2
$\begingroup$

If someone were to have a country's (Take the U.S, for the sake of being specific) nuclear launch codes, could he unilaterally fires nukes as he pleases?

Assumptions:

1) He's among the military's top brass and can, conveniently, access practically any room in the White House without questions being asked.

2) He's got a loyal team of about a dozen people at his disposal, so he doesn't have to do everything himself.

3) He has access to the President's "nuclear football", and managed to obtain a copy of the launch/verification codes.

4) He decides to fire the missile(s) on the same day he obtains the codes, so even changing the codes on a daily basis is no impediment to his plan.

5) He already knows where a particular launch site is.

6) He's got 10 minutes to get into the Oval Office/Situation Room, punch in the codes and get out before anyone suspects anything/ walks in.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Vaguely relevant en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident $\endgroup$
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 10:53
  • $\begingroup$ Probably worth reading: Eric Schlosser, Command and Control. amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/… $\endgroup$
    – jkp1187
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 10:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Frostfyre Reality check on the plot seems to me to be perfectly on-topic here... $\endgroup$
    – kingledion
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 13:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @kingledion Reality-check questions about creations in a world are on-topic, such as asking if a tree can naturally bear multiple kinds of fruit; this is something being created for the world. This is a plot-centric question asking about the specifics of real-world policies and practices. Questions about plot are specifically mentioned as off-topic. $\endgroup$
    – Frostfyre
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suggest reading a lot more Tom Clancy, before you go down this path. $\endgroup$
    – Joe
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 19:36

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

No, after ordering the strike the Pentagon war room askes a verification code over voice communication. Without that verification code by voice the strike will not be initiated. So unless he remains long enough to make that call it won't happen. If he can, it will move forward.

However that verification order is send not just to the launch crew but several command centers as well. With still 3 minutes to go before launch those command centers will know a strike is initiate and can contact the launch site directly as that location is embedded in the order.

Submarines take an additional 10 minutes to fire. Although I can't tell you exactly why. Their launch procedures are longer thus would give even more time to prevent launch.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ subs take longer to fire because they have to safely reach launch depth and verify that their immediate area is 'safe' for them to launch. Silos literally have to open a door and turn some keys. $\endgroup$
    – Marshall Tigerus
    Commented Jan 5, 2018 at 15:06
3
$\begingroup$

As with most of the other respondents, I am going to say a firm No.

Let's walk through the entire scenario. You have a high level adviser with a team in place in one of the most secure areas in the United States, presumably with access to the President, Vice President, and all of their staff, but the President is not part of this conspiracy and will not cooperate to launch nuclear weapons.

Your first hurdle is getting the authorization codes you need. It is presumable that you could replace the "Football Carrier" with one of your people, but the football is only one part of the recipe to launch Armageddon. To authorize the attacks, the President also has the "Biscuit," a gold credit-card sized piece of plastic that must be physically broken to reveal a code used to authorize the attack. Without the President on board, you couldn't authorize a launch. The President's identity is also verified by SecDef, so unless SecDef is in your conspiracy, you have that hurdle as well.

Let's sidestep that issue. Say you incapacitate the president, and have the VP on your side, using his football and his "biscuit" to authorize the strike, or managing to give the real President sufficient evidence that he believes a strike is needed. You send out the nuclear launch command to NORAD. Various nuclear facilities are activated, verified, etc, and prepped for the launch. Given that we have never gone to the brink with nuclear weapons since WW2, it is possible that operators will refuse to launch. Just from sheer probability, some will fail to launch for various reasons. At least a few weapons will launch under any scenario where the President (Or VP with the President out of the way) authorizes a strike.

However, it would probably be easier (with the military connections and access you have) to secure a "Boomer" sub. Russia is almost guaranteed to counter-strike if they are attacked, and one the nukes are in the air, the US will have no options left but to strike back or die quietly.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Defenitely NO

Anyone could use two-factor authorisation just for Google account: using password and some tokens. When you buy something strange then bank could call you and ensure it's your order.

I'm sure that nuke has more than 2 security levels.

Just what I were add in the system:

  • special oficer who holds key in addition to the president's codes.
  • call back for president
  • acceptance from headquarters
  • commander on the base who should enter its own code to launch the rocket.
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Not really. After an order is given with the correct code a single verification call is made asking for a second passcode. If that passes all is good to go. Of course there several warning triggers along the way but no true gateways. $\endgroup$
    – Mormacil
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ ok. Since we are on world building site I wrote what is could be easily done. I don't exactly know how it work in real world :) $\endgroup$
    – ADS
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 10:48
  • $\begingroup$ It would make sense if it had more layers I agree. Sadly it doesn't, though there several warning signals. $\endgroup$
    – Mormacil
    Commented Apr 17, 2017 at 10:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .