British nukes were only protected by bike locks
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#2Wow, that's really interesting. I think that Britain is firmly in the wrong on this one. That places a lot of trust in a lot of individuals hands, which I don't necessarily have a problem with because of a number of psychological factors related to their employment in the army, but that doesn't discount someone infiltrating the systems and activating the missiles.
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#3That's nothing. In the US, we fly nuclear warheads across states. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#4Comments here http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclea... suggest the US just used 111111 as their code. (citation needed)
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#5Comments here http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclea... suggest the US just used 111111 as their code. (citation needed)
And on this blog is the thoughtful reply
"It shouldn't be hard to arm a nuke. It should be hard to get access to it.
If you stole one any competant EE could rewire the whole thing to do what he needs anyway. Those inclined to steal a nuke would have this know-how; they wouldn't be your average bank robber or shoe-bomber terrorist.
Posted by: Savik at November 21, 2007 2:34 PM"
Maybe back in the day a competent EE could rewire, but the modern arming mechanisms are ultra-sophisticated.
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#6That's nothing. In the US, we fly nuclear warheads across states. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/
That's fine, as long as the warheads could not be detonated it does not matter where they go.
The point is that you can arm a British nuke in 98 with a bicycle lock key and no tamper-proof mechanism was there. So if you got a warhead detonation was easy. In the US having a warhead is pointless, you need the codes or the bomb is worthless.
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#7It's been known widely for some time that on every British nuclear-armed sub, there's a safe, and in that safe another safe, and in that second safe a note from the Prime Minister commanding the sub on what to do in the event that the motherland should be wiped out in an attack while they were away.
That would mean it is impossible that they need some sort of special code, as if they did, that code would have to be accessible to them already, and then what is the point?
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#8Comments here http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/british_nuclea... suggest the US just used 111111 as their code. (citation needed)
It was reportedly 00000000, the source for this is a former US missile launch officer of some sort named Bruce Blair. Google him and the zeros, plenty of references, although I don't know if it's ever been confirmed by documents.
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#9Wow, that's really interesting. I think that Britain is firmly in the wrong on this one. That places a lot of trust in a lot of individuals hands, which I don't necessarily have a problem with because of a number of psychological factors related to their employment in the army, but that doesn't discount someone infiltrating the systems and activating the missiles.
I imagine that someone can go crazy when living in a sub for a long period of time.
Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks
#10That's nothing. In the US, we fly nuclear warheads across states. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/
That's fine, as long as the warheads could not be detonated it does not matter where they go. The point is that you can arm a British nuke in 98 with a bicycle lock key and no tamper-proof mechanism was there. So if you got a warhead detonation was easy. In the US having a warhead is pointless, you need the codes or the bomb is worthless.
You're 100% correct. According to the news reports at the time the transport was characterized as being a "mistake", i.e. human error. I don't know the intricacy of warhead arming etc., but another article on CNN talks about codes being handled insecurely: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/24/missile.error/