How PALS Help Secure Nuclear Weapons 136
Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reported last week that until 1998 no code or dual key system was required to arm British nuclear weapons. Bombs were armed by inserting a bicycle lock key (video) into the arming switch and turning it 90 degrees. Permissive Action Links (PALs) were introduced in the 1960s in America to prevent a mad General or pilot launching a nuclear war on their own and to control nuclear weapons that were at least partially controlled by other nations but as late as 1974, when an armed quarrel broke out between two members of NATO, Greece and Turkey, the Secretary of Defense learned that many tactical nukes were still not equipped with PALS. It has been reported that PALs have been installed on Pakistan's nuclear weapons to disarm or disable their triggering mechanism if the wrong code is entered or if the bomb is tampered with in any manner."
Tin Foil Hat Time. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My two cents anyway
Quite sensible (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you guys certainly got around, didn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think the Brits where quite sensible in Stranglove. It's the Americans that where out of whack:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Doctor Who... (Score:3, Funny)
The Doctor: Well, naturally; I mean, the rest are all foreigners!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It therefore surprises me that the following countries are not radioactive holes in the ground:
Croatia
Portugal (in 2004 and 2006)
Brazil
Romania
Argentina (1986 and 1998)
Germany (too many bloody times to bear thinking about)
We're exceptionally forbearing with the nukes, even when we do have a jolly good reason.
Re: (Score:1)
Crazy.
Rumor had it... (Score:5, Interesting)
-b.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The kind of thing.... (Score:2)
12345 forever, baby!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are "TSA approved" locks [thetravelinsider.com], that can be opened by their baggage invaders with a "master" key. (Whether such a thing is useful or not is an interesting question.)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe I'll just start zip-tieing my luggage shut
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no time for them to pick through all the locks your luggage goes "missing" or gets "delayed".
The next time your bag gets delayed, go check to see if someone has opened it. Often you'll find that it has.
I just assume that people can steal stuff in my bags (or steal the entire bag) and will do so.
Unf
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot prevent people from going into your suitcase. You can only make it harder. That is the entire point of locking your suitcase.
The TSA-approved locks are just fine. It's just there to slow people down.
Re: (Score:1)
Fibonacci is the way to go! 01123581321345589144233
Re:Rumor had it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Rumor had it... (Score:4, Informative)
I've spoken to former Silo men and they've confirmed at this was the case and the reasoning behind it was to make sure that people did not forget the codes (al la in the heat of the moment they freeze and forget) or to prevent some beurcractic mix up and SILO 123 got SILO 456's PAL codes, etc..
And apparently this was done on the quiet. Not that it was a big secret as much as they just didn't talk about it.
CPE1704TKS (Score:3, Funny)
I can't be the ONLY geek and "WarGames" fan to have once used "CPE1704TKS" or "CPE-1704-TKS" as a password. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/goofs [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Irony (Score:1)
A chance to tag something drstrangelove (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Just get elected and armageddon away. Sanity is (obviously) not a required trait for holding the presidential office.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US has shared information on how to add PALs to a nuclear weapon to just about anyone who has a declared or undeclared nuclear weapon capability. It's in everyone's best interest that nuclear weapons be kept under solid negative control, to make the "mad general" or "stolen weapon" scenarios a little bit less scary. It does not mean that the US or any other nation holds the PAL codes to Pa
Bicycle lock key (Score:3, Insightful)
Bicycle Lock? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hsM88Wx8QQ [youtube.com]
Probably not. Wouldn't be sporting to pick the lock and all, so no Brit would ever do that.
Snake! (Score:1)
Yes Minister! (Score:5, Funny)
Sir Humphrey: Cabinet Secretary
---
Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bernard: Apparently, the fact that you needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, therefore those that needed to advise and inform the Home Secretary perhaps felt the information he needed as to whether to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not, at th
the PAL system was neutered by US generals (Score:5, Informative)
Permissive Action Links (PALs) were introduced in the 1960s in America to prevent a mad General or pilot launching a nuclear war on their own
Wow, that glosses over reality very nicely. The codes were all zeros until the 80's, because said generals refused to implement a system that would prevent them from "hitting back".
He rightly insisted on Permissive Action Links for the US Strategic Air Command Minuteman missiles and bombs - so that they could only be armed and detonated by the the correct codes from the President or the rest of the chain of command. However, it turns out, that whilst McNamara was nominally in charge, that SAC decided to secretly order all the PAL codes to be set to eight zeros, so that there would not be any delays caused by communications problems during a nuclear war.
(From http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-not-to-write-about-uk-nuclear.html [blogspot.com])
What's hilarious is that there were extensive efforts to implement PAL securely; all sorts of tamper-proofing and obfuscation in the weapons to make it such that you'd have to have a fair bit of training to have any hope of setting one off. Roughly the equivalent of installing high-security deadbolts throughout your property, and leaving the key in the front door lock.
Re:the PAL system was neutered by US generals (Score:5, Interesting)
There isn't a really good reason the British should take 21 years longer than the (already late) US to deploy PALs with proper codes, and over 40 years later to use a dual-key initiation. "Someone else was late doing it" is not an excuse, especially when you are twice as late.
Two compromised people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that, or you would take a spoon/fork from cafe, twist it 90 degrees, tie string to it and hey presto, you would have hi-tech nuclear bomb-launching device. After you shot the guy on the other desk in the neck, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, UK and US have same reaction time to russian nuclear strike or "not enough"
Even better, 1st strike would probably be delivered by shipping containers..
Re: (Score:2)
The reason PALs were developed was mostly for forward-deployed weapons, particularly those in the hands of other armed forces besides the U.S.'s. The idea was to keep the Greeks from nuking the Turks, or vice versa, using U.S.-supp
Pakistan DOES NOT have PALS (Score:4, Informative)
And furthermore: Likewise with Clinton:
If you REALLY want to be safe (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:If you REALLY want to be safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Oh really? How so? Seems to be bombs want to be used as much as information wants to be free. And with the scope of an accidental launch triggering AT BEST a limited exchange (perhaps between pakistan and india) how is the M.A.D scenario even relevant anymore. Your saying with Pakistan now suspended from the commonwealth and under martial law, there is no scope for a terrorist organisation to seize control of ONE s
Re: (Score:1)
DU is not a nuclear weapon any more than the guts of an X-ray machine, you fucking idiot. If we use nuclear weapons, you'll
Re: (Score:2)
Only barely, and X-Ray machines don't spread radioactive isotopes when used,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with places like North Korea and Iran is the citizens can just cower in their basements because the leaders are going to do whatever they want and do not req
Re:If you REALLY want to be safe-ob car comparison (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One only has to look at the US in recent years to see that this, sadly, does not work. They invade foreign countries for their own power and profit, they force insane laws on other countries, and they are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on civilian targets - and
Re: (Score:2)
Not secure (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a nice discussion on the topic (Score:2)
threats and safeties (Score:2, Interesting)
When you're 30-100 times the size of your opponent, having a nice, methodical system of locks and approvals by which you decide and release your forces works fine. You can spare the bombs when you have 3000 and you spend 600 Billion a year on the military.
When you're the little guy with a nuke or two, or like Paki
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In terms of deterring capability having 50 nukes and 3000 nukes is really not that much of a difference IF you can deliver them reliably. This is where the superpowers differ from the smaller nuclear weapon states. The US
Re: (Score:2)
If you're the Exalted and Supreme Leader of $PIPSQUEAK_NUCLEAR_NATION, you actually benefit from having PALs that prevent one of your generals from flying off the handle and glassing your neighbors: it makes you the only party worth negotiating with.
PALs concentrate authority; they push the nuclear decision all the way up to the top of the hierarchy. That means the person at the top of the pyramid holds all the power.
If you're a nuclear nation with an unstable chain of command and no
nukes in Turkey? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, rumor has it the Soviet submarine K129 was hijacked by elite troops, and tried to launch a missile at Pearl Harbor. If this happened, and the sub did try to launch a missle, the missile's safety mechanisms caused it to self-destruct, taking the sub down to the bottom of the sea. There's a lot of rumor and conspiracy theory [blueyonder.co.uk] about it, but Project Jennifer [fas.org] seems to have been about recovering the sunken Soviet sub.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to see the Glomar Explorer, off the south coast of Maui.
proof of insanity (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is just to say that the US nuclear weapon program is one of the greatest examples of pork in history. The pork potion of the program was initiated in response to questionable analysis by the CIA, and lead to such events as the Iran-Contra drug running scandals. It is important to note that up to the point of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the CIA was reporting that Union was stable, strong, and an imminent threat [nytimes.com]. The 2.2 trillion 1980's dollar spent, along with an equal amount spent by the political successor of that administration, should be the envy of any tax and spend democrat, and has surely lead to a total deficit that will likely be at least 75% of GDP by the end of 2008.
Guy in the Video (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a training "dummy" that was used by the RAF until they had them taken away in the 90's. Now the only nukes the brits have are in trident submarines, which they have to buy from the americans.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Simple (Score:1, Flamebait)
Metal Gear Solid (Score:1)
A recent newspaper article claimed otherwise (Score:3, Interesting)
So somebody has got it wrong. Either they had them in 2003 or they didn't - or only some of them have it. The article I read said that Pakistan relied on separating the fissile material and the rest of the weapon components to keep them secure. And that Pakistan has not and will not reveal the location of their weapons to the US, fearing that the US would take them out if the US perceived they were at threat of being seized by Islamic militants in the country, leaving Pakistan defenseless against India's nuclear arsenal.
I suspect the earlier article about PALs was propaganda intended to allay people's fears that Pakistan's nukes are inadequately controlled.
Paki nukes are disassembled (Score:2)
But, this info comes from a Finnish newspaper, cannot remember which, and we have strict social-democratic and multicultural self-censorship in place, so it may be inaccurate.
No surprises... (Score:2)
Not Bicycle Locks. (Score:1, Informative)
Pals (Score:2)
Missiles (Score:2)
Our work of course caused us to carry classified information such as launch codes, war plans, etc. we had top secret crypto clearances for this work and while we were in the missile silo's actually performing our work we were protected by air police who would repel any intruders that might try to penetrate the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aye, Pricilla: Queen of the Glass Desert
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Does this hit the news headlines? Nope. What does you may ask?
How the government is wasting money on immigration support, the NHS, anything else actually useful to normal people... here's a cluestick, take the nuke money away. Problem solved!
A nuclear submarine is the most useless thing to spend money on, even as a deterrent because England would NEVER nuke a country. Could you imag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's never going to happen, everyone knows it, so what's the point in producing weapons that can kill millions of people and effect everyone on the planet just so you can play who has a bigger penis.
You are an idiot (Score:2)
Nations with nuclear weapons generally have a policy that they will not use them except under 2 conditions.
1) You invade us.
2) You nuke us first.
If everyone has nukes, and no one uses theirs first, then no one will use them at all.
Nukes on a submarine are a deterrent as a 2nd strike option. Targeting a nuke silo is fairly easy. You just figure out where it is and aim for them first, and enemy cities second. Targeting a nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to see taxpayers' money being burned, go work in local government or the NHS. I've worked in the NHS for just six months now, which has been more than enough time to open my eyes to how this government is no different than Labour governments of old, tax and spend with little to show for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)