In choosing the military techs who can fire nukes are the very devout screened out?

In recalling some documentary on nuclear weapons from years ago, I remember the statement that the US military techs who (once ordered by the relevant authority) actually arm and fire the atomic weapons, are very thoroughly psychologically screened, and are required to be “super sane” or extremely stable emotionally.

I don’t know what being “super sane” entails as a specific psychological metric, but I imagine it would not be highly compatible with a person who was very religious as this requires a very fundamental belief in supernatural forces, and the potential risk (I’m guessing) that “God’s word” (to them) would always trump the President’s or anyone else’s.

Are very religious people inherently screened out of such a mission critical decision making & executing process, or can you be very religious and still be judged emotionally stable enough to fire nuclear weapons? Along that line would very religious astronauts or nuclear submarine Captains also be screened out?

How are these things judged by the military?

I just can’t help but offer my opinion, that anyone who is “super sane”, or any kind of sane, would NOT be pushing the button on a weapon of mass destruction. The perverse (but accepted) logic in the framing of this particular issue makes me so sad and scared for our society as a whole. OK back to the factual stuff. Sorry.

I can see it a couple of ways. Can a weapons guy on a nuclear sub fire the weapons without orders? Could a rouge captain do it with the crew on board? Or are they externaly armed?

Edit: “On Board” is not a good phrase here. Can the captain and crew shoot without Washington saying so if they wanted to?

There was a Scientific American article on this some years ago. The gist was that a number of officers - (the article listed captain, exec and weapons officer) acting together can initiate a launch - no technical safeguards wil stop them. This should prevent a rogue commander from firing missiles, yet ensure that a valid order would be obeyed.

From a military POV, it makes a weird kind of sense. It would be a major weakness if a first strike that took out communications would effectively disable a major part the nuclear arsenal.

From Wikipedia’s article on Buzz Aldrin:

Former Air Force nuke guy here - you’re conflating the process of arming and firing a nuke, and giving the order to do so. The process is strong and designed to prevent accidents and ‘rogue agents’ including psychological or religous problems; who can give the order is the President so arguably we have someone who is devout giving the order.

There is a basic rule for the handling and control of Nuclear Weapons called ‘no lone zone’. This means that you can never be alone with a nuclear weapon, and any arming or firing system for a nuclear weapon requires multiple people to complete the full cycle. For instance, in a single-seat F-16 fighter, the pilot can drop the weapon, but cannot arm it for a nuclear blast without inputting a code that he does not have; he has to get that code from an outside source. In the management and loading of nuclear weapons, we never had less than a 3-man weapons crew, and therefore were never alone with the weapon.

In the missile silos, there were 2 weapons firing officers, who have to work in conjunction to arm and fire the missile. Neither of them can do it alone - there are keys on opposite sides of a large room that must be turned simultaneously in order for the weapon to arm and fire. This is above and beyond the code inputting and such required to even open the arming key safes, which again the crews must get from an external source. In B-52s, the pilot and copilot, or any 2 flight crew officers, must work together to arm and drop any nuclear weapons.

Submarines were the one exception to this ‘external code required’ to arm the nukes. Nuclear missile submarines were ordered to keep a low profile and surface at discrete times and look for a particular signal. If they didn’t hear that signal in X months, they were to fire their weapons at pre-determined targets. This was to be the ultimate deterrent - even if command and control was completely disabled, even if the US was completely taken over or destroyed by a sneak attack, the ‘undetectable’ missile subs dotted all over the oceans would surface months later and fire their missiles and be effectively unstoppable and destroy the Russian homeland. But even then, the weapon system is designed that it requires 2 people to arm the weapons. So even if the captain went rogue, he would still need to have at least 1 accomplice because it would be physically impossible for him to arm the nuclear missiles without that.

As to the question of the OP, yes we were screened for religious views as part of psychological testing for what was called the Nuclear Surety Program. We were also analysed for our basic phsychological fitness and our financial responsibility, as well as other things -they were looking for instability or an avenue for enemy agents or blackmailers to get to us. If I was truly devout and wanted to get near a weapon, I probably could have lied and done it. But the system is designed to make an intentional firing and arming of the weapon by a lone person very very difficult if not impossible.

However, giving the order, as I mentioned above, is down to the civilian leadership and last time I checked there is no psychological testing required to become President and the President can give the order. I’d like to think the system of checks and balances, as well as simple human common sense, means the guys in the trenches would ignore the order if they knew nothing was going on in the wider world, but that’s far from certain.

Just to keep things in their proper perspective, all of the safeguards seem to have worked quite well for the last 50 years, considering a) that a nuclear weapon has not been used in anger since 1945, b) you’re breathing right now.

You’re using people who are devout about their religious beliefs to imply that that is a bad thing. On the contrary, those people are often the best people for the job, and what, pray tell, is your standard of “instability”? “People who believe in God are unstable” is not an appropriate standard.

Also, faith in God reinforces your ability to follow through on orders, since you oath is to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the President and all officers appointed over you, so help you God. That has pretty powerful meaning to the devout, and is not easily broken.

It’s been alleged (Peter Hennessy. The Secret State: Whitehall and the Cold War, 1945-1970. ) that if a Royal Navy missile submarine didn’t hear BBC Radio 4’s Today programme for set number days in a row then it was authorised to fire its weapons.

Rubbish. You’re suggesting that Atheists can’t be as patriotic as theists. What obnoxious, libellous rubbish. Belief in a sky-fairy doesn’t make you more trustworthy, just more gulliable.

No I’m not. I’m speaking only of devout theists, not of atheists. Atheists have the ability to take their affirmation just as seriously, but this thread isn’t about Atheism, so get a grip.

And while we’re talking about libel, your whole last sentence was nothing but.

Err… you’re right. Sorry. I totally misread your post. I apologise.

Most of the discussion here, particularly in GomiBoy’s very informitive post, seems to assume the concern was to screen out possible rogues who might initiate WW3 for fun.

Surely a major purpose of the screening was/is to pick people who would fire the weapons if ordered to do so? Having put in all these dual key systems etc. you then only need one of the key holders down your silo to refuse and the missile won’t fly.

The screening fulfills both purposes, but I would argue military training, starting all the way from basic training, prepares you for following orders and the primary concern of the military is not following orders but making up your own in a use-of-nukes situation.

ETA - and thanks for saying my post was informative. Usually I just go for funny, or at least try to, but it’s nice that I sometimes know what I’m talking about and it shows :slight_smile:

While serving in the US forces actually armed with nuclear weapons, I figured out the actual nature of the unit mission I was sworn to carry out.

Half the folks in the part of the world I was supposed to be defending would have died, as a direct result of that mission. (My side’s weapons, not the enemy.) It was insane. I realized that I could not do it. I became a conscienecious objector, and was relieved of duty. I was required to undergo psychiatric examination to determine if I was insane. My religious beliefs were part of that examination, but not a major element.

The fact is that being willing to initiate mass destruction of huge portions of the world’s population is part of the “stability” we require of our nuclear military forces. When that’s your starting point, details of why you consider one person sane, and another person dangerously unstable are kinda vague.

Tris

Related question: in the beginning scene of War Games, a missile silo crew receives valid orders to initiate a launch; one member of the crew insists on extra verification and ultimately refuses to launch. It turns out to be a test, and the failure of crews to launch prompts the main plot of the movie: the computer gets final control of the launching process.

But in real life: were crews ever “tested” that way, to see if in a real war, they would actually launch?

Well, you can never be absolutely sure about stuff like that, but . . .

Every simulation I ever heard about was run without using actual “war reserve” weapons. There were very specific, very stringent rules about that. We did maintenance on warheads every day. But if someone wanted to see us do it for training or verification purposes, that was restricted to just watching, and only prior scheduled regular maintenance. You could not be ordered to even open an access hatch unless that was part of ordinary scheduled maintenance. (Now, there was almost always enough scheduled maintenance due to allow pretty much any procedure to be observed by the various oversight authorities, what with the military obsession for regular maintenance schedules.)

So, putting a weapon into an armed and ready state was not possible. Not just hard to do without being obviously a test, simply not possible. A weapon that was somehow not really dangerous would be obvious to all but a few members of the team. The guy with the “key” was not among them. A weapon that was genuine was covered by six books of regulations about how it would be treated.

The recent case of nukes “going out for a ride” in the Air Force stunned me. I suppose wing nuts have their own rules.

Tris

Stable or unstable are the wrong words - the military does not want you stable, it wants you following orders. The military definition of stable is vastly different than the civilian one, as you found out. It takes a special type, and the only way I could possibly have justified it to myself, wihout resorting to your option and becoming a conscientious objector myself, was that the weapons were never intended to be used. It was all about deterrence, and as sucky as it was to manufacture, maintain, secure, and load weapons that would have killed millions, we never intended to use them. The few exceptions were true wingnuts, like General Curtis LeMay, and thankfully they never managed to pull the pin. Read the section on the Cold War history of LeMay in the above for some truly scary shit that he tried to do.

I was amazed, shocked, appalled, dismayed, and disgusted by that. I cannot understand how it happened. As part of a 3-man load crew loading simulated nukes on planes, we never had less than 8 people in the immediate area doing ‘something’ with the weapon - transporting it, guarding it, testing it, loading it, etc. How someone could load a live nuke on a BUFF and fly it across the country boggles the mind. It’s not like they mixed up the tail numbers between a standard and a ready alert BUFF - we haven’t had nuke-loaded alert BUFFs since 1991!

I was so glad to read that several higher HQ commanders lost their jobs.

[Moderating]

These remarks were not appropriate for GQ. Your apology is appreciated, but even if you misread the post you were commenting on you should avoid such statements in this forum. Please be more careful in the future.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

I have met very religious people in the submarine force, even creationists. :rolleyes:

To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. Navy only looks for personal integrity and the ability to follow orders.

While submarines do not require external codes to launch missiles, there are very robust procedures in place that would prevent an unauthorized launch. I am confident that no launch would take place without valid orders. Conversely, I am quite confident that a launch would take place if valid orders were received.

When I was on a missile sub, we conducted practice launches constantly.

P.S. One other thing: while no one person* could initiate a launch on a submarine, no one person* could stop a launch, either. With valid launch orders in hand, a weapons officer (for example) who refused to go ahead with the launch would be immediately relieved of duty and replaced.

That being said, it takes most of the crew of a submarine to actually conduct all of the actions necessary for a launch.

*or even several persons

Absolutely right, and I wish I would have thought of adding that to my post above - it’s not a simple thing to take a cruising nuclear missile submarine at depth and fire missiles out of it.

I do disagree with one thing, though - two single people (weps and captain) can STOP the missiles from firing once the process has started, or at least prevent the missiles as firing armed for nuclear explosion. But no single person can fire the missiles all by themselves.