How much is needed to launch a nuclear weapon, authority wise? Could the president of the USA as a commander-in-chief give an order to nuke say Russia one day and get away with it? Or could the crew of a ballistic missile submarine go renegade one day and use their missiles against someone? How big would the conspiracy have to be to misuse a nuclear weapon like that? How many people would have to be in? How about back during the cold war?
I asked this last fall…
main answer: any time the President feels it is necessary and can convince one of the Cabinet Secretaries (most likely Defense) of the need, he can launch.
Two or more at the command end, and at least two delivering the weapon.
Source: On the Risk of an Accidental or Unauthorized Nuclear Detonation | RAND
Download PDF: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM2251.pdf
The above might help for historical analysis.
As for today, these two incidents should be disturbing:
[ul]
[li]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident[/li][li]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/13/us-usa-missile-inspection-idUSBRE97C11K20130813[/li][/ul]
But if you are looking for detailed specifics, those in the know won’t tell you. Former military Dopers with this type of experience probably won’t give you a straight answer here, either.
Read up on:
I remember watching the movie Crimson Tide and it said prior to 1996 submarine captains were able to launch nuclear weapons without the presidents authority.
Two words: Plan R
My understanding is that most large warheads won’t detonate unless they receive a cryptologically secure arming code. The bomb will damage itself if anyone opens it to bypass that arming mechanism.
I see Duckster has linked to a Wikipedia article mentioning this. The code wasn’t as secure as I thought:
The wikpedia article on the UK’s nuclear weapons claims that the Trident missiles on the UK nuclear submarines do not have Permissive Action Locks. " The UK took a decision not to install Trident CCDs or their equivalent on the grounds that an aggressor might be able to wipe out the British chain of command before a launch order had been sent."
so in theory if a UK Nuclear submarine commander and XO was to go rogue they could launch weapons.
coremelt, your username and last post are a nice combination.
And now I have yet another thing to worry about. Thanks. 
Don’t worry - the RAF and Royal Navy made sure their bombs were safe - with bicycle locks.
But don’t read this link - how to open a bike lock with a BIC pen :smack:
Re-read that- the bike lock is the arming mechanism. There’s security to get through before you get to do the pen trick.
What - remove two screws with a coin?
Of course the weapons were guarded and secured - but that doesn’t mean a great deal. That is human factors and physical security - it is not unknown for these things to be circumvented.
While we’re on it, is there anything that prevents russia/china/Pakistan from selling nukes to hostile countries?
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a binding agreement on Russia, China, America, Britain and France to not transfer nuclear weapons technology to other nations. Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea all have nuclear weapons programmes and viable weapons (unconfirmed in the case of Israel) but are not signatories. South Africa had a viable weapon but voluntarily dismantled it’s own programme. However, Pakistan (at least) treats itself internally as a signatory - the leaking of nuclear technology by a Pakistani scientist was unauthorised and was in response to government mandated restrictions.
The non signatory nations know that to transfer a weapon to a third party would invite retaliation, and if such a weapon was used in an attack, the response would be in kind, by the attacked nation or a friendly nuclear power. And losing direct control of such a weapon also makes it possible that such a weapon could end up being deployed against the supplier.
Finally, the nonsigs do not actually have the stockpiles or the resources to make weapons to give away - they have few weapons of their own, they will not just give them away.
Do you happen to have a cite to this information?
In addition to the NPT, it’s not in the self-interest of any nation-state to give nuclear weapons to any other entity.
There are at least two valid ways of looking at nukes: weapons so catastrophically deadly they threaten a nation-state’s very existence, and as strategic instruments of political influence: deterrence against attack, entry into the First World club, guarantors of “respect,” tools of hegemony, and so on.
In an environment where few nation-states have nukes, no nation-state wants to share (i.e., create conditions that permit peer states to threaten its existence outright), even if they are currently the best of friends. The same is even more true of nonstate actors. Nuclear weapons handling is all about control; nobody wants unpredictable, unaccountable entities to possess them.
Likewise, few if any nation-states would give up influence, and nuclear status is influence. Say you’re China. If your friendly little neighbor wants favorable trade status with the big bad US, is it better for you long-term to give them nukes, enabling them to pretty much defy your will if they choose, or to keep the weapons to yourself, but use your influence on behalf of your little friend? The second route increases your own status internationally, wins you the gratitude of the smaller state’s current leadership, expands your influence over it and other neighbors, and does not result in any danger of Beijing becoming a national day of mourning instead of your capital.
The few instances of apparent international cooperation are limited to states which did not at the time have nuclear capability cooperating with other states in an attempt to acquire it: The US and Britain in WWII, and allegedly Israel and South Africa.
This is also believed to be the case with Israeli submarines & nukes.
“give” no, but what about sell. Don’t you think its possible that North Korea would sell Nuclear weapons to other states for hard currency if they could.
Anecdote earmuffs on/ when I was on an airbase in Germany in the 1980’s we had tactical nukes that could have been flown over the line on F-4s. If memory serves there were 12 safeguards on each weapon, some mechnical (pull the pin), some electronic (enter the code), and some situational (accelerometer confirms the bomb was, ya know, dropped from an appropriate height)/earmuffs
That’s how we did it. (italics mine)
There’s a really good documentary called “Countdown to Zero”. It talks about the threat of nuclear terrorism, various near nuclear accidents, the amount of ICBM’s that are still active and the protocol for strike. Very interesting, really opens your eyes to the fact that were still living in an era where a nuclear strike could happen at a moments notice.