" Mein Fuhrer!... I can _VALK_!"

David Spain wrote:

Carey wrote:
But, heck, why should mere truth dissuade a journalist from selling a
juicy story? (Next stop: the Weekly World News!)

No kidding. I have a really hard time accepting that the codes for the
PALs on our warheads were 'set to zero'. Where the hell did he come up with
that piece of folly? Cites or sources?

It's pretty well known - this came out a couple of years back.

BTW, some 'Doomsday Machine'. Some missiles stashed in hardened bunkers?
Supposedly able to command launch of other missiles on launch? Yeah, so
what? If those other missiles are already destroyed, what is there
to command?

One of the working assumptions is that not everything was destroyed
100% - after all, launch systems fail, missiles fail, and warheads
fail. If you base your assumption on believing that everything is
destroyed 100%, not only are you headed off into la la land... you
force *yourself* into a 'use or lose' mindset. Even the Soviets
weren't that paranoid.

There's also the consideration that not all attacks would be full on
wargasm attacks targeted counterforce.

Stick with the 'Bulletin of The Atomic Scientist' if you want something
reliable.

Vastly more reliable than most, but not without a distinct bias of
their own. (A bias that has grown noticeably more slanted over the
last decade and some.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:

Carey wrote:

The fact that Perimeter is in no way an automatic Doomsday Machine is
known to the article's author, but this does not deflect the flow of
specious narrative.

There's a new article on the Perimeter-related satellite constellation
he http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2472/...old-war-relics
IIRC, we had a similar system that would launch radio transmitters
vertically atop some of our Minuteman missiles which would send the
launch codes to all the silos in case the central C&C was destroyed by a
surprise first strike.

It was called ERCS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/ercs.htm).

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Glen Overby wrote:

The missile-launching-missiles seems a bit far-fetched, but there was a
back-up command path.

Emergency Rocket Communications System (ERCS):
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=8222
It was deactivated in 1991.


Last week I was on vacation in the Rapid City, SD area and took a tour of the
Minuteman I missile museum in South Dakota[1][2] (there's a Minuteman III
museum in Pat's back yard that I'll get to some other year)


Where's that one at? I hadn't heard of any in the near vicinity.


One of the
things the park rangers showed us was UHF antennas at the launch control site
and the missile site. They were there for communication with an aircraft,
called Looking Glass. The officers responsible for launching missiles could
communicate with them as an alternate path for orders. The aircraft could
also communicate directly with the missile silo to command a launch.

The park rangers also told us that one launch control site was not enough to
initiate a launch. The systems required that codes and keys be entered from
two launch control sites (IIRC, it had to be from two different flights within
the squadron).


The other control sites can also override an attempted launch by any
individual control site they are linked to.
The actual silos are so unobtrusive that it's possible to drive past one
without realizing its even there...it's just a small fenced-in area.
Warheads and missiles are transported individually, with the warhead
attached after the missile has been lowered into the silo.
Both vehicles have a security escort when carrying a missile or warhead.
All the remaining missiles now carry a single Mk-21/W87 warhead from the
deactivated Peacekeeper missile system.

Derek Lyons wrote:

No kidding. I have a really hard time accepting that the codes for the
PALs on our warheads were 'set to zero'. Where the hell did he come up with
that piece of folly? Cites or sources?

It's pretty well known - this came out a couple of years back.

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

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Derek Lyons wrote:
Because Perimeter was a command-and-control system, not a Doomsday
Device - the Soviet equivalent of ABNCP or TACAMO. What it was
capable of doing, what it was intended to do, has often been vastly
overstated, which mythology this article only adds too.

The fresh water you drank on that sub...that wasn't _fluoridated_ by any
chance, was it?
Just checking...we can't have our boomer crews getting all sapped and
impurified, or there's a good chance Mr. Russki will catch us with our
pants down when the balloon goes up. ;-)


Hey, just be careful Derek doesn't pull a Crazy Ivan on you. I hear he goes
left at the top of the hour.

:-)





--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Pat Flannery wrote:
Emergency Rocket Communications System (ERCS):
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=8222
It was deactivated in 1991.

thanks for the pointer. Wow.

Last week I was on vacation in the Rapid City, SD area and took a tour of the
Minuteman I missile museum in South Dakota[1][2] (there's a Minuteman III
museum in Pat's back yard that I'll get to some other year)

Where's that one at? I hadn't heard of any in the near vicinity.

Cooperstown, ND

http://history.nd.gov/historicsites/...ile/index.html

please post pictures when you visit it

The actual silos are so unobtrusive that it's possible to drive past one
without realizing its even there...it's just a small fenced-in area.

I agree. And if you don't shake the fence, they won't even know you're there.
The launch control sites are also fairly unobtrusive; just a long 1-story
building (with a fence and a helipad). The SD missile museum's launch control
site is visible from I90, but unless you knew what it was, you might think
(like I did) "nice satellite TV dish". Oh, and the dish *IS* for satellite
TV!

On the other hand, they're by no means hidden.

Warheads and missiles are transported individually, with the warhead
attached after the missile has been lowered into the silo.

the Ellsworth AFB tour (sign up at the Esllsworth base museum & pay $7) goes
to the silo training facility, and both of those vehicles are there and one of
the armored vehicles used by security.

- Glen

(Derek Lyons) writes:

It was called ERCS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/ercs.htm).

D.

Says they were 'inactivated' in early 90's. Does that mean
taken off alert or replaced by something else?

BTW, they send the command codes to the LCC's but those are
still manned by two officers who have to 'turn keys'.
Call it semi-automatic. I trust no one has changed that?

With airborne command posts, these sound like last resort
options.

Dave

Pat,

If it won't get you into trouble I'd like to discuss this a bit.
If you have to take a pass, that's ok. I was never cleared for
anything, and after this post probably never will be, so I'm ok.

Many years ago, back in the 80's when folks of the lefter side
of the political spectra were convinced Reagan was taking us all
down, there was a video produced and air'ed on PBS called 'Missile'.

It has become one of my all time favorite videos. I have it on VHS
casette somewhere (with no functional VHS/VCR at the moment to watch
it on). It's a documentary on missile crew training for either
Minuteman-II or III (can't remember which I think was II) conducted
at Vandenberg.

Anyway, it gets pretty deep into the non-classified stuff. And it
discusses this in some detail. (Capt. Mike Greenhill, you're my
hero! If he's still in the Air Force he's surely not still a captain.)

Pat Flannery writes:
The other control sites can also override an attempted launch by any
individual control site they are linked to.

Right, you can throw the inhibit switch. It does not appear that that
requires pass through to the deputies' console. Is it not on a continuity
loop? It is covered by a plastic panel with a seal which will be broken
when panel is opened, but it does not appear to be keyed. It does have
its own MCU. I have my own (very low tech) theory on how these work,
but its classified stuff and I don't want to discuss my speculations
(which are probably wrong anyway) here.

How does inhibit work? Is it simple majority vote? Typically there are
3 LCCs of which it takes two votes from two different LCCs to launch.
If an inhibit code comes down from one LCC I assume it cancels one LCC
launch vote?

LCCs however, contain more that one launch control unit. In an emergency,
the LCC can send a code, pull the unit out of the commander's console,
replace it with a second unit and send the 2nd code. Thus missles can
be launched with only one LCC up assuming the site has time to get
the 2nd unit in and the code out.

But does an inhibit code *always* override a launch code?
So say an LCC sends a launch code which a 2nd LCC inhibits. It then
appears that it is impossible for a 1 LCC launch to take place, since
it's already expended one of its two codes (aka votes). The 2nd code
would have to come from a different LCC, unless an LCC has more than
2 control units on hand.

Or is it legitimate to resend the first code? I would think not,
but this is what I don't know. Launch commanded vs launch enabled vs
missle away...

The actual silos are so unobtrusive that it's possible to drive past one
without realizing its even there...it's just a small fenced-in area.

Until it fires. In emergency mode, do they still use explosives to blow the
outer hatch off? Must be an interesting sign posted on that fence. Rivaled
only by the friendly welcoming signs posted outside the Pantex plant no doubt.
'Welcome taxpayer. You bought it, but don't f*ck with it. Use of
deadly force is authorized, and we're watching you, have a nice day....'

Can you fill me in on one another legend? Some of these missile sites appear
to have entrances disguised as 1-story ranch homes. The dead giveaway is
the neatly manicured lawn with a chain-link fence all around it. Is that
the case? What is being hidden, service entrances or LCCs? The movies
Wargames and the movie 'The Day After' would have us believe its LCCs, but
I have my doubts based on what I've seen of hardened LCC entrances. We
don't have any of that stuff here where I live.

Both vehicles have a security escort when carrying a missile or warhead. All
the remaining missiles now carry a single Mk-21/W87 warhead from the
deactivated Peacekeeper missile system.

Yeah, and I'll bet they don't have a good sense of humor on the job either.
Not a time and place for practical jokes. Pat, keep your turban at home.

Dave

(Derek Lyons) writes:

David Spain wrote:

Carey wrote:
But, heck, why should mere truth dissuade a journalist from selling a
juicy story? (Next stop: the Weekly World News!)

No kidding. I have a really hard time accepting that the codes for the
PALs on our warheads were 'set to zero'. Where the hell did he come up with
that piece of folly? Cites or sources?

It's pretty well known - this came out a couple of years back.


Cripes. At least they fixed it. Did the Navy do the same?
Well, maybe you can't say....

BTW, some 'Doomsday Machine'. Some missiles stashed in hardened bunkers?
Supposedly able to command launch of other missiles on launch? Yeah, so
what? If those other missiles are already destroyed, what is there
to command?

Note to self: I said bunkers, I meant silos...


One of the working assumptions is that not everything was destroyed
100% - after all, launch systems fail, missiles fail, and warheads
fail. If you base your assumption on believing that everything is
destroyed 100%, not only are you headed off into la la land... you
force *yourself* into a 'use or lose' mindset. Even the Soviets
weren't that paranoid.


Yeah, but it appears Star Wars was giving them pause about that.
In a way, that was doubly good. Knowing that they were going ape
sh*t over Star Wars, really means they were taking a truly defensive
posture, since SDI would have been only moderately effective on
2nd strike counter-attack of reduced force, and not effective at
all on a full-on first strike. Well, at least with the tech at hand
at the time.

It would have been far more worrisome if the Soviets had just shrugged
their shoulders with a who cares attitude? You could have interpreted
that as "We'll use them *before* we lose them"...

There's also the consideration that not all attacks would be full on
wargasm attacks targeted counterforce.


Yeah. OTOH most scenarios I've seen start with counterforce, and quickly
escalate out of control. In generalspeak, 'We are in a fluid situation...'

Stick with the 'Bulletin of The Atomic Scientist' if you want something
reliable.

Vastly more reliable than most, but not without a distinct bias of
their own. (A bias that has grown noticeably more slanted over the
last decade and some.)


Yes, the slant has always been there. It's collective guilt.
I don't have much sympathy for that, it's just this side of
narcissism. Some of these guys are getting old and feel they
need to make amends to their creator before their time is up.

Truth is we're stuck with these weapons. Each generation is
going to have to learn how to deal with them. I love to point
out to people that live in the fantasy world of no nuclear weapons
that they're just making the world safe enough for WWII again....

Dave

Pat Flannery writes:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Because Perimeter was a command-and-control system, not a Doomsday
Device - the Soviet equivalent of ABNCP or TACAMO. What it was
capable of doing, what it was intended to do, has often been vastly
overstated, which mythology this article only adds too.

The fresh water you drank on that sub...that wasn't _fluoridated_ by any
chance, was it?
Just checking...we can't have our boomer crews getting all sapped and
impurified, or there's a good chance Mr. Russki will catch us with our pants
down when the balloon goes up. ;-)

'That fanatical Flannery tried to plant that ridiculous accusation on me!'

'Oh Yeah? Well you can bet your sweet commie ass, 'Mr. Lie-On' there is
*plenty* of pure grain alcohol on Russkie subs!'

'Gentlemen, please. I never seen such behavior! Fighting in the war room?'

;-)

Dave