
Nervous about nukes again? Here’s what you need to know about the Button - mysterypie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nervous-about-nukes-again-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-button-there-is-no-button/2016/08/03/085558b6-4471-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html
======
pluma
As a European, I am always nervous about nukes. American nukes specifically.
And not so much about Trump, who is a buffoon but doesn't actually want to get
too involved in messy foreign politics, but Clinton, who as a Secretary of
State has already proven to be another warmonger.

The US has had a blasé attitude to nuclear weapons ever since the start of the
Cold War. The majority of situations where we have come close to global
thermonuclear war involved careless US behaviour. The US is the only nation in
the history of mankind to have used nuclear weapons at all.

If there will ever be a nuclear war, the US is the most likely country to make
it happen. Sure, some deranged dictator might fling a single nuclear missile
somewhere at some point (and it will probably be intercepted before it can do
any real damage) but if I had to bet on a country to end the world as we know
it, all my money would be on the US.

~~~
oneloop
Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is
genuinely dangerous.
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc)

~~~
ThomPete
Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the
power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton.

Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business
man not religious or idealistic person.

~~~
oneloop
My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's
asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS
very stupid.

Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you
trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be
less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You
can't have both.

~~~
gonvaled
The power vacuum comes from topping Saddam Hussein for geopolitical reasons.
Opportunistic use of the September 11 attacks to open up a new era of wild-
wild-west politics, where the world is up for grabs.

And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests?
Russia _needs_ to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an
extremely aggressive US.

~~~
oneloop
Regarding your second paragraph, awareness amongst the US population should be
risen about that. For the past 3 or so years Russia has been getting more and
more nervous about the US defence shield. Its argument is that the US can use
it for offence missiles which could be used to strike and neutralise its
nuclear potential.

Instead of addressing the issue, the US has been playing dumb by claiming that
"don't worry mate, this is against Iran not Russia!"

Now, Russia plays its own geopolitical game too, of course. And you might
believe that the US defence shield poses no danger to Russia. But you have to
ask yourself, what does Russia believe? Because if Russia really believes the
US is making moves to neutralise its nuclear threat, it's just a matter of
time until it strikes, because like you said the alternative is to be wiped
out from the world stage. Don't corner a rat. Very very concerning.

And this has been some ten years in the making, since the US withdrew from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (which the US argued at the name was so that it
could build its missile defence system). This does not seem conducting of
stability in the world.

------
runarb
The security of nuclear weapons may be less tight than one may think. Hare are
some classics:

British nukes were protected by bike locks -
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7097101.stm)

Launch code for US nukes was 00000000 for 20 years -
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-
for-u...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-
was-00000000-for-20-years/)

~~~
marvin
Not only that -- before the creation of Permissive Action Links in the early
1960s, few nuclear weapons had launch codes at all.

~~~
arethuza
UK Trident warheads don't have PALs in the usual sense - the crews on the
boats have everything they need to launch.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link)

------
nabla9
The football, the biscuit and the verification from secretary of defense are
needed to confirm the authenticity of the authority. Secretary of defense
doesn’t have veto power but he can use his judgment and refuse. Might lose his
job though.

The authorization codes are used to demonstrate down the chain of command that
the use of nuclear weapons has been authorized. Even after that the judgment
is distributed to individuals. The president has only the authorization codes.
Actual launch codes are in the hands of STRATCOM. There are generals who can
refuse a direct order.

------
JumpCrisscross
> _The president can order this without consulting Congress, without being
> checked by the Supreme Court._

Perhaps a single person's power to launch up to 2,000 nukes needs to be
revisited?

~~~
jon-wood
It does seem more than a little strange that the president has to battle with
congress to get a law passed providing easier access to healthcare for people,
but if they want to wipe out a good chunk of humanity then that's their
prerogative.

~~~
yodsanklai
Even in airplanes, they have a "two crew cockpit rule" to prevent one guy from
crashing the plane (as it happened recently in south of France).

[http://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/26/u-s-airlines-use-two-
cr...](http://www.denverpost.com/2015/03/26/u-s-airlines-use-two-crew-cockpit-
rule-to-stop-renegade-pilots/)

------
blowski
How much of this is accurate and up to date? I'm extremely skeptical when
details like this appear in newspapers.

~~~
Noseshine
I hope the question is rhetorical, since if the information is indeed
deliberately hidden and only false stories are made public, the few who know
the real story are unlikely to post about it here on HN. So whoever answers
the question either doesn't know anything or is trying to mislead you
(further) :)

------
reacweb
Do not worry, they have changed the passwords: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-us-nukes-was-00000000-for-20-years/)

------
cyberferret
The article states that the president can use the 'biscuit' and the 'football'
to instigate a nuclear attack on his sole discretion, but haven't those rules
been changes in recent years to require a second government official to
confirm and acknowledge the order?

~~~
welanes
That's probably the case. Attack authorization surely involves more than
opening a briefcase and pressing a big red button. (Edit, yep: 'The National
Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must
jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff').

The Washington Post detests Trump so the purpose of this piece is not to
inform, but rather to plant the potential devastation of nuclear weapons and
Trump's temperament in the mind of the reader.

~~~
iaw
My understanding is that target selection is more involved, but launching is
essentially reading numbers off a list into a cell phone...

~~~
welanes
Some insight on the process here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Codes)

------
philjohn
Posted as a reply, but if you want to read more about the command and control
structure in the US, and why it evolved as it did (tl;dr paranoia during the
cold war for the most part) the excellent Command and Control is a good intro
to the subject: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Control-Eric-
Schlosser/dp/0...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Command-Control-Eric-
Schlosser/dp/0141037911)

------
wtbob
> Bill Clinton allegedly misplaced the biscuit and didn’t tell anyone for
> months.

Boggle.

