Author Topic: “Permissive Action Links”  (Read 386 times)

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
“Permissive Action Links”
« on: June 11, 2004, 01:46:58 PM »
I don't know if this was already discussed here. I find this material astonishing. For me it's hard to believe it's true.

The more time passes since the end of cold war - the more amazing things we learn...

http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

Keeping Presidents in the Nuclear Dark
(Episode #1: The Case of the Missing “Permissive Action Links”)
Bruce G. Blair, Ph.D, CDI President, bblair@cdi.org
Feb. 11, 2004

Last month I asked Robert McNamara, the secretary of defense during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, what he believed back in the 1960s was the status of technical locks on the Minuteman intercontinental missiles. These long-range nuclear-tipped missiles first came on line during the Cuban missile crisis and grew to a force of 1,000 during the McNamara years — the backbone of the U.S. strategic deterrent through the late 1960s. McNamara replied, in his trade-mark, assertively confident manner that he personally saw to it that these special locks (known to wonks as “Permissive Action Links”) were installed on the Minuteman force, and that he regarded them as essential to strict central control and preventing unauthorized launch.

When the history of the nuclear cold war is finally comprehensively written, this McNamara vignette will be one of a long litany of items pointing to the ignorance of presidents and defense secretaries and other nuclear security officials about the true state of nuclear affairs during their time in the saddle. What I then told McNamara about his vitally important locks elicited this response: “I am shocked, absolutely shocked and outraged. Who the hell authorized that?” What he had just learned from me was that the locks had been installed, but everyone knew the combination.

The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the “locks” to all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so the “secret unlock code” during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War remained constant at OOOOOOOO.

After leaving the Air Force in 1974, I pressed the service, initially by letters addressed to it and then through congressional intermediaries, to consider a range of terrorist scenarios in which these locks could serve as crucial barriers against the unauthorized seizure of launch control over Minuteman missiles. In 1977, I co-authored (with Garry Brewer) an article (reprinted below) entitled “The Terrorist Threat to World Nuclear Programs” in which I laid out the case for taking this threat more seriously and suggesting remedial measures including, first and foremost, activating those McNamara locks that apparently he and presidents presumed had already been activated.

The locks were activated in 1977.

It is hard to know where to begin, and end, in recounting stories like this one that reveal how misinformed, misled, and misguided on critical nuclear matters our top leaders have been throughout the nuclear age. A multitude of such examples can, and will, be described in forthcoming columns

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2004, 03:33:29 PM »
Well, at least I don't think we lost any warheads. Do you know where your nukes are?
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2004, 03:35:50 PM »
good thing Regan ended the cold war when he did.   even a couple more years would have been potentially a global disaster.

lazs

Offline lada

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1810
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2004, 03:43:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, at least I don't think we lost any warheads. Do you know where your nukes are?


they are very well sold... you shouldnt fear since Us have some sort of supermegacoolantimissile system :D

imao but russian nukes are not the only one potencial sources of nukes on the earth.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2004, 03:48:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lada
they are very well sold... you shouldnt fear since Us have some sort of supermegacoolantimissile system :D

imao but russian nukes are not the only one potencial sources of nukes on the earth.


I may be naive but I'm not afraid of a nuclear missile. Who would risk the annihilation that this would most definitely warrant? What I do fear is someone secreting a warhead aboard a freighter and detonating it off one of our coasts.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2004, 04:11:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, at least I don't think we lost any warheads.


Semi-serious question : not even on Sea ?

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2004, 04:13:06 PM »
If we lost any at sea you can bet we know right where they are and likely are keeping watch.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline WilldCrd

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2565
      • http://www.wildaces.org
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2004, 05:15:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
If we lost any at sea you can bet we know right where they are and likely are keeping watch.


thats SOOOO not true in the 50's we lost one of the coast of Georgia and NEVER found it ill search for the link and artical

 B-47 Accident
Posted on Monday, September 15 @ 01:10:42 CDT by Administrator

Excerpt from document: On 5 February 1958, a B-47 returning from a simulated combat mission suffered a midair collision with an F-86. The B-47 was carrying a Mk 15 Mod 0 nuclear bomb in a training configuration (no nuclear capsule was on board). Because the bomb was incapable of a nuclear explosion, permission was granted to jettison the bomb, permitting the disabled B-47 to land without conventional explosive on board. The bomb fell into the waters off the coast of Georgia. An intensive, nine- plus week search failed to locate the bomb, and the bomb was declared irretrievably lost on 16 April 1958.


the link:
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/article7977.html
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 05:19:43 PM by WilldCrd »
Crap now I gotta redo my cool sig.....crap!!! I cant remeber how to do it all !!!!!

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2004, 05:25:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by WilldCrd
thats SOOOO not true in the 50's we lost one of the coast of Georgia and NEVER found it ill search for the link and artical

 B-47 Accident
Posted on Monday, September 15 @ 01:10:42 CDT by Administrator

Excerpt from document: On 5 February 1958, a B-47 returning from a simulated combat mission suffered a midair collision with an F-86. The B-47 was carrying a Mk 15 Mod 0 nuclear bomb in a training configuration (no nuclear capsule was on board). Because the bomb was incapable of a nuclear explosion, permission was granted to jettison the bomb, permitting the disabled B-47 to land without conventional explosive on board. The bomb fell into the waters off the coast of Georgia. An intensive, nine- plus week search failed to locate the bomb, and the bomb was declared irretrievably lost on 16 April 1958.


the link:
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/article7977.html


So long as you don't use Greenpeace as your source I'll listen.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline WilldCrd

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2565
      • http://www.wildaces.org
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2004, 05:30:47 PM »
BAH! i beleive greenpeace only slightly more than I believe the government....wich aint much....actually I dont believe em at all.

FYI the site is back vault.com
« Last Edit: June 11, 2004, 05:33:40 PM by WilldCrd »
Crap now I gotta redo my cool sig.....crap!!! I cant remeber how to do it all !!!!!

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12768
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2004, 05:31:06 PM »
Hmmm, while it did contain uranium, the article you linked claims that it was incapable of a nuclear explosion. Do you think that really qualifies? Ah well, I'll concede the issue.

"The Mk15 bomb type utilized a removable nuclear capsule, which was required for a nuclear explosion, but was not present in this transportation-configured bomb."
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline WilldCrd

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2565
      • http://www.wildaces.org
“Permissive Action Links”
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2004, 05:35:22 PM »
dont know if it qualifies BUT it wouldn't take much to make that thing go BOOM
Crap now I gotta redo my cool sig.....crap!!! I cant remeber how to do it all !!!!!