Re: ICBM warheads

From: Paul F Austin (pfaustin_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 12/05/04 

To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 06:16:59 -0500

"john-locke" wrote
>
> That might make sense, but I was always told by folks inside military &
> electronic circles, that ICBM vehicles were specially designed to take a
> "fail safe" command to "disarm" to the last few seconds of final descent
arc
> were imminent to the target GZ - that it was possible to either block the
> initiating charge or U 238 block from being sent towards the core of the
> device to initiate its burst. These people seemed adament that they would
> not have any problem in sending a counter-command of the "fail-safe" type
to
> the ICBM vehicle en route. I can understand that someone could try to
block
> such a command, but the same counter - command would effect the burst of a
> small nuke munitions device (a.k.a. "Samsonite" bombs), as it takes a
> Presidential authorisation for both to start.

You were told wrong. Systematically and completely. Virtually everthing that
you report above is incorrect.

As far as the _desireability_ of such "second thoughts" mechanism, the
inclusion of a remote disarm switch puts the function of the weapon at risk.
You've focused so completely on the "safeguards" aspect that you forget that
the whole point of building nuclear tipped ICBMs is to be able to break
things and kill people on a grand scale reliably and promptly.