It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


America's feared nuclear missiles still controlled by computers from 1960s & floppy disks!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 01:50 PM
i'm surprised that no one has mentioned that during a audit of the computer system, the air force inspectors found that the computers used to control the missiles are hack proof. no internet to way to gain control. which in my opinion all military computers and critical systems should not be able to be accessed by the internet.

didn't they prove that the iranians hacked the wifi on the drone they had, wonder how much sensitive info or tech was lost that day.

edit on 28-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:39 PM
Agreeing with Slayer here as well....not quite as "hack-able".

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 07:12 PM
Well no one can put a music cd or movie dvd in the computers.

and they don't have USB ports,
iran found out about having computers with USB ports.

The US government has built radio transmitters into USB flash drives.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:30 PM
They have to have some sort of network. If the doomsday plane can launch an icbm from 30,000 feet without a missileer then it has to be connected somehow.

posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Couple of thought here.

First and foremost you do NOT need a supercomputer to lob an ICBM at an enemy. That kind of technology and the accuracy for a first strike weapon was achieved in the 60 and 70's

I'm not an expert mind you but military systems are hardened against EMP and that take time and money to achieve. So if you don't need a ton of computing power, have a reliable system, you can make do with an older setup.

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:39 AM
a reply to: FredT
I think foremost is the fact that the entire system is useless now that directed energy weapons can take out most of the ICBMs. Why sharpen arrows for war when you have guns?

edit on 16-6-2014 by earthdude because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:49 AM
Maybe the world will be saved from nuclear disaster when the system goes to get those launch codes from the floppy but instead get a

A: sector read error - abort, retry, fail


posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:58 PM
Is anyone actually aware WHY the computer technology is that old? When I worked W78 and W87 we were told right out why it was so old. It's no classified secret at all

1. Because of it's standalone nature, it is quite near impossible to "hack." Frankly I could let you in the MCC and you wouldn't know how to launch one...hell neither would I because I was a specialist and not a missileer

2. The systems we use in items like MMIII, MK12A and the like are analog systems. The RSTS (Reentry System Test Set) is likewise analog. If you want to see a real waste of money, look to the early 2000's. DoD/DoE attempted to make a digital RSTS to use with MMIII and W78/W87 and it failed because this particular analog-digital-analog switch wouldn't work. It was a black eye and a huge waste of money. These systems are built to work with existing test sets. The only two possibilities would be to overhaul (see: build new) ICBMs or overhaul (see: build new) RSTS AND ICBM

either one would be a serious blow to our pocket books in an already strained economy with a bloated military budget.

Despite that RSTS and MMIII are from the 60's they are still quite advanced and will perform as needed...and that's not just bias because I helped build/maintain's just how it is

Now...the real comment I would like to make is that I pray and hope all the time that we never launch a single one

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 07:11 PM

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: nighthawk1954

This reminds me of battle star galactica. Maybe that way its harder to hack if it remains 'off the grid' so to speak.

I am more worried about russias THOUSANDS of warheads than I am of USA's few hundred warheads.

Does russias system run on old tech too?

The U.S. has more warheads and I am sure Russia is worse off in the PC department. They also are not about to use a Windows OS for anything nuclear lol.

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:56 PM
I cut my teeth on the Vic20 and Commadore64, so I got a good laugh from some of the comments here.

Good to know about how the older tech, like tubes, will continue to function after an EMP. That old guitar amp will still jam!

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:01 PM
a reply to: snypwsd

Where did you hear that Russia has thousands of warheads and we have hundreds?

USA has over 2k active warheads...
Russia has 1.6k active warheads...

You really think the US military industrial complex would allow us to be second place with anything weapons based?!?


posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:03 PM
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Isn't is wonderful what small government can accomplish???

posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 10:26 PM
Ha I'm still in possession of DOS 3.5 operating system still in its original box, tons of old floppy disks andother antiquated stuff that could probably operate in their systems, however ask if this stuff is useless without amachine to use them in.but I might have some machines that can use them at a relatives house.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:01 AM
If ya'll want a funny/scary story here you go

2005 I am working RSTS and a tube you can imagine tubes aren't exactly easy to come by anymore. We tried depot and DoE/DoD logistics. We ended up finding a museum...on display. We literally had to take that tube and replace it with our broken one

I left Minot in 2008 and it occurred to me...what if THAT ONE breaks?

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:12 AM

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: nighthawk1954

'If it's not broken, don't fix it" in this case I'll add "Don't ever use"

With all the hacker, crackers and wannabes I feel safer with it being a stand alone [Albeit antiquated] system

There's your answer right there...
The system works, and works well, and has been working error free for a long time. If you were to upgrade it, that would actually scare me more. Programmers aren't as precise as they once where, and as the languages and hardware become more complex, no matter how careful they may be there will be bugs. I'd rather stick with an old system that is bug free, then make a new one that isn't. Additionally the older hardware is many more times more hardened, robust, and easier to fix then the new stuff. For example, the “smaller” the chips and their electrical circuits, the more prone they are to EMP effects, not the case with larger, older, more hardened chips. If a chip were to go bad on old equipment you could replace a human soldered component on the board, now you would have to replace whole machine soldered boards.

posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 01:51 AM
Dont think old is a good thing maintenance increases as well as system problems. There has been money allocated to upgrade and its way over due. Heres a good reason why old isnt good.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in