Talk:Two-person rule

message: 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)
thread_title: 17:33, 1 June 2007

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coercion or refusal to launch? 

message: All United States banknotes require two signatures to be valid (Treasurer and Secretary). 76.117.247.55 (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Banknote]]s 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Men Only? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two-man? 

message: How about fighters able to carry nukes but only have one pilot?Phd8511 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fighters don't typically carry nuclear weapons, at least not since modern guided missiles became commonplace. Even then, the weapons could not activate without the Permissive Action Link being activated by two at the top of the leadership of the National Command Authority, such as the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Similar is in place for most other nuclear armed nations.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The US Nuclear gravity bombs in Europe are capable of being launched by single seat F-16s.Phd8511 (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  single pilot aircraft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superman III 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentences swapped? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename page as "Two-person rule" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The "evil friendship" phenomenon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The application of United States two-man rule to land-based, mobile nuclear weapons? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
replies: text: Two-man rule →  – Per WP:GENDER and Ngrams. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

text: That essay (it's not a policy) is about how Wikipedia describes things. But the name of an article should be what the subject is normally called. If the rule is generally called the two man rule, then that should be the name of the article. Richard75 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence Ngrams. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I've also looked at the first source cited in the article and that also calls it the two-person rule, so we probably should move it. Richard75 (talk) 11:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that support? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Richard75 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 November 2023