Command and Control

Command and Control Plot Summary

Introduction

The dawn of the nuclear age brought with it a terrifying new reality: humanity now possessed the power to destroy itself many times over. Since 1945, the world has lived under the shadow of nuclear weapons, but few realize just how close we've come to catastrophe. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, a series of accidents, miscalculations, and near-misses have repeatedly brought us to the edge of nuclear disaster. These incidents were not merely theoretical scenarios discussed in war rooms, but real events involving mechanical failures, human errors, and the inherent dangers of managing thousands of the most destructive weapons ever created. This historical journey reveals how nuclear safety evolved through trial and error, often after narrowly avoiding disaster. Readers will discover the shocking truth about how vulnerable command and control systems were during periods of international tension, how military and civilian leaders struggled with the impossible dilemma of maintaining nuclear readiness while preventing accidental war, and how technological safeguards were frequently implemented only after dangerous incidents occurred. The narrative serves as both a cautionary tale and a testament to human resilience, offering valuable insights for anyone concerned with global security, military history, or the ongoing challenges of managing existential technological risks in our modern world.

Chapter 1: Origins of Nuclear Control: From Trinity to Military Arsenal (1945-1952)

The nuclear era began with a blinding flash in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945, when the Trinity test demonstrated the awesome power of atomic weapons. Within weeks, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought World War II to a close, but also ushered in a new age of existential danger. During these formative years from 1945 to 1952, the United States held a monopoly on nuclear weapons, yet the foundations for future nuclear risks were already being laid. The early atomic bombs were crude by later standards, requiring complex assembly procedures and offering few safety features. Military leaders and scientists, still grappling with the implications of this new technology, focused primarily on operational effectiveness rather than safety. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), established in 1946, attempted to maintain civilian control over nuclear weapons, but military demands for custody and deployment flexibility created tension from the beginning. This civilian-military divide would become a recurring theme in nuclear safety debates for decades to come. A critical realization during this period was that nuclear weapons could detonate accidentally. The high explosives surrounding the nuclear core could be triggered by fire, impact, or electrical malfunction, potentially causing a nuclear yield. In 1948, experts at Los Alamos began studying "one-point safety" – whether a weapon would produce a significant nuclear yield if its high explosives were detonated at a single point. Early tests revealed disturbing vulnerabilities, yet these findings were often downplayed in the rush to build America's nuclear arsenal. Human error emerged as another serious concern. As one Armed Forces Special Weapons Project study noted, "The unpredictable behavior of human beings is a grave problem when dealing with nuclear weapons." Despite this acknowledgment, the military initially excluded human error from probability calculations of nuclear accidents, considering it too complex to quantify. This period established a dangerous pattern that would persist throughout the Cold War: the prioritization of nuclear readiness over safety, the acceptance of risks that were poorly understood, and the belief that technical solutions alone could prevent catastrophe. As the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in 1949, ending America's nuclear monopoly, the stakes of these safety compromises would only grow higher.

Chapter 2: The Command Dilemma: Balancing Safety and Readiness (1953-1960)

The 1950s marked a dramatic escalation in nuclear dangers as both superpowers raced to build hydrogen bombs thousands of times more powerful than the weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the Korean War and intensifying Cold War tensions as backdrop, the United States rapidly expanded its nuclear arsenal from a few hundred weapons to thousands, creating unprecedented challenges in command and control. Under General Curtis LeMay, the Strategic Air Command (SAC) became the primary custodian of America's nuclear deterrent. LeMay instituted rigorous training, standardized procedures, and checklists to minimize human error. However, the military's focus remained on ensuring weapons would work when needed rather than preventing accidental detonation. This period saw the introduction of "sealed-pit" weapons with cores permanently installed inside the bomb, making them ready for immediate use but also more vulnerable during accidents. The question of who could authorize nuclear use became increasingly contentious. President Eisenhower, concerned about decapitation strikes that might kill America's leadership, secretly pre-delegated launch authority to military commanders under certain emergency conditions. This decision, unknown to Congress or the public, reflected a fundamental dilemma: centralized control enhanced safety but risked paralysis during an attack, while decentralized control ensured retaliation but increased the chance of unauthorized use. Safety innovations emerged, but often reactively. After several dangerous incidents, engineers at Sandia Laboratory developed the first "environmental sensing devices" that prevented detonation unless the weapon experienced the specific conditions of its intended delivery method. Meanwhile, the military resisted safety features that might reduce reliability or readiness. When civilian scientists proposed adding coded locks (later known as Permissive Action Links) to prevent unauthorized use, military leaders objected that such devices might make weapons unavailable during crucial moments. By the end of the decade, the growing complexity of the nuclear enterprise was outpacing the systems designed to control it. The introduction of ballistic missiles with flight times of just 30 minutes compressed decision-making timelines dramatically. Early warning systems, communication networks, and command bunkers were built in a rush, creating a patchwork infrastructure vulnerable to technical failure and human misjudgment. The stage was set for the most dangerous decade of the nuclear age, when theory would be tested by real-world crises that brought humanity to the brink of annihilation.

Chapter 3: Near Misses: Accidents That Nearly Triggered Catastrophe (1961-1979)

The early 1960s witnessed the most perilous nuclear confrontations of the Cold War, as ideological rivalry, technological advancement, and geopolitical competition converged to create multiple flash points. The Berlin Crisis of 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the superpowers to the edge of nuclear war, revealing dangerous gaps in command and control systems on both sides. Beyond these well-known political crises, a series of accidents involving nuclear weapons occurred that remained largely hidden from public view. In January 1961, a B-52 bomber broke apart over Goldsboro, North Carolina, dropping two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs. On one weapon, three of four safety mechanisms failed; only a single switch prevented a nuclear detonation that would have been 260 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. In January 1966, another B-52 collided with a refueling tanker over Palomares, Spain, dropping four hydrogen bombs. Two weapons' conventional explosives detonated upon impact, contaminating a wide area with plutonium. These incidents revealed troubling patterns: safety mechanisms that worked in theory but failed in practice; military leadership that downplayed risks and resisted safety improvements; and a persistent culture of secrecy that hindered accountability. After each accident, investigations identified preventable causes—inadequate training, poor maintenance procedures, design flaws—yet comprehensive reforms were repeatedly delayed or diluted due to operational priorities and budget constraints. The 1970s saw important technical innovations in nuclear safety. At Sandia National Laboratories, engineers developed "weak link/strong link" systems ensuring weapons remained safe in accident scenarios while still functioning when intentionally deployed. The concept of "one-point safety" was refined, making weapons less likely to yield a nuclear detonation if accidentally triggered. However, implementing these improvements across the arsenal proved slow and inconsistent. Throughout this period, false alarms in early warning systems created additional risks. In November 1979, a training tape mistakenly inserted into NORAD's computer system simulated a massive Soviet missile attack, triggering a full-scale emergency response before the error was discovered. Similar incidents occurred with alarming frequency, demonstrating how technical glitches could potentially trigger nuclear retaliation. These near-misses highlighted the gap between theoretical safety and operational reality in managing nuclear weapons, setting the stage for even more dangerous incidents to come.

Chapter 4: The Damascus Incident: When Systems Failed (1980)

On September 18, 1980, at Launch Complex 374-7 near Damascus, Arkansas, a routine maintenance procedure on a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile went catastrophically wrong. A technician dropped a socket wrench that punctured the missile's first-stage fuel tank, beginning a chain of events that would culminate in one of the most serious nuclear accidents in American history. The Titan II—the largest ICBM in the U.S. arsenal—carried a single W-53 thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 9 megatons, approximately 600 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. As highly toxic rocket fuel leaked into the silo, the maintenance crew evacuated and called for assistance. Over the next eight hours, Strategic Air Command, Air Force leadership, and local emergency responders struggled with a deteriorating situation. The missile's fuel and oxidizer—hypergolic propellants that ignite spontaneously when mixed—posed an immediate danger of explosion. Meanwhile, the nuclear warhead sitting atop the missile created the potential for unprecedented catastrophe. Communication problems, equipment failures, and conflicting chains of command hampered the response effort. The situation reached its climax shortly after 3:00 a.m. on September 19, when the accumulated fuel vapor ignited. The resulting explosion blew the 740-ton silo door off its hinges and launched the warhead into the air. The nuclear weapon, separated from its missile, landed in a ditch several hundred feet from the silo. By remarkable fortune, its safety features prevented either a nuclear detonation or significant radioactive contamination. One Air Force airman, Senior Airman David Livingston, died from injuries sustained in the explosion, and twenty-one others were injured. The Damascus accident exposed critical vulnerabilities in America's nuclear infrastructure. The Titan II system, first deployed in the early 1960s, was aging and increasingly prone to accidents. Between 1975 and 1980, at least nine serious incidents involving Titan II missiles had occurred, including a similar fuel leak at a site near Rock, Kansas in 1978 that killed two maintenance technicians. Despite these warning signs, budget constraints and strategic priorities had delayed the planned replacement of the Titan II system with newer missiles. The response to the Damascus incident revealed troubling patterns in how nuclear accidents were managed. Military authorities initially refused to confirm whether a nuclear warhead was involved, adhering to a "neither confirm nor deny" policy even as local residents were evacuated. Information was tightly controlled, with civilian authorities, including Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, complaining about being kept in the dark. The Air Force's public statements emphasized that there had been "no danger of a nuclear explosion," downplaying the very real risks of radioactive contamination had the warhead's casing been breached.

Chapter 5: Brinkmanship and Reform: Crisis Management Under Pressure (1980-1985)

The period from the late 1970s through the early 1980s represented perhaps the most dangerous phase of the Cold War, as technological advances, strategic doctrines, and political tensions combined to create unprecedented nuclear risks. The breakdown of détente following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 ushered in a new era of confrontation. President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981 with a more confrontational approach toward the Soviet Union, describing it as an "evil empire" and initiating a massive military buildup that included new nuclear weapons systems. Strategic thinking during this period increasingly focused on nuclear war-fighting rather than deterrence alone. Both superpowers developed counterforce capabilities—weapons accurate enough to target the opponent's nuclear forces rather than just cities. This shift created dangerous incentives for preemptive strikes, as each side feared its nuclear forces might be destroyed before they could be launched. The development of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) meant that a single missile could carry multiple warheads to different targets, further complicating strategic calculations and arms control efforts. Command and control systems faced growing vulnerabilities. Studies conducted for the Pentagon revealed alarming gaps in America's ability to maintain control of its nuclear forces during a crisis. Early warning systems produced false alarms with disturbing frequency. In June 1980, computer errors at NORAD indicated Soviet missile launches against the United States, triggering emergency responses before the errors were discovered. The compressed time for decision-making—as little as six minutes for the president to decide on retaliation—created risks of accidental nuclear war through miscalculation or technical failure. The Damascus incident and other accidents during this period catalyzed important reforms. The Air Force accelerated the retirement of the aging Titan II missile system, with the last missile being deactivated in 1987. More broadly, nuclear weapons safety procedures and emergency response protocols were reevaluated. Within the military and weapons laboratories, dedicated individuals worked to improve safety systems for nuclear weapons. Enhanced Environmental Sensing Devices, Permissive Action Links requiring coded authorization, and improved "weak link/strong link" designs were implemented more widely to prevent accidental or unauthorized detonation. By the mid-1980s, a combination of public pressure, recognition of mutual vulnerability, and leadership changes—particularly the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev to Soviet leadership in 1985—created openings for meaningful arms control. The dangerous period of heightened tension began to give way to a new phase of dialogue and negotiation. However, the legacy of the near-misses and close calls of this period served as a sobering reminder of how close humanity had come to nuclear catastrophe, not through deliberate action but through accidents, misperceptions, and the inherent risks of maintaining hair-trigger alert systems controlling weapons of unprecedented destructive power.

Chapter 6: Legacy of Close Calls: Lessons for Modern Nuclear Security

The end of the Cold War in 1991 transformed the nuclear landscape in ways both promising and concerning. The dissolution of the Soviet Union created immediate challenges regarding the control of its massive nuclear arsenal, now spread across several newly independent states. Through cooperative threat reduction programs, thousands of nuclear weapons were dismantled, and former Soviet scientists were engaged in peaceful research to prevent proliferation of expertise. By the mid-1990s, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan had transferred all nuclear weapons to Russia, avoiding the nightmare scenario of multiple new nuclear states emerging from Soviet collapse. Despite these positive developments, new nuclear dangers emerged. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states accelerated, with India and Pakistan conducting nuclear tests in 1998, North Korea developing nuclear capabilities in the early 2000s, and persistent concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions. The risk of nuclear terrorism became a central security concern after the September 11, 2001 attacks, as non-state actors actively sought nuclear materials. The established nuclear powers modernized their arsenals with new delivery systems and enhanced capabilities, even as they reduced overall numbers. Command and control systems evolved to address changing threats. Cold War-era systems designed primarily to survive a massive Soviet first strike were gradually replaced or supplemented by more flexible arrangements addressing a wider range of scenarios. However, new vulnerabilities emerged, particularly in the cyber domain. Computer networks controlling nuclear forces became potential targets for hackers, raising concerns about digital intrusions triggering false alarms or disrupting command systems during a crisis. The history of nuclear close calls offers sobering lessons about the management of existential technologies. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the gap between theoretical safety and practical reality repeatedly placed humanity at risk. These incidents were not merely historical curiosities but warning signals that continue to resonate in our contemporary nuclear landscape. Perhaps the most important lesson is that complex technological systems inevitably fail in ways their designers never anticipated. From the early days of one-point safety tests to the sophisticated command and control systems of later decades, nuclear planners consistently underestimated how mechanical failures, human errors, and organizational dysfunctions could combine to create dangerous scenarios. The human dimension of nuclear security emerges as equally crucial. Throughout these incidents, individual judgment often served as the final barrier against disaster—from the bomber crew that diverted their burning aircraft away from populated areas to the officers who questioned alarming but false warnings of Soviet attacks. Yet human psychology also introduced vulnerabilities, as institutional pressures, career incentives, and cognitive biases sometimes led to dangerous decisions. The reluctance of military leadership to acknowledge safety problems, the prioritization of readiness over security, and the tendency to blame individuals rather than address systemic issues all contributed to a nuclear safety culture that evolved too slowly and reactively.

Summary

The nuclear age has been defined by a central paradox: weapons of unprecedented destructive power were created to prevent their own use. Throughout the Cold War, the doctrine of mutual assured destruction maintained a precarious peace between superpowers, but at the cost of placing humanity perpetually on the edge of annihilation. The evolution of nuclear strategy from massive retaliation to flexible response to assured destruction reflected ongoing attempts to make nuclear deterrence more credible and less apocalyptic. Yet beneath the theoretical frameworks lay a disturbing reality of near-misses, accidents, and close calls that repeatedly brought the world to the brink of disaster through technical malfunctions, human error, or miscalculation rather than deliberate aggression. The nuclear legacy continues to shape our world long after the Cold War's end. The knowledge that humanity possesses the means of its own destruction has fundamentally altered our relationship with technology and risk. The institutions, procedures, and mindsets developed to manage nuclear weapons have influenced approaches to other global challenges from climate change to pandemic response. Perhaps the most important lesson from seven decades of living with nuclear weapons is the recognition of human fallibility in managing technologies of mass destruction. As nuclear weapons persist in a world of emerging threats, renewed great power competition, and technological disruption, the imperative remains to reduce nuclear dangers through a combination of arms control, improved safety systems, crisis communication channels, and ultimately, progress toward disarmament. The history of nuclear weapons is not merely a chronicle of the past but a vital guide for navigating present and future dangers.

About Author

Loading...

Eric Schlosser

Eric Matthew Schlosser is an American journalist and author known for his investigative journalism, such as in his books Fast Food Nation (2001), Reefer Madness (2003), and Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety (2013).

Read more

Related Books by Eric Schlosser

Loading...

Fast Food Nation

Eric Schlosser

The Dark Side of the All-American Meal

★★★½☆3.8