Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Claim: Hillary Revealed Classified 4 Minute Launch Window For Nukes at Debate- FALSE (Snopes)
Snopes ^ | 10-20-2016 | Kim Lacapria

Posted on 10/20/2016 8:40:53 PM PDT by brucedickinson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last
To: Lysandru

Oh my God, people.

Not only is it open source, the info has been in the public domain for at least forty years.

There are plenty of things to hate Hillary over. This is not one of them.


61 posted on 10/21/2016 3:18:40 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (Brace. Brace. Brace. Heads down. Do not look up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

Well, I had lunch yesterday with a retired AF two star - he is PISSED OFF at Illary. Ten minute diatribe about her treason.


62 posted on 10/21/2016 3:25:39 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ ( "Hokahey, today is a good day to die!" Crazy Horse prior to the Battle of Little Big Horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

Even when information is fully discussed in the open press, it’s still a major crime to CONFIRM it in public.


63 posted on 10/21/2016 4:24:24 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (always)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams; governsleastgovernsbest; SJackson; SunkenCiv; Nachum; SoothingDave
Any president will retaliate if told a strike is on its way.

Obama? He would head for the basement. Or the helicopter - If he could make it out of DC in time.
Bill Clinton? Probably ... if he could find the codes,
Carter? Probably not now. Then? Probably.
Hillary? No.

64 posted on 10/21/2016 4:58:28 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

What?? There’s video!


65 posted on 10/21/2016 4:59:09 AM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru

It seems to me that Snopes is possibly confusing two different actions in the execution sequence: the time the President has to decide to execute a counter attack versus the time from making that decision to actual missile launch. The latter is, in my opinion, what the heartburn is about among Pentagon strategic response officials.

Given the estimated 12 minute flight time of a Russian “decapitation” first strike submarine missile launch from the western Atlantic, the counter strike force must be in flight and clear of the missile silo launch area to avoid destruction. You can tease the process of the counter strike into discrete steps, evaluate how long each will take - primarily through testing- and assign maximum decision/execution times to each:

It takes this much time to detect the attack missile exhausts as they ascend on their way to US targets.

It takes this much time for STRATCOM to assess the incoming data and decide an attack is underway.

It takes this much time to to notify the President that an attack has been launched.

It takes this much time the communicate the counter attack order back to STRATCOM.

It takes this much time to communicate and confirm the launch orders all the way down to the individual missile silos/platforms.

It takes this long to actually launch the missiles.

It takes this long for the missiles to get far enough away so that they are not going to be affected by attacking missile warhead detonation.

The only thing you cannot test is how long the President will take to make the decision to order the counter strike. You can only define a maximum time available based on what remains of the 12 minutes after the time required by all the other steps is deducted.

What you can do is work very hard to shorten the testable legs to give the President the maximum time possible to reach the decision. This is because because execution is irreversible once the attack order is given and the solid rocket motors are ignited.

Our enemies are not stupid and probably have a decent idea of how long each step in the process is going to take. What they lack is confirmation that their estimates are accurate. This uncertainty exists because of the efforts being made to shorten the counter strike decision process. The detail of these efforts are classified as are the actual performance improvements to the systems involved.

By her remark during the debate, Hillary inadvertently confirmed how short the time is to get US missiles into the air once the counter strike decision is made. I’m assuming this information is classified unless, of course, one of her enablers removed the “C” from the document. < /sarcasm>


66 posted on 10/21/2016 5:24:17 AM PDT by Captain Rhino (Determined effort today forges tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

their logic, we can’t know it is classified because it is classified, since we can’t prove it true, it is false


67 posted on 10/21/2016 5:25:28 AM PDT by dila813 (Voting for Trump to Punish Trumpets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

CNN’s Starr: Clinton’s Answer On Nuke Launch Time Used ‘Extremely Classified’ Info
breitbart.com ^ | Oct 20, 2016

Posted on 10/21/2016, 12:44:35 AM by Helicondelta

On Thursday’s broadcast of “CNN Newsroom,” CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr reported that Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement about the time it takes to launch nuclear weapons is “extremely classified,” and while there is a lot of information available to public on what the process is for launching nuclear weapons, “if you know information to be classified, and you’re a government official, even if it’s in the open source, even if it’s on the Internet, you are not supposed to disclose it.”

She further stated, “the bottom line is, the US military, not especially thrilled to be discussing in precise detail what it takes to launch nuclear weapons.”

Way to destroy your credibility Snopes


68 posted on 10/21/2016 5:43:24 AM PDT by MNJohnnie ( Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/10/20/cnns-starr-clintons-answer-on-nuke-launch-time-used-extremely-classified-info-military-not-especially-thrilled/


69 posted on 10/21/2016 5:58:26 AM PDT by paddles ("The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The weird thing I thought of with all of this: What if she came out and said something about "the UFO that crashed in Roswell". Now you can argue that these "claims" have been common knowledge and available for anybody to see. But her acknowledgement in the position she is in would be a national security breach nonetheless.

The same would go for the four minute response time. People could CLAIM it was four minutes for years. Officials actually ACKNOWLEDGING it is a different story altogether.
70 posted on 10/21/2016 6:14:24 AM PDT by mmichaels1970 (Hillary lied over four coffins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brucedickinson

Yup, Snopes comes up top on pinko-Google. And the Snopes piece is a huge lie. They address only other’s comments on how long it takes to determine if a strike against us is happening being classified. They do NOT address what Hillary said - how long it takes from order to launch.

Snopes even admits they’re lying (diverging slightly, LOL) with “At this point the substance of the claim diverges slightly, from holding that it takes four minutes to launch nuclear weapons once the President has given the order to do so, to holding that the President has four minutes to decide whether to launch nuclear weapons once he’s been informed that a nuclear attack on the U.S. is imminent.”

To defend liars, one must also lie.


71 posted on 10/21/2016 6:37:53 AM PDT by polymuser (Enough is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy

“Snopes is accurate? FALSE!”

Snopes has been Snoped.


72 posted on 10/21/2016 7:23:06 AM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru

Things have changed since then.


73 posted on 10/21/2016 12:04:33 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eastforker

Understood, but Snopes, and I assume most of us, not having access to this info, would not be in a position to pronounce this either true or false. The Pentagon does, but I doubt they will confirm or deny it.


74 posted on 10/22/2016 5:58:05 PM PDT by Pete from Shawnee Mission ("No comment gentlemen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson