Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British nukes were only protected by bike locks

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#21

Post by patio11 »

electromagnetic wrote: post #18
mattmaroon wrote: post #7

It'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 a…

The thing that people don't seem to grasp here is that a single Trident missile is capable of carrying 10 warheads and is capable of striking 13,000 km away. This means that with a full compliment of missiles, a Vanguard submarine surfacing in Anchorage Alaska would be capable of striking any location in the US (and I believe possibly even Puerto Rico). A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world.…

A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the whole Nuclear Winter thing is probably Global Warming 1.0. "Trust us, we're scientists."

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#22

Post by petewarden »

patio11 wrote: post #21
electromagnetic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that people don't seem to grasp here is that a single Trident missile is capable of carrying 10 warheads and is capable of striking 13,000 km away. This means that with a full compliment of missiles, a Vanguard submarine surfacing in Anchorage Alaska would be capable of striking any location in the US (and I believe possibly even Puerto Rico). A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world.…

A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world. The more I think about it, the more I think that the whole Nuclear Winter thing is probably Global Warming 1.0. "Trust us, we're scientists."

You're one of my favorite HN regulars but...

It's not "trust us, we're scientists", it's "trust us, we've published extensive peer-reviewed evidence backing up what we're saying, so if you don't believe us you can pick an informed argument".

Nuclear winter is one of the more testable scenarios in global climate, since we have small-scale approximations whenever a big volcano erupts. There's been some good recent research at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml

I am not a climate scientist, but I've been driven crazy enough by people's vague arguments to track down foundational papers around some of these issues. Please, all I want is some decent research links for any skeptical stuff, no more cheap shots.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#23

Post by SapphireSun »

jules wrote: post #9
MrSartorial wrote: post #2

Wow, 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.

Especially if they do not have a friendly port to return to anymore.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#24

Post by gscott »

joubert wrote: post #13
stratomorph wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "007" thing makes sense from the standpoint of preventing rogue launches. It's not intended to prevent the missiles from being launched without command authorization. Instead, no single person has all the information needed to launch, so there must be at least two people in on it.

It is bizarre because what is the point in having a secret instruction to a submarine captain when his home country is completely and utterly destroyed by nukes. Consider that everyone that could possibly benefit from such an instruction are no longer in existence.

The point is to have the Prime Minister sit down and think about it and resolve to avoid such a situation. I thought Ira Glass missed this is as the most likely reason to have someone go through this exercise.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#25

Post by swixmix »

Summary: British submarines can launch missiles.

From the article: "..nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the bomb itself."

By the way, it's a freaking submarine.

Perspective: I lock a gun's trigger with a bike lock, and then place it in a safe. The safe is inside a bank vault.

If I do manage to steal the gun, then I can pick the lock and use it. If I do manage to steal the arming key, then I can convince the crew to launch the missile.

Would you like to play a game?

edit: Grammar

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#26

Post by cstross »

swixmix wrote: post #25

Summary: British submarines can launch missiles. From the article: "..nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the bomb itself." By the way, it's a freaking submarine. Perspective: I lock a gun's trigger with a bike lock, and then place it in a safe. The safe is inside a bank vault. If I do manage to steal the gun, then I can pick the lock and use it. If I do manage to st…

Yawn.

The W177's were secured with bike locks ... inside a reinforced concrete bunker surrounded by razor wire and patrolled by armed guards with orders to use lethal force to stop anyone trying to gain access to them without proper authorization.

Just like the USSR's land-based ICBMs didn't have PAL codes -- instead they were guarded by a platoon of KGB troops who didn't know how to launch the missile, but sure knew how to stop the strategic rocket forces' crew from launching the missile without orders.

Folks on HN are predisposed to thinking about automating security procedurally, but seem to miss the point that military organizations have been automating security through process carried out by human bodies for centuries, if not millenia; all they need is enough obedient soldiers with guns and orders not to allow [X] to happen without authorization [Y] or their ass is on the line to ensure that the bombs are de facto secure.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#27

Post by cstross »

MrSartorial wrote: post #2

Wow, 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.

Rubbish.

The US Navy's SSBNs work the same way. A second strike deterrent force by definition has to have decentralized launch authority. The backstop is that no single officer can launch the missiles, it takes joint action -- and the officers are carefully screened before being put in that position. One rogue sub officer? Maybe. Enough of them to overpower the rest of the crew and carry out an unauthorized launch? Very unlikely, and begs the question of why.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#28

Post by motters »

cstross wrote: post #26
swixmix wrote: post #25

Summary: British submarines can launch missiles. From the article: "..nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the bomb itself." By the way, it's a freaking submarine. Perspective: I lock a gun's trigger with a bike lock, and then place it in a safe. The safe is inside a bank vault. If I do manage to steal the gun, then I can pick the lock and use it. If I do manage to st…

Yawn. The W177's were secured with bike locks ... inside a reinforced concrete bunker surrounded by razor wire and patrolled by armed guards with orders to use lethal force to stop anyone trying to gain access to them without proper authorization. Just like the USSR's land-based ICBMs didn't have PAL codes -- instead they were guarded by a platoon of KGB troops who didn't know how to launch the missile, but sure knew…

Well, not necessarily. A rogue commander could probably persuade his subordinates that he was authorized to use the bicycle key. If someone in a position of apparent authority claims that they will accept responsibility, subordinates will usually go along with that.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#29

Post by mahmud »

patio11 wrote: post #21
electromagnetic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that people don't seem to grasp here is that a single Trident missile is capable of carrying 10 warheads and is capable of striking 13,000 km away. This means that with a full compliment of missiles, a Vanguard submarine surfacing in Anchorage Alaska would be capable of striking any location in the US (and I believe possibly even Puerto Rico). A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world.…

A false launch would essentially be capable of ending the world. The more I think about it, the more I think that the whole Nuclear Winter thing is probably Global Warming 1.0. "Trust us, we're scientists."

Please, don't let your right-wing politics cloud your otherwise unmatched intelligence. Suspicion of the "establishment" is necessary, but it has its limits, lest we enter the kook territory.

Re: British nukes were only protected by bike locks

#30

Post by dfox »

jackfoxy wrote: post #5
bensummers wrote: post #4

Comments 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 cou…

ultr-sophisticated, but still any locking mechanism on nuke can be overcomed by sufficiently motivated adversary. And anyone who can steal the nuke is sufficiently motivated, no matter how ultra-sophisticated your lock is.

Edit: and overcoming any kind of locking mechanism on nuke is certainly cheaper than building one yourself. What most people seem to forget is that problem with building nuclear weapons lies with logistics, not technical expertise.

Post reply on HN