Derek Lyons wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
Even without good landlines, the word getting out to the missile
sites doesn't have to be any more sophisticated than an emergency
action message. A single code word, which shifts over time, may be
enough.

Yes, you are correct, many of these things are *conceptually* simple.
But moving from concept to execution, even without the overkill
practiced by the West, contains many hidden and non-obvious snags.

For a 'simple EAM' to work, you need a system manned 24/7. If you
don't want to do that, you need a reliable way of 'pre-alerting' your
forces to stand-to. You need to securely create, distribute, and
store the code words. (And an alternate supply of the same in case of
compromise.) You need to procure, supply (spares), train, test, and
maintain the individual components as well as the whole system. (And
complicating the whole affair in many third tier nations are political
issues.)

It is doable, probably even on the cheap, but if you want a useful
system you cannot skimp on the details.

It's made a lot simpler by the operational environment;
an ICBM strike really could come out of the blue, but a divisional
strength US Army invasion is not going to suprise anyone.
The 24/7 requirement only applies to known crisies.

That said, you have to have the capability to operate on that
basis, with those fundamental system capabilities and reasonable
reliability. It doesn't need to be 100%, if you have tens of
thousands of cruise missiles... some firing late is not going
to be the sort of disaster that ICBM partial failures to launch
on warning or partial failures to launch in a pre-emptive first
strike would be.

Doing it on the cheap is probably doable. Doing it on the stupid
would leave it vulnerable to US breaking the command and control
system down.


-george william herbert