Wow. I know next to nothing about this topic and consequently had no idea thermonuclear warhead/weapon designs were still kept under this much secrecy! But it makes sense, of course. Tremendously...
Wow. I know next to nothing about this topic and consequently had no idea thermonuclear warhead/weapon designs were still kept under this much secrecy! But it makes sense, of course.
I know that the broad strokes of how nuclear weapons work is pretty well known and that they keep the specifics very secret still. I would also guess that you can't be sure what might be relevant...
I know that the broad strokes of how nuclear weapons work is pretty well known and that they keep the specifics very secret still. I would also guess that you can't be sure what might be relevant to your adversary? With that in mind it leaves me as dumbfounded as the author as to why this was okayed.
No, I just strongly agree with their point of view that it's bizarre. You never know what might be relevant to your adversary and you also don't want to give them any info that might allow them to...
No, I just strongly agree with their point of view that it's bizarre. You never know what might be relevant to your adversary and you also don't want to give them any info that might allow them to come up with countermeasures, especially before you've even used a weapon.
Held under unique top secret classification by the Department of Energy if I remember right. So while the DoD is responsible for the deployment, and use of nuclear weapons, the technical details...
Held under unique top secret classification by the Department of Energy if I remember right.
So while the DoD is responsible for the deployment, and use of nuclear weapons, the technical details and sensitive information about nuclear warheads themselves falls under the jurisdiction of the DoE, which is interesting.
Technically not TS, most weapon info is Secret Restricted Data, but the Q clearance (more formally, Q Access Authorization) is at a TS level (in addition to allowing for access to nuclear...
Technically not TS, most weapon info is Secret Restricted Data, but the Q clearance (more formally, Q Access Authorization) is at a TS level (in addition to allowing for access to nuclear material).
Source: have a Q clearance and work at a major DOE site.
This can be cleared up a little further. The US has one clearance system for several agencies, such as the department of defense, department of state, etc. This is the one that most people who...
This can be cleared up a little further. The US has one clearance system for several agencies, such as the department of defense, department of state, etc. This is the one that most people who know anything at all about clearance are familiar with. However, the department of energy has an entirely separate and different clearance system, which most people are not generally familiar with. There is neither overlap nor reciprocity between the two systems.
Quick and perhaps naïve question: Are you even allowed to state that? I ask because one of my close friends works in IT security for the main provider of the German military and back when he...
Source: have a Q clearance and work at a major DOE site.
Quick and perhaps naïve question: Are you even allowed to state that?
I ask because one of my close friends works in IT security for the main provider of the German military and back when he started there he explained the various levels of secrecy in both Germany and NATO. I distinctly remember him telling me about a certain level of clearance, where when you have it you are not allowed to say that you have it.
It was also the only time he ever talked about that topic. Whenever the topic of clearance levels came up later over the years, he always managed to take himself out of the topic and to reveal no details, so I'm pretty sure that by now he has said clearance.
Generally, yes, with a caveat of “use your best judgement”. However, there are some clearances which you can’t really discuss. For example, a TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information)...
Generally, yes, with a caveat of “use your best judgement”. However, there are some clearances which you can’t really discuss. For example, a TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) clearance, you can mention that you have one (again, being judicious about it), but you cannot discuss the compartments you are “read in” to. Different agencies also have different limits on what you can mention. If I’m remembering correctly, the CIA says that you can say you work for them, but not much beyond that.
Another prudential concern: if you state you have either of these things online, you have vastly increased the chances that there will be collection attempts against you.
Another prudential concern: if you state you have either of these things online, you have vastly increased the chances that there will be collection attempts against you.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm just a dude from Scotland that has a passing interest in this sort of stuff so it's cool to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm just a dude from Scotland that has a passing interest in this sort of stuff so it's cool to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.
Wow. I know next to nothing about this topic and consequently had no idea thermonuclear warhead/weapon designs were still kept under this much secrecy! But it makes sense, of course.
Tremendously interesting read, thanks for sharing
I know that the broad strokes of how nuclear weapons work is pretty well known and that they keep the specifics very secret still. I would also guess that you can't be sure what might be relevant to your adversary? With that in mind it leaves me as dumbfounded as the author as to why this was okayed.
This is your blog?
No, I just strongly agree with their point of view that it's bizarre. You never know what might be relevant to your adversary and you also don't want to give them any info that might allow them to come up with countermeasures, especially before you've even used a weapon.
Held under unique top secret classification by the Department of Energy if I remember right.
So while the DoD is responsible for the deployment, and use of nuclear weapons, the technical details and sensitive information about nuclear warheads themselves falls under the jurisdiction of the DoE, which is interesting.
Technically not TS, most weapon info is Secret Restricted Data, but the Q clearance (more formally, Q Access Authorization) is at a TS level (in addition to allowing for access to nuclear material).
Source: have a Q clearance and work at a major DOE site.
This can be cleared up a little further. The US has one clearance system for several agencies, such as the department of defense, department of state, etc. This is the one that most people who know anything at all about clearance are familiar with. However, the department of energy has an entirely separate and different clearance system, which most people are not generally familiar with. There is neither overlap nor reciprocity between the two systems.
Quick and perhaps naïve question: Are you even allowed to state that?
I ask because one of my close friends works in IT security for the main provider of the German military and back when he started there he explained the various levels of secrecy in both Germany and NATO. I distinctly remember him telling me about a certain level of clearance, where when you have it you are not allowed to say that you have it.
It was also the only time he ever talked about that topic. Whenever the topic of clearance levels came up later over the years, he always managed to take himself out of the topic and to reveal no details, so I'm pretty sure that by now he has said clearance.
Generally, yes, with a caveat of “use your best judgement”. However, there are some clearances which you can’t really discuss. For example, a TS/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) clearance, you can mention that you have one (again, being judicious about it), but you cannot discuss the compartments you are “read in” to. Different agencies also have different limits on what you can mention. If I’m remembering correctly, the CIA says that you can say you work for them, but not much beyond that.
Another prudential concern: if you state you have either of these things online, you have vastly increased the chances that there will be collection attempts against you.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm just a dude from Scotland that has a passing interest in this sort of stuff so it's cool to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.