Russian Doomsday Device

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While I can’t know that the information I read was accurate, back in the day I read that American nuclear submarines could in fact launch after some period of time (quite lengthy) had passed since any received communication from the National Command Authority.

Thus guaranteeing response even if the continental United States and entire leadership, all ICBM silos, and all nuclear-capable aircraft were destroyed in a first-strike.

I wouldn’t think that is accurate (maybe in the very formative years of nuke ops). To even neccessitate such a system, it would have had to be before early warning systems, so pre-sattelite, pre-polar radar, everything. In the cold war days, aircraft were on runway alert and could get out within minutes. ICBMs can launch in a matter of minutes. Any indication of an attack would give plenty of time for orders to be communicated. So, if such a procedure existed, it was VERY early in the nuclear era to be sure.

You can guarantee that nothing like that happens now. If you have the entire launch code, then for all intents and purposes you ARE the National Command Authority. The entire system is physically designed to prevent anyone but POTUS or his successor to order any attack. I would assume the British system is set up the same way.[/quote]

Wow, I can’t believe that you’re saying if congress doesn’t pass ObamaCare, Barry Hussein is capable of nuking his own country so that we can become a Commie Russian-controlled territory that forces its citizens to live in gay households, too tired from constant sex to mount a rebellion.

(Oh sorry, I’m not used to informative and civil PWI threads. Carry on.)

22

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
The threat of a US first nuclear strike against conventional weapons was all that did keep them at bay.
[/quote]

The Russians would have blackmailed us with a first strike threat if we moved against their forces in Europe. That was the thinking back then…which is why we began the Star Wars defense.

23

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
Er, even in the slightly odd logic of mutual assured destruction, there is very little point in a secret doomsday device.

Of course, the British independent deterrent has no need of clever seismic detectors - the submarines permanently at sea are told to listen in for BBC radio 4 every morning. If it’s not there…the sealed orders are opened.

Not a chance it works like that. I was a Minuteman ICBM Crew Commander. Nuclear command and control is much more complicated and secure than that.

:slight_smile: I’m not suggesting this is the normal chain of command. But as a last resort … it’s been pretty widely reported and never been denied.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/today_programme.shtml

[scroll down to “Hennessy’s nuclear launch claim”]. The Wikipedia article says more … but who’d trust Wikipedia. Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nope. Not a chance. All it would take is for a third party to eliminate the transmitter or jam/spoof a few frequencies to start WWIII. [/quote]

No. That wasn’t the point. At all. “Last resort” = when the lawful authority can no longer communicate with you, by any of the (presumably multiple) means normally at its disposal.

If your role is to be the last line of defence, then you need a procedure for that eventuality: I have no idea what that may be in practice nor how many multiple steps it may have, but finding out if civilian comms is still present is going to make sense as an element within it.

Edit:

[quote]
Also, one more thing (not to beat a dead horse here), chances are zero that subs travel with complete launch codes.[/quote]

Obviously, I have no direct knowledge of the matter, but the wikipedia article claims, with citations, that:

Currently, British Trident commanders are able to launch their missiles without authorisation, whereas their American colleagues cannot.

which I have also heard elsewhere. Of course the procedures are going to be classified, but that’s a highly significant point of principle: I doubt you would want the wrong information to be widely believed. Indeed, the whole idea of there being sealed “final orders” deposited with each Trident Submarine is in the public domain, and former prime ministers have discussed it.

24

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Er, even in the slightly odd logic of mutual assured destruction, there is very little point in a secret doomsday device.

Of course, the British independent deterrent has no need of clever seismic detectors - the submarines permanently at sea are told to listen in for BBC radio 4 every morning. If it’s not there…the sealed orders are opened.[/quote]

wow that’s foolproof (not). what will those clever brits come up with next? i feel so secure that world peace is potentially at the mercy of a radio transmission failure. please tell me this isn’t true.

25

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
Er, even in the slightly odd logic of mutual assured destruction, there is very little point in a secret doomsday device.

Of course, the British independent deterrent has no need of clever seismic detectors - the submarines permanently at sea are told to listen in for BBC radio 4 every morning. If it’s not there…the sealed orders are opened.

wow that’s foolproof (not). what will those clever brits come up with next? i feel so secure that world peace is potentially at the mercy of a radio transmission failure. please tell me this isn’t true.
[/quote]

Quite the reverse. This is the final fail-safe (or part of it), that if you’re receiving no government communications BEFORE you assume that London is toast, you go and look for other evidence.

Or it might be a myth.

26

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While I can’t know that the information I read was accurate, back in the day I read that American nuclear submarines could in fact launch after some period of time (quite lengthy) had passed since any received communication from the National Command Authority.

Thus guaranteeing response even if the continental United States and entire leadership, all ICBM silos, and all nuclear-capable aircraft were destroyed in a first-strike.

I wouldn’t think that is accurate (maybe in the very formative years of nuke ops). To even neccessitate such a system, it would have had to be before early warning systems, so pre-sattelite, pre-polar radar, everything. In the cold war days, aircraft were on runway alert and could get out within minutes. ICBMs can launch in a matter of minutes. Any indication of an attack would give plenty of time for orders to be communicated. So, if such a procedure existed, it was VERY early in the nuclear era to be sure. [/quote]

A problem with that analysis is that it was not always the case that submarines at depth could receive communications.

So if happening (as would usually be the case) to be deeply submerged in the minutes between detection of oncoming massive first strike and its arrival, no communication would be received.

One-way communication at depth became possible with extreme-low-frequency (ELF) transmission, but this wasn’t operation until 1969 and even then may perhaps not have been quite adequate, as it is capable of transmitting only a few characters per minute. (Not the best thing to begin transmitting orders to launch, but get only half the message out before the ELF transmitter is destroyed.) Its main purpose reportedly was to order surfacing.

So I don’t know if it was ever technically possible, or reliable, to communicate a strike order to a submarine that happened at depth in the minutes between detection and arrival of a first strike.

27

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
Er, even in the slightly odd logic of mutual assured destruction, there is very little point in a secret doomsday device.

Of course, the British independent deterrent has no need of clever seismic detectors - the submarines permanently at sea are told to listen in for BBC radio 4 every morning. If it’s not there…the sealed orders are opened.

wow that’s foolproof (not). what will those clever brits come up with next? i feel so secure that world peace is potentially at the mercy of a radio transmission failure. please tell me this isn’t true.

Quite the reverse. This is the final fail-safe (or part of it), that if you’re receiving no government communications BEFORE you assume that London is toast, you go and look for other evidence.

Or it might be a myth.

[/quote]

I can imagine the British submarine crew now:

"BBC One!

"BBC Two!

"BBC Three!

“Uh, no BBC Four… Launch!”

:slight_smile:

28

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
While I can’t know that the information I read was accurate, back in the day I read that American nuclear submarines could in fact launch after some period of time (quite lengthy) had passed since any received communication from the National Command Authority.

Thus guaranteeing response even if the continental United States and entire leadership, all ICBM silos, and all nuclear-capable aircraft were destroyed in a first-strike.

I wouldn’t think that is accurate (maybe in the very formative years of nuke ops). To even neccessitate such a system, it would have had to be before early warning systems, so pre-sattelite, pre-polar radar, everything. In the cold war days, aircraft were on runway alert and could get out within minutes. ICBMs can launch in a matter of minutes. Any indication of an attack would give plenty of time for orders to be communicated. So, if such a procedure existed, it was VERY early in the nuclear era to be sure.

A problem with that analysis is that it was not always the case that submarines at depth could receive communications.

So if happening (as would usually be the case) to be deeply submerged in the minutes between detection of oncoming massive first strike and its arrival, no communication would be received.

One-way communication at depth became possible with extreme-low-frequency (ELF) transmission, but this wasn’t operation until 1969 and even then may perhaps not have been quite adequate, as it is capable of transmitting only a few characters per minute. (Not the best thing to begin transmitting orders to launch, but get only half the message out before the ELF transmitter is destroyed.) Its main purpose reportedly was to order surfacing.

So I don’t know if it was ever technically possible, or reliable, to communicate a strike order to a submarine that happened at depth in the minutes between detection and arrival of a first strike.[/quote]

Actually, we had in-the-air alert comm aircraft that trailed ELF antennas (still do). The point was for survivability purposes. A roaming aircraft is survivable, where a ground-based unit is not. Also, sattelites retain and re-broadcast communications on their own. Sub commanders simply need to get to receiving depth. Also, any surviving units relay traffic. The system is very spread out and robust. Like I said, it is possible that there was some version of this in the VERY early cold war days, however I know for a fact that this is ABSOLUTELY not the case today. Subs do NOT carry complete launch codes. I don’t want to get too in depth here, because I can’t remember off the top of my head what is classified and what isn’t. Rest assured, the #1 priority for the nuke ops community in this country is to follow procedures ensuring that POTUS and only POTUS has authority to commit weapons. Like, if you make a simple procedural mistake, you get fired and/or go to jail. Case in point:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532649,00.html
My old unit :frowning:
No actual compromise (cases locked with 2 locks and each guy only knows the combo to one), 2 guys careers ended.

As for the Brits, I would be highly skeptical of any claims that they don’t do things the same way. They patterned most of their nuke control technology around ours.

29

In-air ELF?

I think you mean VLF, which cannot penetrate to much depth.

30

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
As for the Brits, I would be highly skeptical of any claims that they don’t do things the same way. They patterned most of their nuke control technology around ours.[/quote]

Not what the BBC says. BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | British nukes were protected by bike locks

31

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
In-air ELF?

I think you mean VLF, which cannot penetrate to much depth.[/quote]

Pretty sure it is ELF (not 100%). The antenna is over a mile long due to the extreme wavelengths needed. They aren’t allowed to trail it over land except in time of war in case it breaks off because it could cause a bunch of damage/deaths on the ground. I’ve flown on that plane, and turned keys on real missiles during an exercise (missiles were safed, the exercise verifies comm ability). The antenna setup is pretty cool.

32

[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
As for the Brits, I would be highly skeptical of any claims that they don’t do things the same way. They patterned most of their nuke control technology around ours.

Not what the BBC says. BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | British nukes were protected by bike locks
[/quote]

If that information is accurate, then the Brits have a VERY shoddy system for nuke surety. If I were a citizen of the UK, I would be very uneasy about it, and not too happy with my government. If true, that is pretty shocking stuff. Even the Russians do it better than that.

33

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
In-air ELF?

I think you mean VLF, which cannot penetrate to much depth.

Pretty sure it is ELF (not 100%). The antenna is over a mile long due to the extreme wavelengths needed. They aren’t allowed to trail it over land except in time of war in case it breaks off because it could cause a bunch of damage/deaths on the ground. I’ve flown on that plane, and turned keys on real missiles during an exercise (missiles were safed, the exercise verifies comm ability). The antenna setup is pretty cool.[/quote]

Perhaps it is. Back in the 70s and 80s, ELF could not be done that way. The US is reported to have had only two transmitters, both land-based and relying on the Earth itself as the antenna.

By the way, a mile is about nothing compared to the wavelength of ELF. But I surely cannot say that a technical method may not have been found since then that enables a mere one mile cable to transmit it.

I was really referring to the Cold War days with regard to the overall things I was saying. It is interesting to learn that ELF (probably, from your observations) can now be transmitted from aircraft.

34

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
In-air ELF?

I think you mean VLF, which cannot penetrate to much depth.

Pretty sure it is ELF (not 100%). The antenna is over a mile long due to the extreme wavelengths needed. They aren’t allowed to trail it over land except in time of war in case it breaks off because it could cause a bunch of damage/deaths on the ground. I’ve flown on that plane, and turned keys on real missiles during an exercise (missiles were safed, the exercise verifies comm ability). The antenna setup is pretty cool.

Perhaps it is. Back in the 70s and 80s, ELF could not be done that way. The US is reported to have only two transmitters, both land-based and relying on the Earth itself as the antenna.

By the way, a mile is about nothing compared to the wavelength of ELF. But I surely cannot say that a technical method may not have been found since then that enables a mere one mile cable to transmit it.

I was really referring to the Cold War days with regard to the overall things I was saying. It is interesting to learn that ELF (probably, from your observations) can now be transmitted from aircraft.

[/quote]

Yeah, its been a few years, so I don’t remember the frequency range. Probably couldn’t say even if I did! I think you’re right about the ground-based ones, and the planes provide some backup/redundancy. Regarding Cold War systems in the U.S. we have used separated codes since at least the 60s.