Re: Code used to protect missile commands?

"William L. Bahn" <william@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:27mdnXE-0f0-DATZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Justareader" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n6ei92hf8ufndhstjfevdf8f8k9bfqoh7t@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:22:11 -0600, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamlicious_z_XXX_m@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Justareader" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j5bh92deve4s996akk5bbs1qr56qrr8jku@xxxxxxxxxx
On 20 Jun 2006 18:55:24 -0700, "TC"
<gg.20.keen4some@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Justareader wrote:

With Korea in the news threatening to launch a long range
missile it
got me wondering about what encryption they use to make
sure only they
can control the missile?

Interesting historically:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=167

TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

Thanks, I was reading even older material from WW2 when the
Germans
were using single beacon systems to direct their bombers.

With the advent of atomic clocks you could build a pretty
tight closed
loop communication system narrowing signal acceptance not
only by
direction but also in a narrow time window.

Obviously any missile launch these days would have an
Infrared
signature that would locate the missiles progress very
accurately so
I'm still not sure that some genius in the NSA hasn't
figured out a
way to get below the floor and spoof or jam the signal.

There are unjammable signals, and signals which use line of
sight can be
made difficult to jam. (How are you going to jam
communication that uses a
laser for instance?)

Don't go to the trouble of blocking the signal, just have a
giant EMP gun to
knock out all circuitry on the damn thing :P

Another good reason why they probably still use a simple
mechanical
inertial guidance system for long range missions. Once
launched there
probably is not much control possible from the ground.


On a live bird (not a test bird) there is none. To the best of
my knowledge - and this has been confirmed by several people I
know that have commanded combat missile crews over the past
several decades (though none within the last roughly ten years)
there is no such thing as a command self-destruct on a live
ballistic missile. Think about it - if there were, a big emphasis
of your enemy would be to compromise your system and gain access
to the codes and procedures without your knowing about it. If
they succeed - and you will never know if they have or not - then
they are in a position to do all kinds of things up to and
including launching on you and then, when you launch your
retaliatory strike, you finally find out your system was
compromised when all of your birds self-destruct. A pretty major
hole in a self-defense doctrine.

So, unlike all of the Hollywood techno-babble, the order to
launch a missile strike is irrevocable. Once launched, that bird
is going to its target and going to go boom (unless it is
intercepted or, of course, malfunctions). That level of
brinksmanship is not played with missiles - that was one of the
advantages of the manned nuclear bomber forces in that they can
be taken to the brink and then recalled. Although, even then,
once the release order has been issued it is assumed to be
irrevocable. The people playing the game know the stakes involved
and do not issue a launch or release order unless they are fully
committed to carrying out the strike regardless of what
developments might happen after the order is given.




That's ridiculous - you could program the self destruct seconds before you
launched the missile. If your security is physically breached, and/or you
don't trust your employees at the launch site, then the enemy could have
sabotaged the missile anyway. Have the self destruct mechanism and
circuitry independent of the missile itself (just a remote control bomb
inside the missile) and use a virtually unbreakable (but not necessarily
unjammable) mechanism for signaling the self destruct.

--
LTP

:)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Washington Post says seven North Korean missile launches
    ... exercise built around the launch of the Taepodong-2 with a scenario ... North Korea tested a long-range missile and at least two smaller ... face even further isolation if it launched the Taepodong-2, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Ambushing Irans subs?
    ... Unknown USSR sub lost in the Arctic Sea ... On the bridge, in the brisk wind, an officer quickly scanned the ... activated only from the missile control panel inside the submarine. ... launch. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Ambushing Irans subs?
    ... Unknown USSR sub lost in the Arctic Sea ... On the bridge, in the brisk wind, an officer quickly scanned the ... activated only from the missile control panel inside the submarine. ... launch. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • U.S. Deploys Anti - Missile Ships Before North Korea Launch
    ... U.S. Deploys Anti - Missile Ships Before North Korea Launch ... The United States, however, has no intention to shoot down the rocket ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Boom
    ... those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. ... The satellite was going faster than a ballistic missile so to hit ... Back to the Moon? ... could stop an accidental launch or a simple "mad General" launch of a ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)