missiles, for whatever reason, and the U.S. President refuses to give the launch order. MAD has failed and America is doomed anyway; there is no value in adding hundreds of millions to the death toll simply to follow through on a threat.