I was listening to Art Bell this morning and an attorney from Los Angeles phoned in. He stated that he used to be a computer programer and regretted not being able to phone in when Gary North was on the show last week. His main concern was about the Russian programmers implementing the "dead hand switch". I had never heard of this before. I guess if a country is going down, they program their weapons, whatever to automatically go off. Are we set up that way? Is that why we are so anxious to have negotiations with Russia?

-- Marsha (MSykes@court.co.macon.il.us), August 25, 1999

Answers

also called a dead mans switch, an example of one is on a lawn tractor The seat when not occupied, is held up by springs, but when weight is put on the seat, a switch is engaged, allowing the motor to run, when weight is taken off, the engine cuts off....

-- plain ol` joe (plain ol` joe@kennesawga.net), August 25, 1999.

It's the doomer handshake.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 25, 1999.

I'ts real, it DOES exist. I don't know all the specifics, and doubt anyone not in top clearance does, but the basic jist is that if a certain set of paramaters exist(loss of defence systems for example) Russian missles will launch.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 25, 1999.

joe's right. Good example. Another would be any control (such as on a crane) which required the operator to hold a lever closed with the hand in order to operate the equipment. If the operator releases because of incapacity then the machine goes dead. It was originally used to assure that if a man died while operating equipment the equipment would shut down. Hence it was called the "dead man's switch" or "dead man switch".

I assume that the soviet systems were built to withstand nuclear blasts and if a blast was bad enough to knock an operator off of his station while counting down to launch then the missle would fly without the operator's continued direction. This probably would only be used at the very last minute when the nukes were flying hot and heavy in order to assure that the soviet systems continued to deliver their wrath. Kind of the reverse of a dean man switch actually. Pretty scary.

Worst was the proposed system (US) in the early 1980's in which a centralized signal was used to say 'everything is OK' to all remote missle installations. This signal, if interupted, would assure launch if the signal did not arrive at the destination missle site. The idea was that a first strike on the main control center would actually be the trigger for a responsive strike. The only problem is that this technology had no 'man in the loop' to independently verify the arrival of a first strike. It was automatic. And if it was in error there would not be anyone to stop the missles from being launched. I do not believe that idea (thank God!) went very far.

But the item on Art Bell's program sounds like it would only be activated if they were already in launch mode and doing a countdown. Small comfort, really.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), August 25, 1999.

Marsha, Bruce Beach explains the Dead Hand switch, also called Perimeter, secondary clock bug (Dubbed the Beach Bug), the Russians, nukes and more on his website. I had a thread on it last week;

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HjF

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

There you go.. if Bruce Beach explains it, then it has little or no bases in fact. Brucie Baby is loonie toons and uses a spiderweb infested dental chair as his think tank.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 25, 1999.

As some explain it - and remember that the actual "design" of the whole system is highly classified, subject to rumor (see above) and isn't discussed even by the Russion's themselves -

the system is actually MUCH more complicated than a "single switch" - but it is intended "act like" a single switch on a crane or tracotr as described above.

If communications (satellite, phone line, radio, or secure teletype - all comms) are disrupted and if the nuclear alert has been "set", then this system is intended to lauch retalitory pre-programmed missiles back at the US (and probably UK, French as well) automatically. then intent was to force the US not to launch first because our missiles would then destroy their command and control system, thus they could not re-launch their missiles.

So, the Russions set up an automatic launch system - that would work regardless of whether there were "people" still in the bunkers and underground command centers to control it.

The y2k threat? If the system exists, and if it is still "set" to be in place on Jaunary/February 2000, then command and control failures (over there of course - our government has said we will have problems over here at all!) could be a cause for their automatic launch sequence to begin. (After all, a computer only knows "loss of all signals = launch all missiles", it can't tell "why" all signals were lost.

Until we know more, we don't know enough to worry, or to consider it hype. Regretably, this system does fit the mentality of Stalin and his government - who killed over 30 millions of their own people to "advance the revolution" - so they would see no problem in killing several millions innocent "enemies of the revolution" overseas to protect that revolution.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 25, 1999.

Howdy--

Saved this article on my hard drive, sorry no URL, but the The Nation online site may still have a file accessible, or check your local library for hard copy. If someone wants to look up the Times article, I would appreciate hearing what they had to say...Jane's online site does have a link to a section on "Perimeter" but as I recall it was a bit pricey to access.

Kinday freaky stuff...I think it's over the top, but make your own assessment. Also, please check date. This ran early in the year. You'd think someone was following up.

March 15, 1999 From The Nation

THE 'NIGHTMARE SCENARIO'

WHAT IF THE WORLD'S Y2K NUCLEAR COMPUTER PROBLEMS AREN'T FIXED IN TIME?

by KEVIN SANDERS Y2K is coming, ready or not. Right now, mostly not. And despite desperate efforts to correct the monumentally shortsighted failure to program the world's computers and computer chips with complete date codes, some disruption is now inevitable when the clocks tick over at midnight at the end of the year.

Most worrisome, because of their vast potential for destruction, are the world's nuclear weapons arsenals and nuclear power plants. For if the network of interconnected systems collapses and cascades into systemic infrastructure failures, power and communications could be lost worldwide. Restoration may be delayed or even impossible in a world where everything else has snapped to a halt. In the chaos and confusion that would follow no one knows what would happen to nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors. In the truly worst-case scenario, accidental nuclear war and/or reactor meltdowns could release enough deadly radioactivity to return the planet to the insects.

Probably nothing will happen immediately. All the world's 36,000 nuclear weapons could simply cease to function as the Y2K wave rolls over them. But a newly released report from the respected and independently funded British American Security Information Council (BASIC) warns of the possibility of accidental or mistaken launch of nuclear weapons. The authors acknowledge that this is highly improbable. Most nuclear launch systems require manual activation. But given the existing hairtrigger,launch-on-warning systems on which so many nuclear weapons are still balanced, such a launch, however implausible, could take place within ninety seconds of computer failure in the warning systems. If all military warning, tracking and interception systems were down, bombs could be hitting targets within minutes. The US military is aware of the danger and is working desperately to establish cooperative procedures with Russia, China and other nuclear powers to avert what Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre has called "the nightmare condition."

The greatest danger comes from Russian and Chinese missiles. Currently, at least thirteen Chinese nuclear missiles are thought to be capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States. Until Clinton's visit to China last June, some of the Chinese missiles were reportedly targeted on US cities. As a result of recent understandings, both nations have agreed to de-target their nuclear missiles. But such an agreement is currently unverified and provides flimsy protection, since missiles can be retargeted in ten seconds. As the Y2K digital tsunami moves west from the international date line in the Pacific, China and Russia will become the first nuclear nations to face possible computer failures--almost half a day earlier than the United States. All contact and communications could be lost or disrupted. Launch-site commanders could be left literally in the dark, trying to read the meaning of silence.

On a recent visit to Russia, Defense Secretary William Cohen offered to share early-warning information and exchange up to eighty observers, who would be stationed at the Russian and US launch and communications centers during Y2K.

Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev rejected the proposal with a bland assurance that "there is no such danger [for nuclear weapons] since in the Strategic Missile Forces we use special technologies."

However, according to a number of Russian scientists currently working in the United States, the financially starved Russian military and its dilapidated computer systems are even more prone to Y2K failure than those in the United States. The BASIC report quotes Sergei Fradkov, a former Soviet satellite control technician now working for a Wall Street software developer, who says, "Russia is extremely vulnerable to the Year 2000 problem.... If the date shifts to 0 for a brief moment...that fools the system into thinking there is a high probability of an attack in progress."

Russia's nuclear command and control system is linked in what, until recently, was a top-secret program called Perimeter. Although exact details are still not known, Perimeter is reminiscent of the "Doomsday Device" in the sixties black-comedy film Dr. Strangelove, which triggered an automatic massive Soviet retaliation. The US government did not even know of the existence of Perimeter until it was first reported in the New York Times on October 8, 1993. At the time, former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates said such a system was "unlikely." However, Jane's Intelligence Review, the world's most authoritative weapons journal, has since confirmed the existence of Perimeter and revealed more details. According to Jane's, if Moscow were to be attacked, or even if there was "interruption of command links to key Soviet leadership," Perimeter would automatically trigger a low-frequency radio signal that would launch a communications missile that would, in turn, transmit to all launch complexes the codes that would launch thousands of Russia's nuclear weapons.

The present status of Perimeter is unclear.

Like China, Russia has de-targeted its nuclear missiles. But they can be back on target in ten seconds. Whether this could happen as the result of an automatic or accidental computer default is not known. Sites in the United States, of course, would be programmed into the Russian and Chinese computers as primary targets. No doubt also programmed into Russian computers would be target options for sites in China, France, Germany, Britain and all the NATO countries. Already NATO nations have begun cooperative nuclear security arrangements with Russia. The dangers may not be limited just to the Northern Hemisphere. Probably both Russia and China have computer programs to target the United States' biggest offshore communications system: the Pine Gap satellite spy base in the middle of the Australian desert.....

end of relevant section. Happy to email full html article to any interested parties. My email is real.

Remember what's on the cover of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--in big friendly letters, "Don't Panic."

Have a nice day,

-- William in Dallas (bcheek@onramp.net), August 25, 1999.

Don't worry folks. Maria says that the top dogs of Russia and US are having tea and crumpets right now in the Taj Mahal they built for sharing early warning data. And you know Maria couldn't be wrong about anything...

-- a (a@a.a), August 25, 1999.

Cherri said:

There you go.. if Bruce Beach explains it, then it has little or no bases in fact. Brucie Baby is loonie toons and uses a spiderweb infested dental chair as his think tank.

Cherri, I caught you with your clueless pants down on a previous thread where you scoffed at the idea of a older generation water cooled mainframe, even though you are supposed to be an expert on older mainframes ("we would just bang the cabinet and it would start working again"). So, if you are clueless on old technology, and you are damn sure clueless on new technology, just what is your contribution here?

-- a (a@a.a), August 25, 1999.

Uh, William, that's scary. Hope they have redundancy piled on top of redundancy on top of redundancy. Hmm, anyone care to take a guess at the Mean Time Between Failure of this entire system -- which appears to be designed to fail unsafe?

-- de (delewis@inetone.net), August 25, 1999.

You can reach Kevin Saunders,the author of the Nation article quoted by william in Dallas at warpeace@interport.net---Kevin is one of the most knowledgeable nuclear affairs activists on the planet--You can expect the straight scoop from him---the Foundation could always use a nice donation---check out the nuc/powerplant data also!

-- Ed (Merek@aloha.net), August 25, 1999.

Ed: I guess that I'm just naturally suspicious...but I'd be leery of trusting a magazine whose editors and collective (gotta love those socialist adjectives!) still believe that the Rosenbergs and Hiss were innocent, that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. were really nice guys, not bloodthirsty tyrants.

As for your anti-nuke activist...I'm sure like most of his comrades in the West, he is more worried about our nuclear reactors and weapons, and not concerned about rogue states like N. Korea, Libya, etc., developing bombs and the missiles to deliver them. Of course the Left's solution to this problem is to disarm ourselves, grovel to our enemies and try to bribe the bastards into not attacking us and to sign treaties that are immediately violated by our newfound "friends." To bring the matter of treaty violations up is viewed as "destabilizing", as is the idea of defending ourselves. The current occupant in the White House is pursuing this line, and his successor will have to live with the consequences of this.

-- Bryan (BryanL@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

"a", this link may answer your question regarding Cherri:

How To Argue And Win Every Time

Ray

-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 25, 1999.

Dear Sir Brian of the skeptical at heart,

Reverse (and greatly upscale) your concerns about this source:

If the data were from a group of people who are "very worried" in their web site and their past about Communisitc expansion, then the data would be expected to reflect that view right? So, if that web site showed alarming data, we should (at least) view it skeptically, thinking that we need to verify it against other data from "the other side", right? So, if Jane's (or some other site) had similar alarming data, it would appear more likely true......if a socialist/communistic (or Democratic Party) site had this kind of raw data (about remote operated/remote launched nuclear weapons) then it is likely to be true.

A leftist/anti-nuclear/Communist site is "very" unlikely to print soemthing that implicitly criticizes the Soviet Union. In this case, the crass stupidity of having ANY kind of plan to commit nuclear weapon release to ANY automated system could only stem from a country who has absolutely no regard for human life (the Soviet Union), and who has severe paranoia about its enemies (again, the Soviet Union.)

So, to reverse your comment, because of where this information came from, and based on previous data alluding to the same thing, I'd the reference cited is very likely true.

Which is NOT good news.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 25, 1999.

Delewis, you want to really be scared? Read the complete link of Bruce Beach I gave above. It's like a connect-the-dot experience.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

Brian, save the political retoric, in the words of Tom Learer, once the rockets goes up who cares where they come down,that's not my department says Werner Von Braun!!!! Good Science is of nessessity apolitical---read the warpeace site information and be scared,very scared, By the way Brian as a dedicated commie fighter RVN 67-68 and a FEMA trained radiological officer I care not one "Whit" for the left/right interplay!MAD (MUTUAL ASSURED DISTRUCTION)is definatily not my cup of tea. Is commie lunar science any different than ours? Communism will fail just as Corporate Capitalism is doomed to failure as they both depend on increased exploitation of finite resource, give us steady state economy and a sustainable future.Commie bankers and capitalist bankers speak the same language! the languabe of exploitation and misery for millions! I vote for sanity and good SCIENCE.ALOHA

-- Ed (merek@Aloha.net), August 26, 1999.

Ed, you need a good dose of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to whack you over the head. Sad that you feel so exploited.

Where's John Galt when we need him.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.

Cris,I've had my dose of Ayn, thank you.the doctor said antibiotics wouldn't cure He recommended world travel.reality dictates realpolitic Galt represents the gimme group pure politics of greed! If you want an enlightening history lesson try General Smedly D. Butler at--http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/butler1.html--He was a corporate traveler also, He was approached by certin Industrial leaders in the 20tys who tried to enlist Butler in a Facist takeover of America---One of the only true attempted coups in our history-Check it out.

-- Ed (merek@aloha .net), August 26, 1999.

Ed:

Science and technology are indeed political issues, and thus subject to various and sundry means of manipulation for the benefit or detriment of the idea or device in question.

As to the conflict between left vs. right, I prefer Libertarian myself.

I am saddened that you feel oppressed...are your taxes too high?

-- Bryan (BryanL@aol.com), August 27, 1999.