
Command and Control [video] - smacktoward
http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/
======
sandworm101
"...chronicle nine hours of terror that prevented an explosion 600 times more
powerful than Hiroshima."

I'm calling out the film's makers on that statement. I challenge anyone to
describe a situation whereby an ICBM with a leaky first stage could ever
detonate the warhead in a manner resulting in such an explosion. These things
don't go off when you drop them. They don't go off when you set them on fire.
They don't go off when you surround them with explosives. Getting a
thermonuclear weapon to detonate requires hundreds of things to happen in a
precise manner. That cannot happen by accident.

~~~
dogma1138
I don't understand the downvotes, the OP is correct, the explosion could have
resulted in a environmental disaster but in effect it would've been a "dirty
bomb".

In the book they went over the trigger mechanism and overall there was no way
for the 1st stage fission warhead to detonate not to mention for the 2nd stage
fusion reaction to kick off.

A nuclear warhead is pretty darn hard to detonate, the detonation sequence is
extremely precise and the smallest deviation would result in a dud and in rare
cases an extremely low yield fizzle.

You can do whatever you want to a nuke, blow it up, set it ablaze, put it in a
microwave, hit it, drop it even from orbit, it will not go off, not even
because there are failsafes but because there is virtually no way for the nuke
to "fail" in a way that would be even remotely close to a detonation sequence,
an accidental detonation especially through brute force that would physically
damage the warhead is about as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard
leaving assembled 747's in it's wake.

~~~
Kadin
I am in complete agreement, with the exception of this statement:

> there is virtually no way for the nuke to "fail" in a way that would be even
> remotely close to a detonation sequence

That is not true, at least not universally. Nuclear bombs are, by definition,
designed to go off, and as a result there is a category of failure modes that
could lead to inadvertent detonation. Basically, a failure that produces the
same command that would cause the normal detonation sequence to begin, could
cause an unintended detonation. The Mk. 39 bomb involved in the 1961 North
Carolina B-52 crash [0] reportedly came close to detonating in this manner.

Additionally, there are weapons designs that are not "one point safe", such
that a failure which causes ignition of the high explosive could lead to a
nuclear detonation. Weapons considered "one point safe" require multiple,
carefully timed or simultaneous ignitions of the high explosive. The last non-
one-point-safe weapons in the US arsenal were built in the 50s but not
disassembled until recently; the W56 was reportedly _not_ one point safe [1],
or at least not provably so to the safety margins now recognized as
reasonable. I don't know of any information in the unclassified literature
about whether Soviet weapons are universally one-point-safe or not.

It would not surprise me if there are a variety of weapon designs still
floating around in the world that aren't one-point-safe. Single compression
"gun type" bombs, like the Fat Man design, would require additional
engineering to make one-point-safe beyond what is minimally required to get
them to detonate, which makes me suspect that some marginal nuclear powers
probably don't bother.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash)

[1]:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20070110205223/http://www.pogo.o...](https://web.archive.org/web/20070110205223/http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/hl-061201-bodman.html)

~~~
mikeash
Can a gun type weapon ever be made one point safe? You'd have to somehow make
sure that the explosives could _never_ accidentally drive the two pieces
together, which seems impossible. Doing it for an implosion weapon is,
relatively speaking, much more straightforward: implosion is inherently
finicky anyway, so you design it to fail unless multiple detonations happen at
precise times.

~~~
sandworm101
Yes, mechanically. You put something in the barrel that would shatter the
'bullet' should the explosives go off. Detonation then occurs only if the
safety is moved prior to explosion. Then, as another measure, you can rig that
mechanical safety mechanism to snap back in place in cases of external fire
(ie some part is designed to melt and swing it back in place).

~~~
mikeash
Sounds like a good system! Does it really eliminate the possibility of any
detonation, though? Seems like you could still potentially get enough stuff
together to exceed critical mass. The explosion would probably be smaller than
nominal, but more than the 4lbs TNT equivalent that the US military specifies
as its criteria for one-point safety. But perhaps I overestimate the chances
of this happening. I'm _far_ from an expert here.

------
Tech1
Ex US Army bomb technician here (eod). This entire story is somewhat of a
legend among our community (those that actually went through nukes at least).

Added to our (me and the SO) calendar for the weekend. Looking forward to
seeing it.

------
gerry_shaw
Trailer looks true to the book. Looking forward to this.

------
smoyer
The Wikipedia article on this "incident":
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Damascus_Titan_missile_explosion)

------
jdiez17
The movie looks interesting, but seems I'll never get to see it, as there are
no screenings in London, and I bet they won't offer a digital download option
on their website...

------
dmourati
Curiously I just picked up the book last weekend. Enjoying it so far.

------
Cacti
The book is fantastic. I'd also recommend "One Point Safe," which is similar.

------
wingerlang
Is the name a reference to Command and Conquer? Got some flashbacks from the
logo [http://i.imgur.com/riegcsv.png](http://i.imgur.com/riegcsv.png)

------
JoeDaDude
It is described as an American Experience film, with the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting listed as an underwriter. Surely we'll see this on a PBS
TV broadcast soon.

------
ekianjo
Loved the book but the trailer looks a little.. meh. I hope the movies does
not disapppoint, this ia a very important topic folks should care and know
about.

~~~
BoringCode
As someone who hasn't read the book or heard about the incident for that
matter, I thought it was an interesting trailer. I certainly want to see the
film now.

------
ablation
The book was very good.

------
ChicagoHero
TLDR: documentary about _nine hours of terror that prevented an explosion 600
times more powerful than Hiroshima at Titan II missile complex in Arkansas;
September, 1980._

~~~
throwanem
Is that your characterization or theirs? It's been a while since I read the
book, but I don't recall either that or any other source suggesting that there
was at any point a serious risk of the warhead going off.

