>>23303109No, for the same reason you don't really want security like that on a firearm or indeed a lot of real military hardware. You are supposed to have, say, a secure location and secutiry detail which will protect vehicles which can quickly and easily be started up, because you want to have them usable immediately in an emergency. If someone breaks into your house and you have a special ring or thumbprint scanner which just so happens to not work at the wrong moment you might well die for no reason. If your troops happen to need their trucks or tanks or what have you ASAP and have to do a secret handshake to actually get their machines going that could get them killed. If someone manages to get ahold of your gun, steal your ride from out of your base, etc. then things have gone catastrophically wrong and were likely set up wrong to begin with.
This is about response time but reliability is also a major issue here. A security step like you mention is an extra point of failure on something you probably REALLY don't want to fail at exactly the wrong time. It might bring you comfort to, say, have a gun that fires for you and you alone, or a truck which can be driven only by those with authority, but that system failing is an impediment to its use which both adds on expense and can't be afforded at the wrong time.
