This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Two-person rule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 25 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Two-man rule to Two-person rule. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
The description for "no lone zone" or The "Two-Man Rule" is not fully correct. More accurately, a no-lone zone is an area that must be staffed by 2 or more qualified individuals. Each individual must be within visual contact with each other and in visual contact of the critical component(s) resulting in establishing a no-lone-zone. A no lone zone may contain a code component, weapon system hardware under test, a nuclear weapon or active nuclear weapon controls. Qualifications for being a suitable "No Lone Member" include required security clearance and certified under the Personal Reliability Program (PRP).
Recent changes to the USAF's policy have morphed the "two Man Policy" in the "two person rule" as now females have long been part of support operations but can also be part of a Missile Combat Crew.
(Fast Eddie) 67.82.49.199 ( talk) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This article seems largely to concentrate on the United States - the Nuclear Weapon and Communications sections only give a US view and although some of the other sections could apply anywhere, overall I feel there is to strong a bias towards the US view (particularly when it comes to examples). Although I know this term certainly has usage in the UK I don't feel comfortable expanding this article so have tagged it instead. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What about 1.) the case where one of the two individuals coerces the other to cooperate, what is known about measures in place to prevent this? and 2.) the opposite case, where one of the two individuals refuses an order to launch? Is anything known about possible override systems? Currently both of these cases are only mentioned with regard to the movie "Wargames". I don't know whether it belongs in this article, but if not, this should still be discussed somewhere in Wikipedia and linked from here. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this so I can't write it myself. -- 84.63.225.161 ( talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
All United States banknotes require two signatures to be valid (Treasurer and Secretary). 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess the kinds of decisions mentioned lead to frequently only male persons being involved, but in case the term "two-person rule" is used at all, we should probably mention this as an alternative wording. 195.72.107.83 ( talk) 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart what was said in the previous comment, I dare to suggest that the article been entitled "two-men" rule. No? -- Casablanca1950 ( talk) 09:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Not if the actual phrase is two man rule, which I believe it is. Though two-men would be grammatically correct, it might not be accurate. Fjf1085 ( talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How about fighters able to carry nukes but only have one pilot? Phd8511 ( talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In Superman 3 there's a scene where the computer hacker is completely drunk and has to access a computer requiring two keys - but the slots are too far apart to be inserted by one man simultaneously. So he ties string around the hand of a comatose man with his key against one slot, while he pulls on the string while inserting his key simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.178.238 ( talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, page 10, is given as the reference for the claim that the president can only authorise a nuclear launch if the secretary of defense concurs. However, the author of the source cites "Pike (2006)" as his own source for that information. Pike (2006) turns out to be this short web article, which does not actually say this. It only goes so far as to say that the National Command Authority consists of the president and the secretary (or their alternates), but it does not say whether they both have to agree or if the president can override the secretary. We need a better source for the two-man rule in this context. Richard75 ( talk) 13:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I have heard that the UK Prime Minister can only *authorise* the use of nuclear weapons, and after that, the decision to actually deploy them rests on military shoulders. IE: the Prime Minister cannot order the use of nuclear weapons, only grant permission - and if when authorised, the military powers-that-be decide that they are not necessary, they are not obliged to use them. I assume that this also means the same for targetting - that the Prime Minister would not necessarilly have a say in where the nukes go, he cannot say "Nuke Moscow" for example, but in an escalating conflict, he can say "If you need to use nukes, you have authorisation" and then the military would decide what (and if) to attack.
Can anyone corroborate/refute this? 178.15.151.163 ( talk) 09:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Am i missing something, or are these 2 sentences the wrong way round? "A total of four keys are thus required to initiate a launch. For additional protection, the missile crew in another launch control center must do the same for the missiles to be launched" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.199.200 ( talk) 18:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No, that is correct, for Minuteman ICBM systems anyhow. Banjodog ( talk) 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The content of this page is not gender-specific, "Two-person rule" is a more appropriate title.
Furthermore, the official US Government policy that the page appears to reference has already been renamed the "Two-person rule", so it only makes sense to update the page title as well.
I would do the update myself, but I'm not auto-confirmed yet.
Knuq ( talk) 17:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
In few cases they reveal codes to eachother, and might deactivate some security measures (no need for mathematical wisdom; sometimes they simply deactivate measures; usually not US government employees, but we never know...)
In nor rigorous nations it is common (India, Pakistan) and many times they're not criminals (but dodgy), but still it can cause problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8449:D400:8155:7369:F0D1:831F ( talk) 02:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
In the last paragraph under the "United States: nuclear weapons" heading, the article said:
"The two-man rule only applies in the missile silos and submarines; there is no check on the US president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch.[4]"
Note that the bolded portion of this paragraph only said missile silos and submarines. There is nothing in this particular passages that suggests the two-man rule also applies to mobile or movable land-based nuclear weapon platforms. Is this correct, meaning a deliberate omission as a matter of policy from the United States federal government, or is this simply an oversight of this article? This may be something that need to be clarified in the article. -- Legion ( talk) 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per common name consensus ( closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 20:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Two-man rule →
Two-person rule – Per
WP:GENDER and
Ngrams.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
18:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Two-person rule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 25 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Two-man rule to Two-person rule. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
The description for "no lone zone" or The "Two-Man Rule" is not fully correct. More accurately, a no-lone zone is an area that must be staffed by 2 or more qualified individuals. Each individual must be within visual contact with each other and in visual contact of the critical component(s) resulting in establishing a no-lone-zone. A no lone zone may contain a code component, weapon system hardware under test, a nuclear weapon or active nuclear weapon controls. Qualifications for being a suitable "No Lone Member" include required security clearance and certified under the Personal Reliability Program (PRP).
Recent changes to the USAF's policy have morphed the "two Man Policy" in the "two person rule" as now females have long been part of support operations but can also be part of a Missile Combat Crew.
(Fast Eddie) 67.82.49.199 ( talk) 17:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This article seems largely to concentrate on the United States - the Nuclear Weapon and Communications sections only give a US view and although some of the other sections could apply anywhere, overall I feel there is to strong a bias towards the US view (particularly when it comes to examples). Although I know this term certainly has usage in the UK I don't feel comfortable expanding this article so have tagged it instead. Dpmuk ( talk) 13:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What about 1.) the case where one of the two individuals coerces the other to cooperate, what is known about measures in place to prevent this? and 2.) the opposite case, where one of the two individuals refuses an order to launch? Is anything known about possible override systems? Currently both of these cases are only mentioned with regard to the movie "Wargames". I don't know whether it belongs in this article, but if not, this should still be discussed somewhere in Wikipedia and linked from here. Unfortunately I don't know anything about this so I can't write it myself. -- 84.63.225.161 ( talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
All United States banknotes require two signatures to be valid (Treasurer and Secretary). 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess the kinds of decisions mentioned lead to frequently only male persons being involved, but in case the term "two-person rule" is used at all, we should probably mention this as an alternative wording. 195.72.107.83 ( talk) 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Apart what was said in the previous comment, I dare to suggest that the article been entitled "two-men" rule. No? -- Casablanca1950 ( talk) 09:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Not if the actual phrase is two man rule, which I believe it is. Though two-men would be grammatically correct, it might not be accurate. Fjf1085 ( talk) 02:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
How about fighters able to carry nukes but only have one pilot? Phd8511 ( talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
In Superman 3 there's a scene where the computer hacker is completely drunk and has to access a computer requiring two keys - but the slots are too far apart to be inserted by one man simultaneously. So he ties string around the hand of a comatose man with his key against one slot, while he pulls on the string while inserting his key simultaneously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.178.238 ( talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, page 10, is given as the reference for the claim that the president can only authorise a nuclear launch if the secretary of defense concurs. However, the author of the source cites "Pike (2006)" as his own source for that information. Pike (2006) turns out to be this short web article, which does not actually say this. It only goes so far as to say that the National Command Authority consists of the president and the secretary (or their alternates), but it does not say whether they both have to agree or if the president can override the secretary. We need a better source for the two-man rule in this context. Richard75 ( talk) 13:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I have heard that the UK Prime Minister can only *authorise* the use of nuclear weapons, and after that, the decision to actually deploy them rests on military shoulders. IE: the Prime Minister cannot order the use of nuclear weapons, only grant permission - and if when authorised, the military powers-that-be decide that they are not necessary, they are not obliged to use them. I assume that this also means the same for targetting - that the Prime Minister would not necessarilly have a say in where the nukes go, he cannot say "Nuke Moscow" for example, but in an escalating conflict, he can say "If you need to use nukes, you have authorisation" and then the military would decide what (and if) to attack.
Can anyone corroborate/refute this? 178.15.151.163 ( talk) 09:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Am i missing something, or are these 2 sentences the wrong way round? "A total of four keys are thus required to initiate a launch. For additional protection, the missile crew in another launch control center must do the same for the missiles to be launched" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.199.200 ( talk) 18:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No, that is correct, for Minuteman ICBM systems anyhow. Banjodog ( talk) 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The content of this page is not gender-specific, "Two-person rule" is a more appropriate title.
Furthermore, the official US Government policy that the page appears to reference has already been renamed the "Two-person rule", so it only makes sense to update the page title as well.
I would do the update myself, but I'm not auto-confirmed yet.
Knuq ( talk) 17:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
In few cases they reveal codes to eachother, and might deactivate some security measures (no need for mathematical wisdom; sometimes they simply deactivate measures; usually not US government employees, but we never know...)
In nor rigorous nations it is common (India, Pakistan) and many times they're not criminals (but dodgy), but still it can cause problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8449:D400:8155:7369:F0D1:831F ( talk) 02:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
In the last paragraph under the "United States: nuclear weapons" heading, the article said:
"The two-man rule only applies in the missile silos and submarines; there is no check on the US president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch.[4]"
Note that the bolded portion of this paragraph only said missile silos and submarines. There is nothing in this particular passages that suggests the two-man rule also applies to mobile or movable land-based nuclear weapon platforms. Is this correct, meaning a deliberate omission as a matter of policy from the United States federal government, or is this simply an oversight of this article? This may be something that need to be clarified in the article. -- Legion ( talk) 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per common name consensus ( closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs ( talk) 20:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Two-man rule →
Two-person rule – Per
WP:GENDER and
Ngrams.
YorkshireExpat (
talk)
18:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)