Can nuclear self destruct codes activate in silos?

[jake jot]

Ok I read about it more relieved the CIA won't monitor the search strings. I saw this:

"There are three nuclear footballs in total. Two are allocated to the president and vice president, with the last being stored in the White House.[14] In Presidential transitions, the president-elect do not receive the actual nuclear code card until after the nuclear briefing, when "he meets with the outgoing president at the White House just before the actual inauguration ceremony. The code card is activated electronically right after the president-elect takes the oath at noon"[15]. "

But what would happen for sake of discussion the white house was nuked and all nuclear footballs were lost. Can the silo still launch ICBMs? Can they bypass the launch codes?

I watched the 1983 movie War Games to get some feel of it. At the start of it, the launchers got the launch codes in the box and entered them. Does this tally with reality, meaning all silos in the United States have the launch codes in the safe and if it's taken over, and fueled and powered, they can launch the ICBMs without the nuclear football (attache case)? The purpose of president nuclear football is then just to match the already identical codes to authorize launch in a normal setting? I read this too:

https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587

In the movie, they replaced the 2 man launcher procedure with a advanced computer system. Now nearly 40 years later, it's still the same 2 man launcher sequence? The disadvantage as emphasized in the movie was when one backed out.

I guess Terminator got the ideas of Skynet in the movie?

My other impressions of War Games is even with primitive computer (IMSAI), their nukes are as powerful as we have now. Also for nearly 40 years. Technologies have changed so much but one thing remains. We don't have major breakthrough in theoretical physics and still lost in math as the lady physicist wrote.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

As previously stated we do not know the procedure as it's top secret. It would also have been top secret when the War Games film was released so what you see there is just whatever the writters thought it might be.

In either case, you can be assured that almost every possible outcome has been planned for. After all you still need to be able to launch back after you have been attacked. If the whole country's nuclear deterent could be negated by one well timed EMP blast it would not be very much of a deterent.

With all the turmoil we have seen in the world in decades gone by, the worlds nuclear weapons remain secure and under full control of their countries governments, why the sudden concern?

 

[jake jot]

As previously stated we do not know the procedure as it's top secret. It would also have been top secret when the War Games film was released so what you see there is just whatever the writters thought it might be.

In either case, you can be assured that almost every possible outcome has been planned for. After all you still need to be able to launch back after you have been attacked. If the whole country's nuclear deterent could be negated by one well timed EMP blast it would not be very much of a deterent.

With all the turmoil we have seen in the world in decades gone by, the worlds nuclear weapons remain secure and under full control of their countries governments, why the sudden concern?

I thought the president has the sole authority to launch but in the following article, thousands of rough commanders in the subs or silos can launch them so I guess the concern is just transferred to thousands.

https://fpif.org/thousands-people-launch-nuclear-war/

Nuclear war can be inevitable and can come anytime. It's not a matter of if, but when.

However Earth is a gem and a very unique place in the universe. If there is even one small bit of possibility we were already noticed, then I guess we don't have to worry about any nuclear war or explosion. Off planet Nuclear deterrent forces may be watching us. Aware of any sci fi movies along this line? It gives us hopes amidst all the nukes that could in principle destroy the world ten times over.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

The concern should be minimised if anything, you know that we have had this ability for decades and nothing has happened so why should it in the future?

Nukes are old tech and dirty too, leaving tons of radiation everywhere. Generally unless you want total destruction with nothing left for anyone why use them? In war you still want to be able to control and run whatever territory you want to take over, you would not be able to do that if you radiated it.

Nukes heat an area and the air around it to a very high temperature which cuases a shock wave which causes most of the damage. Most developed nations have developed thermobaric weapons now which can produce the same atmospheric shockwave effect. In light of this there is no real excuse to use a nuke anymore and these days we favour more targetted strikes than just "let's blow up this whole area."

 

[DrStupid]

The concern should be minimised if anything, you know that we have had this ability for decades and nothing has happened so why should it in the future?

It was just luck that nothing happens. There are several documented cases where we was only minutes away from WW3 and in at least two of them it was the decision of just a single person that saved the world. As most of the weapons are still there and the international relationships degrade there is a lot to worry about today.

Most developed nations have developed thermobaric weapons now which can produce the same atmospheric shockwave effect.

Thermobaric weapons have already been developed in WW2 and even the largest modern examples (e.g. MOAB) are just firecrackers compared to nuclear warheads.

In light of this there is no real excuse to use a nuke anymore and these days we favour more targetted strikes than just "let's blow up this whole area."

If this would be true why are the big nukes still there? The very fact that the nuclear powers did not agree about general nuclear disarmament for large warheads shows you that they remain part of the military doctrines. Tactical nuclear weapons do not reduce the risk of a nuclear inferno. They just reduce the inhibition threshold for turning a conventional war into a nuclear war which would most probably escalate to total destruction.

 

[jedishrfu]

Here's another video on the nuclear deterrent force:

 

[member 656954]

the worlds nuclear weapons remain secure and under full control of their countries governments

There is one scenario where that assumption is under threat, and it's the US nuclear missiles at the U.S. Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. Snopes wrote a balanced perspective of the situation last year, and there is a small risk of them being stolen by bad actors (this news is merely to suggest the possiblity, there's no information this group were after the missiles).

Nukes are old tech and dirty too, leaving tons of radiation everywhere.

Neutron bombs were designed because of that very problem. They're not the main weapon in the arsenal though, so yeah, nuclear bombs leave a radioactive mess behind.

Nuclear war can be inevitable and can come anytime. It's not a matter of if, but when.

As the missiles age, the cost to maintain them increases so the chances of them actually working if they were fired diminishes. But even if we spend all that money, nuclear war is not inevitable. I'm more worried about climate change than nuclear war.

 

[jedishrfu]

From WarGames movie opening scene:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames

and the 414 hackers who were inspired by WarGames to create even more mischief:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/the-414s/hackers-wargames-true-story/

and this USSR mistake:

https://arstechnica.com/information...how-one-1983-exercise-nearly-triggered-wwiii/

and some historical scares including the 1979 NORAD glitch:

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/15-times-world-war-iii-nearly-started-watch.html

 

[jedishrfu]

Another article related to WarGames, the inspiration for Mathew Broderick's character:

https://web.archive.org/web/2011060...is-the-inspiration-behind-the-film-war-games/

and my last reference on the 1979 NORAD mistake:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1756715727

 

[jake jot]

The concern should be minimised if anything, you know that we have had this ability for decades and nothing has happened so why should it in the future?

Nukes are old tech and dirty too, leaving tons of radiation everywhere. Generally unless you want total destruction with nothing left for anyone why use them? In war you still want to be able to control and run whatever territory you want to take over, you would not be able to do that if you radiated it.

Nukes heat an area and the air around it to a very high temperature which cuases a shock wave which causes most of the damage. Most developed nations have developed thermobaric weapons now which can produce the same atmospheric shockwave effect. In light of this there is no real excuse to use a nuke anymore and these days we favour more targetted strikes than just "let's blow up this whole area."

Even if you were right official governments were tired of nukes. Loose arsenals selling at black market is the present and clear danger. Have you watched the movie Peacemaker about nukes used for revenge. It's a mild one because in actual, we have thousands if not millions of victims seeking revenge (like Iraqis or others who lost their families to US intervention). In this connection, what other good flicks like Peacemaker to watch? With millions of shipping containers going to US daily, it is not far fetched to smuggle nukes. In another movie, it's in a coke or softdrink dispenser.

By the way, what happens in nuclear armed countries on blink or in the midst of civil war? Then the submarines and silos launchers would obey 2 separate power? Didn't this happen in the breakup of the soviet union?

Are there US maps showing the numbers of silos in each state? I want to know what would happen if the US become like the soviet union when it breakups into 2 (like North and South or Eastern coast/Western cost factions). Who would own more nukes?

 

[jedishrfu]

@jake jot there is no way to answer your questions in a reasonable way without rampant speculation.

It seems that we have now exhausted this topic and so it’s time to close the thread before we branch into more speculative areas.

we thank everyone who contributed here.

jedi