natei@uunet.uu.net (Nathaniel Ingersoll) (04/10/90)
From: natei@uunet.uu.net (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
In article <15275@cbnews.ATT.COM> GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson) writes:
[ requiring PALs (Permissive Action Links) in subs that expire every
24 hours, so that in peacetime subs can't nuke the world ]
:
:My proposal is that nuclear missiles in submarines have PALs which
:"expire" in the event of a 24-hour period without a refreshment
:signal from U.S. command centers. Transmission of such a signal
:globally every couple of hours should pose no insurmountable
:problems, and the PALs would largely eliminate the risk of any
:submarine crew executing an unauthorized launch. In the event
:of a failure of the system, and the non-refreshment of the PALs
:for 24 hours, we would then be placed in what is now the perpetual
:circumstance of launch-capable nuclear attack subs. Presumably,
:this would be an extremely rare occurrence.
:Does anyone see any pitfalls to this concept, other than the Navy's
:reputed intransigence to accept any form of PAL?
Yes, I do - let's say that the Soviets, or whoever, nuke all the U.S.
command centers. According to your scheme, within 24 hours the
subs could fire their missiles; however the Soviets could figure
out (probably pretty easily) the signal that refreshes your expirable
PAL, and broadcast that indefinitely, thus keeping the subs
from being able to fire their nukes in retaliation.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
I told the police that I was not injured,
but on removing my hat, I found that I
had a skull fracture. -- from an insurance accident form
---
________________________________________________________________________________
I told the police that I was not injured,
but on removing my hat, I found that I
had a skull fracture. -- from an insurance accident form