
For Nearly Two Decades the Nuclear Launch Code Was 00000000 - iand
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/nearly-two-decades-nuclear-launch-code-minuteman-silos-united-states-00000000/
======
fennecfoxen
What's really more likely? A Soviet spy gains physical access to your nuclear
weapons and launches or detonates one (or several), possibly starting a global
thermonuclear war (which the Kremlin could honestly start at any time if it
were interested anyway) with a modest advantage on the Soviet side. (A
possible advantage - it depends how quickly the Soviets are able/willing to
follow up with additional nukes.)

or...

You lock yourself out of your own nukes during a crisis because you have a big
fancy launch-code-management system and it falls apart because key people are
confused and/or dead.

In related news, handguns with fingerprint sensors and other electronic locks
will protect you in case a criminal breaks in and steals your gun from you -
and yet they're not very popular among gun owners.

~~~
fennecfoxen
AND WHILE I'M HERE TALKING ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYSTEMS and understandings
thereof, allow me to rant about one of the most misunderstood videos of all
time, Bert the Turtle ("duck and cover") --
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60)
\-- Witness the crowds of people saying "lol but nuclear bomb! you're already
dead!" Well, maybe you're right and you're already dead, but IF YOU'RE NOT
DEAD YET then there's going to be a BIG BLAST WAVE OF DEBRIS heading your way
IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, so you'd better look for some shelter, pronto. And get
away from any windows, too, or you'll end up like those poor people watching
the Chelyabinsk meteor, getting LACERATED by flying glass.

~~~
pjscott
Some juicy details here:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_Cover](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_and_Cover)

The short versions is this: in most of the area where a nuclear blast _can_
kill you, there are simple things you can do to reduce its effects and
survive. A building will protect from much of the blast wave, and even a
blanket can greatly reduce the amount of skin burning. Nukes are not
unstoppable bringers of universal instadeath.

~~~
empthought
But then you have to live in a world where people are nuking each other.

~~~
pjscott
We already live in a world where people have nuked each other.

~~~
empthought
Those devices were quite small compared to the cold war arsenals. There were
also only two of them, as compared to the 15,000+ today.

------
rdtsc
However note that the reason for the all zero code can be complex.

Especially if it was known. The idea behind the nuclear deterrent is that a
response can and will be launched immediately, after a threat is detected.
That is key. If someone out there knows that something prevents US from
launching quickly they now have an advantage so to speak. So it is absolutely
imperative for others to know that launch response will be total and prompt.

So making the system safe and secure from unauthorized launches has to be
balanced by not making it harder to launch if needed (and of course letting
the adversary know about this). Thinking of this, they could have actually had
secure codes set BUT broadcast to the world that somehow a mistake was made
and all codes are 0000000.

------
hercynium
"That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! That's the kind
of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!"

/obligatory

------
rch
I just loaded up that page in Chrome and there is a horribly obnoxious add
that covers the left 15 percent or so of the article text. My preference will
be to never again see _any_ content from that domain under any circumstances.
Thanks for the article headline though; that's a mildly interesting bit of
trivia.

~~~
xroche
I got redirected to a malware/scam page claiming that "Java needed to be
updated". Definitely a site to be avoided...

------
TobbenTM
This reminds me of this scene from the movie Spaceballs;
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k)

It's how I imagine the commanders get the code.

------
analyst74
What's worse?

1) Being the party/person who started another world war; 2) Being nuked
without ability to retaliate (in case the executive branch is wiped out)

Most incredibly stupid decisions were made rationally, under extreme
perception of the reality.

~~~
kken
Your primal senses probably tell you that 1) is the best option, but
objectively seen it's 2).

~~~
6d0debc071
How so? If we're nuked, we're nuked. The thing is that the other side
_believes_ we can nuke them back so they don't do it in the first place. If
it's all in the air, I don't see what we stand to gain.

~~~
nickff
You are assuming there is no possibility of a third-strike, which may or may
not be the case.

~~~
6d0debc071
If they were prepared to launch a third strike, why would they wait for your
second strike to do it, rather than just going all in at the outset? I can't
think of anything sufficiently valuable that you could offer them in surrender
to offset the probability of your launching a second strike and the resultant
loss on their part.

If they thought they could deliver a knock-out blow to the majority of your
arsenal, they'd do it. The real question, I feel, is more to do with what the
window for that blow would be:

Can they achieve sufficient synchronism across their various platforms that
the bombs will all arrive at more or less the same time - preventing the
destruction of some components of the system from warning others?

Can they avoid your long range systems picking up their launches several
minutes out?

Is the window, from detection to response, in other words, small enough that
they can hit you fast enough that you don't have time to respond?

In that arena I don't think a few seconds one way or the other, to input a
more complex launch code, would make much difference. It seems to me like if
they can get close enough not to be picked up at long range, if they can
launch with synchronous on target timing, then they should overshoot your
response time by a long way. And if they can't, then they shouldn't come
anywhere near it.

~~~
nickff
1) Not all weapons systems are kept on 15 minute alert, so those cannot be
launched immediately, including some sheltered bombers and mobile missile
launchers. Other weapons systems, such as the Soviet (NATO reporting name)
"typhoon" class submarines are purposely built to ensure that the enemy will
not be able to rebuild.

2) A first strike may be intended to decapitate the leadership, decimate the
enemy nuclear capabilities, destroy the entire army, or obliterate the whole
country; the same goes for a second or third strike. It should also be noted
that the Soviets implemented the "dead-hand" system so that any surviving
installations would automatically retaliate even in the event of a successful
first strike.

3) There are a variety of first strike scenarios, mostly involving SSBNs near
the enemy coast, and stealth bombers since late in the cold war, as they give
the shortest response window. Synchronizing a first strike would likely only
be between one type of platform (i.e. all stealth bombers or SSBNs launching
simultaneously); which is not too challenging.

4) First strike requires less than 15 minutes of notice, though even this may
be too much. Soviets feared that the stealth bombers or a missile shield would
encourage an American first strike exactly because the first would provide no
response window, and the second would make any response futile.

5) Above.

6) Maybe.

This all misses the basic point, which is that MAD made nuclear strikes even
more pointless than they had previously been. Simply put, what is the point of
destroying the enemy, and irradiating their territory (especially their most
valuable assets) with a strike? Why would you put yourself at risk to achieve
a goal of no benefit to you, except relieving paranoia, under MAD?

------
Totient
This story kind of reminds me of this:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/11_november/15/newsnight.shtml)

For most of the Cold War, the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a
bicycle lock key.

"The Royal Navy argued that its officers could be trusted and: 'It would be
invidious to suggest... that senior Service officers may, in difficult
circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders.'"

~~~
kephra
imho, a trelock is a much better protection than a 00000000 code.

------
jasonkostempski
Did that code ever actually get used to launch a nuke? Maybe it was just false
information and really just triggered an alert if entered.

~~~
moocowduckquack
_Did that code ever actually get used to launch a nuke?_

I suspect not. I think someone would have noticed the mess.

------
froo
This article actually gives me a little faith in humanity. Despite the fact
that SO MANY people had access to launch a nuke nobody actually did...
presumably they knew what the resulting shitstorm would be.

------
eterm
Why "for nearly 2 decades"? It doesn't explain how this stopped being the
case, did I miss the paragraph where it explained that the codes are no longer
00000000?

~~~
goodcanadian
Apparently, you did. Near the end (second or third last paragraph):

"Dr. Blair . . . decided to outline it for the public in this 1977 article
where he described how just four people acting in tandem could easily activate
a nuclear launch in the silos he had worked in. Further, amongst other things,
the PAL system McNamara had touted was barely in operation and thus launches
could be authorised by anyone without Presidential authority . . . It is,
perhaps, not coincidence that the PAL systems were all activated and the codes
changed the same year this article was published."

------
joering2
> There was particularly a concern that the nuclear missiles the United States
> had stationed in other countries, some of which with somewhat unstable
> leadership, could potentially be seized by those governments and launched.
> With the PAL system, this became much less of a problem.

Is this for real? Its like putting a lock on your car steering wheel, while
all wheels and radio has been stolen overnight.

~~~
thrill
The concern was the _seizure and launch_ by illegitimate parties. A bypass of
the PAL system was nontrivial, giving the needed time to handle that issue
(recapture, destruction, ...) without worrying about your own nuclear weapons
being used against you or your allies anytime quickly.

------
tehwalrus
Using nuclear weapons in any situation is morally unjustifiable, and frankly
nearly always a war crime (since they are too large to avoid civilians).

This was utterly irresponsible, and from the sounds of it in direct violation
of presidential orders. Isn't disobeying orders in the military quite a big
thing?

~~~
3pt14159
It is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons. If a country decides to be
peaceful and not have an active army, airforce, and navy; but retains a
stockpile of nuclear weapons, is it morally unjustifiable to strike an
invading fleet with atomic bombs?

The whole point behind MAD is to show that you refuse to play the game of "I
have the bigger army" and to literally level the playing field by making the
game lose-lose.

~~~
tehwalrus
Using nukes to bomb entire civilian cities when the other side can't respond
(US, 1945) is completely wrong. Using nukes against a conventional army is
dubious - it is disproportionate in the extreme. The _threat_ of using them
may not be wrong (but I'm still not convinced on that point.)

Then (as sister comment says) neither side was playing the game right in the
cold war.

I object to the way the game is set up in international relations - If we
actually had a system to enforce international law it would be much much
harder to justify having unilateral armies at all! My views on this are
somewhat unconventional, though, so don't worry if I sound crazy; I may well
be.

------
doug1001
about once a month, i see a HN post that, at first glance, seems to be from
TheOnion. This is certainly one of those. (Indeed, it's a well-explored theme
on TheOnion, see e.g., [http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-announces-plan-
to-brin...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-announces-plan-to-bring-
wifi-to-its-headquart,2299/))

------
antonius
Reverse psychology against hackers/spies. Let them think that it was a super
obscure, difficult code to crack.

~~~
Amadou
_Reverse psychology against hackers /spies. Let them think that it was a super
obscure, difficult code to crack._

Nope, according to the article it was listed in the instructions handed out to
the soldiers who manned the silos. If there had been post-it notes back then,
they probably would have stuck one right on the console with the code.

------
eitland
If site owner visits this discussion:

Interesting story, crazy popup ads (mobile device).

~~~
BenderV
I couldn't believe it. It pushed pop up even when I wasn't on the navigator...

~~~
hrkristian
Yeah. I had to manually kill the app to escape those damned things. Quite
persistent.

------
ShadowyOrdeal
Null pointer bugs, anyone?

------
stefantalpalaru
>(...) the PAL systems were all activated and the codes changed the same year
this article was published

They changed them to 12345678 didn't they?

