Permissive Action Link: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{PropDel}}<br><br>{{subpages}}
{{TOC|right}}
A '''Permissive Action Link (PAL)''' is a U.S.-developed physical component of a nuclear weapon, specifically to prevent unauthorized activation by persons who have legitimate access to them, and by persons at intermediate levels in the chain of command over the weapon. They complement measures to prevent activation of the weapon by accidents of nature, and validation mechanisms within the command and control system.  
{{main|United States nuclear surety}}
A '''Permissive Action Link (PAL)''' is a U.S.-developed physical component of a [[nuclear weapon]], specifically to prevent unauthorized activation by persons who have legitimate access to them, and by persons at intermediate levels in the chain of command over the weapon. They complement measures to prevent activation of the weapon by accidents of nature, and validation mechanisms within the [[command and control]] system.  


It is unclear who both originated the idea and effectively shepherded through the government. The [[Joint Committee on Atomic Energy]] claimed it, there is evidence that the first idea came from [[Fred Ikle]], at the [[RAND Corporation]], in 1957-1958, although he did not advance the idea.  Scientists at "Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia laboratories began investigating methods of controlling the use of nuclear weapons. Concepts were refined and a prototype built at Livermore was demonstrated in the fall of 1960 before a military audience in Washington and in December 1960 for incoming Secretary of Defense [[Robert S. McNamara]]. The military officers were unimpressed and considered the device redundant in light of what they considered adequate nonmechanical controls already in effect. McNamara's response is unknown, but apparently he did not consider it an urgent matter." <ref>{{citation
It is unclear who both originated the idea and effectively shepherded through the government. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy claimed it, there is evidence that the first idea came from Fred Ikle, at the RAND Corporation, in 1957-1958, although he did not advance the idea.  Scientists at "Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia laboratories began investigating methods of controlling the use of nuclear weapons. Concepts were refined and a prototype built at Livermore was demonstrated in the fall of 1960 before a military audience in Washington and in December 1960 for incoming Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. The military officers were unimpressed and considered the device redundant in light of what they considered adequate nonmechanical controls already in effect. McNamara's response is unknown, but apparently he did not consider it an urgent matter." <ref>{{citation
  | contribution = The JCAE and the Development of the Permissive Action Link
  | contribution = The JCAE and the Development of the Permissive Action Link
  | publisher = Brookings Institution
  | publisher = Brookings Institution
  | url = http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/box9_2.aspx
  | url = http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/box9_2.aspx
  | title = The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project | date = August 1998}}</ref>  Congress can claim input, however, after an inspection trip in December 1960, showed European-based U.S. nuclear weapons in the possession of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces were under inadequate and possibly-illegal control (as defined by terms of the [[Atomic Energy Act of 1954]]). "The sight of fully-operational American weapons aboard NATO quick-reaction aircraft (QRA) manned by foreign pilots who were essentially free to "scramble" with or without proper authorization was enough to cause a renewed interest in a positive-control arming lock."<ref name=HansenPartV>{{citation
  | title = The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project | date = August 1998}}</ref>  Congress can claim input, however, after an inspection trip in December 1960, showed European-based U.S. nuclear weapons in the possession of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces were under inadequate and possibly-illegal control (as defined by terms of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954). "The sight of fully-operational American weapons aboard NATO quick-reaction aircraft (QRA) manned by foreign pilots who were essentially free to "scramble" with or without proper authorization was enough to cause a renewed interest in a positive-control arming lock."<ref name=HansenPartV>{{citation
  | title = The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945
  | title = The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945
  | author = Chuck Hansen
  | author = Chuck Hansen
Line 15: Line 13:
  | contribution = Part V: Arming & Fuzing: Techniques & Equipment}}</ref>  
  | contribution = Part V: Arming & Fuzing: Techniques & Equipment}}</ref>  
==A system of systems==
==A system of systems==
There is a continuum of safeguards, with U.S. weapons, from the legitimate authority for their use in the positive control [[National Command Authority]], down to the mechanisms of the weapon. Command and control mechanisms are outside the scope of this article.
There is a continuum of safeguards, with U.S. weapons, from the legitimate authority for their use in the positive control National Command Authority, down to the mechanisms of the weapon. Command and control mechanisms are outside the scope of this article.


There is especially tight complementarity between PALs and [[Environmental Sensing Device (military)|Environmental Sensing Device]] (ESD).  PALs prevent detonation without a positive human action. ESDs prevent detonation "until a series of events or forces peculiar to the warhead's delivery vehicle trajectory occur in a prescribed sequence , such as the sequential acceleration, deceleration, and thermal heating of a missile RV; the high acceleration and spin of an AFAP; or the changing barometric or hydrostatic pressures of air-dropped bombs or ship-launched ASW weapons."  Even if the PAL were circumvented, a bomb, for example, with a barometric ESD would not detonate in its storage area. <ref name=HansenPartV />
There is especially tight complementarity between PALs and Environmental Sensing Device (military)|Environmental Sensing Device (ESD).  PALs prevent detonation without a positive human action. ESDs prevent detonation "until a series of events or forces peculiar to the warhead's delivery vehicle trajectory occur in a prescribed sequence , such as the sequential acceleration, deceleration, and thermal heating of a missile RV; the high acceleration and spin of an AFAP; or the changing barometric or hydrostatic pressures of air-dropped bombs or ship-launched ASW weapons."  Even if the PAL were circumvented, a bomb, for example, with a barometric ESD would not detonate in its storage area. <ref name=HansenPartV />


Less coupled to PALs, but important at the weapon level, are physical precautions such as the [[one-point safe criterion]], [[insensitive high explosives]], [[weak link-strong link]] and [[enhanced nuclear detonation safety]],  and [[fire-resistant pit]]s.
Less coupled to PALs, but important at the weapon level, are physical precautions such as the one-point safe criterion, insensitive high explosives, weak link-strong link and enhanced nuclear detonation safety,  and fire-resistant pits.


==PAL Implementation==
==PAL Implementation==
There have been six general types of PAL. The multiple codes allow setting options such as the nuclear yield in weapons with the "[[Dial-a-yield]]" feature, but also things such as burst altitude.  It is not always practical to give examples in the table, since many weapons had PAL upgrades during their service life.<ref name=HansenPartV />   
There have been six general types of PAL. The multiple codes allow setting options such as the nuclear yield in weapons with the "Dial-a-yield" feature, but also things such as burst altitude.  It is not always practical to give examples in the table, since many weapons had PAL upgrades during their service life.<ref name=HansenPartV />   
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|-
Line 38: Line 36:
| Four-digit, 10-position electromechanical coded switch
| Four-digit, 10-position electromechanical coded switch
| Most retired; enabled a single option
| Most retired; enabled a single option
| [[W28 (nuclear weapon)|W28]], [[W-49 (nuclear weapon)|W49]], [[W50 (nuclear weapon)|W50]], and [[W52 (nuclear weapon)|W52]]
| W28 (nuclear weapon)|W28, W-49 (nuclear weapon)|W49, W50 (nuclear weapon)|W50, and W52 (nuclear weapon)|W52
|-
|-
| B
| B
| Ground or airplane cabin-operable 4-digit coded switch  
| Ground or airplane cabin-operable 4-digit coded switch  
| later version with limited try followed by lockout until reset  
| later version with limited try followed by lockout until reset  
| [[Gravity bomb]]s
| Gravity bombs
|-
|-
| C
| C
Line 53: Line 51:
| Multiple-code 6-digit switch   
| Multiple-code 6-digit switch   
| limited try followed by lockout  
| limited try followed by lockout  
| [[W80 (nuclear weapon)|W80 for AGM-69 ALCM]], [[gravity bomb]]s, [[W79 (nuclear weapon)|W79]] and [[W82 (nuclear weapon)|W82 artillery shells]]
| W80 (nuclear weapon)|W80 for AGM-69 ALCM, gravity bombs, W79 (nuclear weapon)|W79 and W82 (nuclear weapon)|W82 artillery shells
|-
|-
| F
| F
| Multiple-code 12-digit switch   
| Multiple-code 12-digit switch   
| limited try followed by lockout and disabling of weapon  
| limited try followed by lockout and disabling of weapon  
| [[B61 (nuclear weapon)|B61 Mod 10 gravity bomb]]
| B61 (nuclear weapon)|B61 Mod 10 gravity bomb
|}
|}
Since the PAL is a part of the weapon, each specific design will vary.  It is generally agreed that their primary function is acting as switches in the high-voltage path interconnecting power supplies, high-voltage capacitors, timing components, and detonators.<ref name=Bellovin>{{citation
Since the PAL is a part of the weapon, each specific design will vary.  It is generally agreed that their primary function is acting as switches in the high-voltage path interconnecting power supplies, high-voltage capacitors, timing components, and detonators.<ref name=Bellovin>{{citation
  | title = Permissive Action Links,Nuclear Weapons, and the History of Public Key Cryptography
  | title = Permissive Action Links,Nuclear Weapons, and the History of Public Key Cryptography
  | author = [[Steven Bellovin]]
  | author = Steven Bellovin
  | publisher = Department of Computer Science, [[Columbia University]]
  | publisher = Department of Computer Science, Columbia University
  | date = 21 October 2005
  | date = 21 October 2005
  | url = http://www.cs.columbia.edu/˜smb
  | url = http://www.cs.columbia.edu/˜smb

Latest revision as of 14:14, 18 March 2024

This article may be deleted soon.
To oppose or discuss a nomination, please go to CZ:Proposed for deletion and follow the instructions.

For the monthly nomination lists, see
Category:Articles for deletion.


A Permissive Action Link (PAL) is a U.S.-developed physical component of a nuclear weapon, specifically to prevent unauthorized activation by persons who have legitimate access to them, and by persons at intermediate levels in the chain of command over the weapon. They complement measures to prevent activation of the weapon by accidents of nature, and validation mechanisms within the command and control system.

It is unclear who both originated the idea and effectively shepherded through the government. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy claimed it, there is evidence that the first idea came from Fred Ikle, at the RAND Corporation, in 1957-1958, although he did not advance the idea. Scientists at "Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia laboratories began investigating methods of controlling the use of nuclear weapons. Concepts were refined and a prototype built at Livermore was demonstrated in the fall of 1960 before a military audience in Washington and in December 1960 for incoming Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. The military officers were unimpressed and considered the device redundant in light of what they considered adequate nonmechanical controls already in effect. McNamara's response is unknown, but apparently he did not consider it an urgent matter." [1] Congress can claim input, however, after an inspection trip in December 1960, showed European-based U.S. nuclear weapons in the possession of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces were under inadequate and possibly-illegal control (as defined by terms of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954). "The sight of fully-operational American weapons aboard NATO quick-reaction aircraft (QRA) manned by foreign pilots who were essentially free to "scramble" with or without proper authorization was enough to cause a renewed interest in a positive-control arming lock."[2]

A system of systems

There is a continuum of safeguards, with U.S. weapons, from the legitimate authority for their use in the positive control National Command Authority, down to the mechanisms of the weapon. Command and control mechanisms are outside the scope of this article.

There is especially tight complementarity between PALs and Environmental Sensing Device (military)|Environmental Sensing Device (ESD). PALs prevent detonation without a positive human action. ESDs prevent detonation "until a series of events or forces peculiar to the warhead's delivery vehicle trajectory occur in a prescribed sequence , such as the sequential acceleration, deceleration, and thermal heating of a missile RV; the high acceleration and spin of an AFAP; or the changing barometric or hydrostatic pressures of air-dropped bombs or ship-launched ASW weapons." Even if the PAL were circumvented, a bomb, for example, with a barometric ESD would not detonate in its storage area. [2]

Less coupled to PALs, but important at the weapon level, are physical precautions such as the one-point safe criterion, insensitive high explosives, weak link-strong link and enhanced nuclear detonation safety, and fire-resistant pits.

PAL Implementation

There have been six general types of PAL. The multiple codes allow setting options such as the nuclear yield in weapons with the "Dial-a-yield" feature, but also things such as burst altitude. It is not always practical to give examples in the table, since many weapons had PAL upgrades during their service life.[2]

Category Features Comments Representative weapons
(none) Mechanical combination lock A single person may not have the complete combination nuclear artillery shells
A Four-digit, 10-position electromechanical coded switch Most retired; enabled a single option W28, W-49 (nuclear weapon)|W49, W50 (nuclear weapon)|W50, and W52 (nuclear weapon)|W52
B Ground or airplane cabin-operable 4-digit coded switch later version with limited try followed by lockout until reset Gravity bombs
C Single-code 6-digit switch limited try followed by lockout
D Multiple-code 6-digit switch limited try followed by lockout W80 for AGM-69 ALCM, gravity bombs, W79 (nuclear weapon)|W79 and W82 (nuclear weapon)|W82 artillery shells
F Multiple-code 12-digit switch limited try followed by lockout and disabling of weapon B61 Mod 10 gravity bomb

Since the PAL is a part of the weapon, each specific design will vary. It is generally agreed that their primary function is acting as switches in the high-voltage path interconnecting power supplies, high-voltage capacitors, timing components, and detonators.[3]

References

  1. , The JCAE and the Development of the Permissive Action Link, The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project, Brookings Institution, August 1998
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Chuck Hansen (September 4, 1995), Part V: Arming & Fuzing: Techniques & Equipment, The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945
  3. Steven Bellovin (21 October 2005), Permissive Action Links,Nuclear Weapons, and the History of Public Key Cryptography, Department of Computer Science, Columbia University