Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 (edited) That's just your immediate action drill, but you're not sitting at fail safe at all times. I was never an automaton when I was in the military, I still thought about ramifications and whatnot, on my own time. Edited January 13, 2019 by Dougie93 Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: So what were your thoughts on having to launch? Just assumed you'd never have to do it, or did you wrestle with it? Well, the entire crew was a voluntary force to begin with, and we were all screened by Navy shrinks. Even then, there was a reliability program file kept for each officer and rating associated with nuclear weapons and ship control. Smoke dope...you're gone...rejected to the surface navy. During launch exercises, officers and some CPOs were armed with M1911 .45 cal pistols just in case anybody didn't want to be a team player. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: That's just your immediate action drill, but you're not sitting at fail safe all the times. I was never an automaton when I was in the military, I still thought about ramifications and whatnot, on my own time. An infantry man is not the same as an individual with a multi-megaton weapon in this equation. Like astronauts, SAC crews were picked for their ability to concentrate on the mission and not your wife. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: That's just your immediate action drill, but you're not sitting at fail safe at all times. I was never an automaton when I was in the military, I still thought about ramifications and whatnot, on my own time. It wasn't a hard sell....your parents, your wife, your kid(s)...even your dog are getting fried any minute so it's time for some payback ! Technically, launching means that MAD has failed. Edited January 13, 2019 by bush_cheney2004 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: It wasn't a hard sell....your parents, your wife, your kid(s)...even your dog are getting fried any minute so it's time for some payback ! Assumes you would never be at a counterforce option on a depressed trajectory, assumes NORAD wasn't directing you to launch on false warning. Is it true that the Captain could launch on warning of no contact with the NCA? Quote
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Technically, launching means that MAD has failed. AFAIK, Article II imparts Donald Trump with the authority to launch a first strike. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: Assumes you would never be at a counterforce option on a depressed trajectory, assumes NORAD wasn't directing you to launch on false warning. Is it true that the Captain could launch on warning of no contact with the NCA? Most of the crew would be unaware of the specific release/launch orders, CF option or not. They could surmise rising tensions from radio traffic/news, but only a few crew members knew exactly what the deal was down in fire control and radio room. Before changes made in the 1990's, each boat on patrol had the capability to launch without NCA release, but that still would have taken mutiny and/or deranged CO/XO/WEPS. The film Crimson Tide (1995) did a decent job of depicting such a scenario based on failed comm links, but it still takes a lot of people. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: It wasn't a hard sell....your parents, your wife, your kid(s)...even your dog are getting fried any minute so it's time for some payback ! Technically, launching means that MAD has failed. Same deal with SAC getting sent in. Only crazy guys in U-2s or SR-71s actually went into Russia. 1 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 ...and the Russians knew they were unarmed. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: AFAIK, Article II imparts Donald Trump with the authority to launch a first strike. He has the authority and duty to do so, but nuclear weapons release still takes two people. No single individual in the command chain can do it alone....not even a blowhard like Trump. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: He has the authority and duty to do so, but nuclear weapons release still takes two people. No single individual in the command chain can do it alone....not even a blowhard like Trump. What, with that SECDEF you got now? Mattis is gone, I don't even know the guy they got in there now, never heard of him. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: What, with that SECDEF you got now? Mattis is gone, I don't even know the guy they got in there now, never heard of him. It's a lot of drama to talk about who has the "nuclear codes", but reality doesn't measure up to the fantasy. It worked for Goldwater, but not Hillary Clinton. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 America has never relied on superstar generals/admirals even though several excellent ones emerged over the decades. American generals are...general...they're consistent. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 Also, wouldn't the SECDEF need some firm legal basis to decline the order? Are you saying the SECDEF would decline the order on humanitarian grounds? Invoke international law? Quote
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: America has never relied on superstar generals/admirals even though several excellent ones emerged over the decades. American generals are...general...they're consistent. Pretty sure George Washington was a General. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said: Also, wouldn't the SECDEF need some firm legal basis to decline the order? Are you saying the SECDEF would decline the order on humanitarian grounds? Invoke international law? No, as there are protocols to follow at each level. The system is designed not to launch unless those protocols are followed, but to do so in a very expeditious manner. Lots of drills make the reactions and behaviours routine. The crypto codes are just part of the process. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 (edited) Now here's a rare Cold Warrior...it started it all actually with the so-called Bomber Gap. The Myasishchev M-4 Bison... It actually was a hunk-o-junk...powerful...but guzzled fuel like there was no tomorrow. Could do a ONE WAY trip to the USA. No return flight 4U. Edited January 13, 2019 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, bush_cheney2004 said: No, as there are protocols to follow at each level. The system is designed not to launch unless those protocols are followed, but to do so in a very expeditious manner. Lots of drills make the reactions and behaviours routine. The crypto codes are just part of the process. But why in that process would the SECDEF decline an order simply because it wasn't a launch on warning scenario? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Pretty sure George Washington was a General. He was a fair general. Germany relied on the superstars...as did Japan. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 Russia had no choice as Stalin had shot all the generals...eventually a few good ones emerged in combat. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: But why in that process would the SECDEF decline an order simply because it wasn't a launch on warning scenario? If the order is unlawful, SecDef can decline it. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: He was a fair general. Germany relied on the superstars...as did Japan. Only if you ignore the strategic, operationally he may not have been a Bonaparte, but strategically, he navigated a near run thing, brilliantly. Quote
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said: If the order is unlawful, SecDef can decline it. But you said America has first strike options on the books, so is there anything unlawful in executing those? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2019 Author Report Posted January 13, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: Only if you ignore the strategic, operationally he may not have been a Bonaparte, but strategically, he navigated a near run thing, brilliantly. I view Jackson and Lee as America's finest generals, historically. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Dougie93 Posted January 13, 2019 Report Posted January 13, 2019 I mean, I'm aware you can decline an unlawful order, I've actually done it for real, but does the US consider first strike to be unlawful? I know what international law says, but what does America say? Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.