Well, it is all relative. In a full-scale nuclear war between major nuclear powers with maximum deterrent postures (essentially, the U.S.A. and Russia), they only need to survive long enough to order a counter-strike. In more limited scenarios, the survival feature can be more literal. Besides, being survivable also probably means being somewhat redundant and resistant to being taken out by other than nuclear means (e.g. precision guided munitions, etc.). There are many ways to consider survivability.

Other solutions are ground wave transmitters , HF radios and ULF radio which can be airborne or truck mounted.

A solution could be to have a ground nuclear explosion detector network in your country which allow local nuclear force commander to get the control automatically of their nukes and ability to use them (with local dual key control) if the country has been bombed and high command killed.

So... the options are:

 

Hardened/underground

Dispersed trucks

Flying aircraft

 

What kind of redundancy is really needed, bearing in mind that one does not want to waste unnecessarily?

All advanced nations have more than 4 redundants systems.

Uff, that must be expensive! I suppose it makes sense though. When one deals with nuclear issues, it pays to be safe.

To Trust but Verify:

 

Hmm, that is a good redundancy system with communications - I like it. I am sceptical, though, that it could be created with COTS equipment, due to the EMP effects that occur with nuclear explosions, which could render the communications equipment useless exactly at a point when it is needed the most.

 

As to cutting bureaucracy, that is always a problem. In this case, however, bureaucracy may also help in terms of providing personnel redundancy and in terms of central control of nukes.

I think in truly critical applications, such as nuclear warfare, one would want the components to be inherently resistant to EMP and to be shielded as well. Failure is simply not affordable in such critical systems.

 

As to permissive action links or other warhead security measures, I agree that they are difficult to implement effectively. One wants them to be secure, but launchable in case of a decapitation strike by the enemy.

Hmm, apart from fiber optic wires, that take care of part of the problem, is it not possible to fortify modern communications devices against EMP shockwaves, rather than being forced to rely on vacuum-tubes and very old engines without electronic components?

Of course it is.

Hmm, apart from fiber optic wires, that take care of part of the problem, is it not possible to fortify modern communications devices against EMP shockwaves, rather than being forced to rely on vacuum-tubes and very old engines without electronic components?