Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
No.
The launch codes (note plural) are kept in a separately secured container, secured with a combination that is changed way too often.
The maintenance lockout is very simular to the safety lockouts used in civilian industry. It is a way to lock out a circuit or a piece of machinery so that someone does not turn it on/operate it while maintenance is underway.
The intent of the lockout is not to physically prevent someone from operating something, but more for informing them.
The lockout can be a padlock or can be an electronic lockout on a control panel. I don't think getting into too much detail about what goes on in the launch silos and LCFs really helps.
BTW, depending on the article, the number of zeros changes. There is one story that has the code at twelve zeros! That is one big lock!!!
|
Ah, good good. I have a clue about how most of the cycle goes, but obviously since the most recent LCPs are most likely still classified then a) details will be hard to get anyway and b) it's probably best to not really dig too deep anyway. Although to be honest, actually getting into a silo without clearance would be nigh on impossible anyway.
I find the whole SIOP process and the American retaliatory system in the Cold War very fascinating, especially when it comes down to the Continuation of Government system and NECAP (or NOAC as it's known now).
Compared to our system, which constituted throwing the government underground in a pretty well known location, with some backups on the Royal Yacht Britannia, the Queen would be thrown at Canada, if she decided to leave Buck House (which I doubt she would, in which case Charles would have gone instead). Flushing the bombers, if any survived, to do their bit in Scandinavia, and our boomers would have opened their letters which, depending on the PM, gave them permission to either fire back, place themselves under US command or to use their own judgment.