

Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine (It actually exists) - tsestrich
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=1

======
idlewords
This article is a massive bait and switch. The 'doomsday machine' turns out to
be... a protocol for delegating launch decisions to some dude deep in a bunker
if certain conditions (phone to Moscow goes dead, ground shakes a lot, someone
remembered to turn the system on) are met.

Even the British version of this is more unsettling:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort>

~~~
electromagnetic
Actually the British version is less unsettling, it's resting the command on
four Captains of the Royal Navy. First they have to confirm that the UK has
been destroyed (this means no government or no established military chain of
command) then they have to establish the prime minister has been killed. After
this they execute their last order, which is whatever is held on the letter,
which could potentially be anything. It would likely be targets, but it could
equally be orders to contact an ally for appropriate targets prior to
launching a blind attack.

~~~
gort
I'm reminded of an Arthur C. Clarke story, "The Last Command", where the
letter orders the men to... surrender to the enemy; since deterrence has
already failed.

------
run4yourlives
It utterly amazes me that civilians are surprised that military people around
the world actually plan for the worst eventualities, even if the likelihood of
occurrence is low.

You can plan when everyone is home and safe in their beds, you can't when they
shit is actively hitting the fan.

~~~
abefortas
Why do you think the "worst eventualities" are so catastrophic, if not because
of such planning?

~~~
run4yourlives
Are you suggesting that planning for bad things causes them to happen? Don't
you carry life insurance?

~~~
roundsquare
Thats not what abefortas is saying. Its different in the case of larger and
larger build ups. Here, each side is causing

1) The possiblity of doing more damage.

2) Which leads the other side to do the same. Going back to 1.

The problem is that building up your arsenal is always better from a strict
game theory sense (assuming, of course, the other side is rational).

------
1gor
From the article:

    
    
        The Russians still won't discuss it, and Americans 
        at the highest levels—including former top officials 
        at the State Department and White House—say they've
        never heard of it.
    

From "Dr. Strangelove":

    
    
        "Yes, but the whole point of the doomsday machine 
        is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell 
        the world?"

~~~
brazzy
Please read the entire article. It explains that the main function of the
system was not intended to be deterrence towards the enemy, but deterrence
towards the own side's hawks, who might be less eager to launch a nuclear
response based on incomplete data when they know that there is an automated
response designed to work when all else fails.

~~~
tsestrich
I still think it's a little odd that they wouldn't want to simply achieve both
goals at once by telling people about it. That would still mean that they
would be less likely to preemptively pull the trigger themselves, and at the
same time would deter the US from attacking them.

Not to mention, if I (as the US) knew that this system was in place, I would
probably be a little less terrified that the USSR was going to randomly decide
to attack (since this is clearly meant to be a purely reactive system). This
would subsequently lead ME to be less likely to randomly attack, etc, etc.

~~~
osipov
you are ignoring the fact that if the awareness of the doomsday machine rose
above suspicion, then Americans would take steps to attempt to locate and
preempt the machine

~~~
tsestrich
perhaps, but this is talking back during the cold war (maybe today would be
different). I would think that we'd be too afraid to try something like that
during the cold war in fear of starting a legitimate war.

But again, maybe that would be different today, and we might not-so-politely
ask them to disarm the system

~~~
hughprime
* I would think that we'd be too afraid to try something like that during the cold war in fear of starting a legitimate war.*

Yes, but the system could be located in advance and disabled as part of a
first strike. Even the vague details in the article would give an attacker a
lot of ideas on how the system could be disabled -- apart from bombing the
bunkers (which is difficult) you could spoof the sensors, or just convince the
computer that it's still in contact with Moscow.

And even if the Americans can't find a way to disable the system, the fact
that the Russians don't know that the Americans can't disable the system means
that the Russians can't trust it any longer and so are back to being more
likely to make a first strike.

The optimal solution is probably just to hint to the Americans that you might
have such a system. Then again, you also have to assume that the Americans are
clever enough to have figured out that you might have such a system anyway, so
you probably don't even need to hint about it.

Gosh, Cold War game theory is fun. I wish I could travel back to the 60s and
get a job with RAND.

------
jwb119
it seems to me that the possibility this device does not in fact exist
deserves more investigation than is given by the article.

for instance, if you assume for a second that this device doesn't actually
exist, then the current russian response makes perfect sense... it would be in
their best interest to neither confirm nor deny existence of of such a
machine. i.e. the benefits of hesitation on the side of a potential enemy that
believes the machine may exist far outweigh the dangers of accidentally ending
the world (since there is no danger at all).

------
nfnaaron
"Permissive Action Links. ... So in 1962, Robert McNamara ordered every
nuclear weapon locked with numerical codes. Effect: None. Irritated by the
restriction, Strategic Air Command set all the codes to strings of zeros. The
Defense Department didn't learn of the subterfuge until 1977."

The most egregious default password in history.

------
keatsta
Does anyone else feel that one of the most interesting parts of the entire
article was introduced in the last sentence?

"After all, he says, Dead Hand is continuously being upgraded."

This seems contrary to the spirit of most of the rest of the article. The fact
that is still active is presented as it should be - a surprising fact - but
constantly being updated shows a commitment several steps beyond that.

~~~
tsestrich
I agree, "Russians Continue to Upgrade Doomsday Device" would have been an
even better attention grabber for the article title.

------
joshfinnie
Linke to print version of the article:
[http://www.wired.com/print/politics/security/magazine/17-10/...](http://www.wired.com/print/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand)

------
electromagnetic
This is kind of a disappointing 'doomsday machine', it's basically an over
complicated and/or machine.

I was hoping for at least a stockpile of nuclear weapons in a converted cobalt
mine (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb>). Get a few hundred multi-
megaton nukes wired up together and if the country gets nuked it blows, kind
of like a dead-country's switch. If you generate enough radiation you can
essentially guarantee you wipe out your enemy by wiping out the majority of
life on Earth.

Essentially any large-scale nuclear war can potentially render the world
uninhabitable. The amount of soot put into the upper atmosphere by the
detonation and widespread forest fires would potentially eradicate all ozone,
meaning heaps of UVA, UVB and even UVC. The concern is that we only receive
1.3% of the suns UV's thanks to the Ozone layer and can still receive major
burns. Consider that it takes ~30-60 minutes on a bright day to get a burn (at
least it does for me), after a major nuclear war it could possibly take less
than a minute of direct exposure to get a sunburn and it could possibly take
100 or more years for the depleted ozone layer to restore itself.

~~~
varjag
> If you generate enough radiation you can essentially guarantee you wipe out
> your enemy by wiping out the majority of life on Earth.

The point of Perimeter in confrontation with the USA was to punish the USA,
not to wipe the life off Earth.

~~~
electromagnetic
Well they're a bunch of pansies, couldn't build a _real_ doomsday device(!)

------
wallflower
> 24-old junior officer fresh out of military academy. And if that person
> decided to press the button ... If/then. If/then. If/then. If/then.

The most deadly group of if/then statements in existence.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play." -Joshua, WarGames
(1983)

~~~
tsestrich
Oddly enough, I'm actually a little relieved that it does eventually come down
to a person's decision. I guess if the decision is to end the world, a 24
year-old junior officer is as qualified to make the decision as anyone else.

I'm definitely more than a little concerned that they're still maintaining
this thing though.... creepy

~~~
fuzzmeister
As the article says, when all of the information said junior officer has
points to the fact that his country has been destroyed, he is just about as
likely to turn the key as an if/else statement.

~~~
spamizbad
The fact that we'd tit-for-tat several hundred million lives is a saddest
reality of the cold war. It's frightening how destructive our revenge emotion
can be.

~~~
roundsquare
So a possibility just occurred to me. Build the whole device, but disable the
key. You can't launch!

It would serve all sorts of deterrent purposes, but in the end, no revenge.

Of course, you'd need a few people to keep secret, but you could probably keep
this to 2 or 3 people.

