Launch Command Preserved In Power Failure, But Nuclear Designs Still Risky

With a follow-up to Tuesday's story, Martin Hellman writes "Slashdot reported that a system failure at Warren AFB in Wyoming affected 50 ICBMs and that 'various security protocols built into the missile delivery system, like intrusion alarms and warhead separation alarms, were offline.' Assuaging fears that America's nuclear deterrent might have been compromised during this failure, the source article notes that the missiles still could be launched from airborne command centers. Other reports cite an administration official offering assurances that 'at no time did the president's ability [to launch] decrease.' Given the difficulty of debugging software and hardware that is probably not a good thing. The history of nuclear command and control systems has too many examples of risky designs that favor the ability to launch over the danger of an accidental one."

Why have them

[baresi]

Exaggerated threats from relatively weak entities. Questionable need in 1950 never mind 2010.

Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit wasn't

[RichMan]

So a previous president lost the biscuit for months at a time. That is the president would have been unable to authenticate to military command that he was giving a launch order. Why was that not considered a problem? When 50 missiles going into a still usable but wacky state is?

Risky!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Risky." You need to know it's STILL RISKY. Risk we say!

Be worried. Because their is risk. Don't think about the security those nooks have provided since WW2; there was and is absolutely no "risk" that another world wide conflagration might have or will happen without those risky missiles. But those nooks! The nooks are RiSkY you fool. RISKY. Don't worry about the risk to medical capabilities in the US as we legislate someones' idea of justice into medicine, either. No risk there at all. Running up 10% of our GDP as debt every year is also clearly risk free. So you just keep worrying about the nooks! They are Risky!

Re:Why have them

[hedwards]

That doesn't apply here. The difference is that there's no plausible reason why a rock would repel tigers. Especially since I'm assuming you aren't in a place where tigers are likely to come.

The point of nuclear weapons is to deter conflicts on the scale of the world wars from ever happening again, and so far they've done that admirably. They were never intended for the purpose of dealing with smaller scale outbreaks of violence even ones as large as the Iraq war.

Re:Why have them

[blair1q]

Well, nuclear ICBMs weren't, but we certainly did have programs to develop tactical nukes and even backpack bombs. But we decided for various reasons that we shouldn't be using nukes on that scale, and should just use them for when we have no alternatives and need the massive effect for which they are the only tool, and because they are a very thorough deterrent.

Re:Why have them

[khallow]

Before nukes, you had tigers [wikipedia.org]. After nukes, a hell of a lot less tigers [wikipedia.org]. For those who aren't keen on link clicking, the first link shows a map of 18 countries annexed by the USSR prior to 1948. There's also North Korea (1945) and China (1949) though only the former had direct USSR military involvement. Since then, the USSR has only directly invaded one country, Afghanistan, that wasn't already occupied by it.

The presence of considerable nuclear weapons do a great job of explaining this sudden change in tactics by the USSR.

Re:Why have them

[Pharmboy]

Expect some bad mods for being right. Everyone likes to pretend that the Cold War didn't happen, and most of the people with the strongest opinions didn't live during it, have never served in the military or had relatives that did during the Cold War. Plenty of mistakes have been made along the way (Vietnam for starters), but having a strong military and nuclear deterrent since WWII wasn't one of them.

While I understand why, most people under 30 don't fully appreciate the threat of the USSR after WWII as they are fortunate enough to not have lived under it. Ironically, the reason they haven't lived under that threat is due to what some are complaining about to begin with.

Re:Why have them

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the article: GREAT NEWS! I feel so much better knowing that although everything else failed, including safety measures preventing accidents, those missiles could still be launched and destroy some cities. It would have been such a shame if these missiles had been paralyzed and thus prevented from causing an accident.

In other news, I'm a lot more afraid of the US government having nuclear weapons than Iran.

Re:Why have them

[pnewhook]

Since then, the USSR has only directly invaded one country, Afghanistan, that wasn't already occupied by it.

And how about the countries the US has invaded and the DOZENS of countries where the CIA has overthrown democratically elected leaders and put puppet governments in their place?

Re:Why is 50 a problem when losing the biscuit was

[pixelpusher220]

Clinton never lost the biscuit. Did you see his waistline? ;-)

Seriously though, Clinton didn't lose anything, his aide lost the codes but not the football itself (guess I'm assuming there's more to the football than just a folder of codes). The aide then covered that fact up for months before anyone checking on him bothered to do more than take his word for it.

But Clinton was in no way involved in the loss or cover up of the situation.

Re:Risky!!

[Darkness404]

And what was the reason for all this? Simple ignorance. If we had actually talked with Russia which basically saved the West's asses from Hitler and included them with our projects, sharing intelligence and the like and had closer American-Russian ties perhaps we could have avoided the entire cold war. Perhaps with the opening of relations between the two countries conditions would be better for the Russians and Americans alike.

Our current diplomatic process will lead to another war like this, only the leaders of both countries might not be sane enough to avoid nuclear war next time.

Neither Russia nor the US wanted anything from the other country other than safety. If we had avoided mutual suspicion at the end of WWII and had closer ties, perhaps both nations could have prospered and accomplished much rather than simply building more bombs.

Re:Citation needed

[winwar]

"In fact, the citations show precisely the *opposite* - as the PALs were specifically intended to reduce the ability to launch in favor of reducing the risk of accidental launch. That they were improperly used is an operational flaw, not a design flaw."

If so, then the distinction between an operational flaw and a design flaw is a distinction without a difference. Or at least one without significance. If a system designed to prevent something from happening can be easily subverted when implemented as designed then it has a huge design flaw. It assumed (and required) that basic security practices would be followed (unique combinations). If this was not followed, it was worthless. This was by design.

Re:Risky!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know much about Joesph Stalin, do you?

Re:Risky!!

[Type44Q]

And what was the reason for all this? Simple ignorance. If we had actually talked with Russia which basically saved the West's asses from Hitler and included them with our projects, sharing intelligence and the like and had closer American-Russian ties perhaps we could have avoided the entire cold war. Perhaps with the opening of relations between the two countries conditions would be better for the Russians and Americans alike.

Riiiiggghht... it was all a misunderstanding; Stalin was actually a nice, reasonable guy beneath that genocidal exterior and would have been a walk in the park to reason with.