Did Hillary Clinton Reveal Top Secret Nuclear Info During Debate??

I do not think this has been specifically posted yet, if it has, I apologize.

Basically, during the debate last night, Clinton stated:

"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order it must be followed. There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."

According to this, and other sources I have seen, the information about our nuclear response time is considered top secret and not something to be stated on national TV. I am no expert on these matters. I would love to hear from anyone out there that knows more about this than I do.

SOURCE - Daily Wire

a reply to: Slave2theTruth

This is the part where I imagine Putin sitting in front of the TV and going " oh no she didn't "

You can find similar information from well before the debate. There's a PDF I can't link on my phone that gives the time as "less than five minutes" between order and launch.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks, I figured it wasn't necessarily something our adversaries couldn't figure out on their own anyway.

On the other hand, I am still amazed that after everything that has happened, she is still so cavalier with TS/Classified info about national security.

I like how people harp on her for her "carelessness" with confidential information...

Yet... at the same time.. they want her 30,000 emails released that most likely have confidential information in them.

Which is it?

Hm. Seems this is not secret knowledge.

Bloomberg article regarding the entire process:
Link

The article is dated Sept 7, 2016

AB

a reply to: Slave2theTruth

If it was classified it wouldn't be on the internet.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Slave2theTruth

I don't think so because when I was looking it up last night I came across a lot of similar info about nuclear response times such as, those charged with identifying a nuclear foreign nuclear launch and report have to do so within 3 minutes. That was printed in an article talking about an incident where they failed to do so and those responsible were relieved of post.

That seems to be just as important yet it was made public. I found out a lot of other times given for flight response and so forth. Like if a ballistic missile sub launched near us the flight time to impact is as little as 12 minutes. So saying a president response time has to be within 4 minutes of a recognized attack isn't like other countries don't already know.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I would agree that this is a non-starter attempt at "gotcha Hillary", but I humbly disagree that "if it's classified it wouldn't be on the internet"...

For example a journalist could run a story about say, a drone strike, yet if it was still classified then it would not be publicly acknowledged by folks holding clearances until the information was officially de-classified.

By the way, you want a fun job? Work in a vault de-classifying long scientific documents about nuclear technology! Just be sure to set up a Vitamin D line at your desk...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Slave2theTruth

If it was classified it wouldn't be on the internet.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.cnn.com...

Ummm, that's not what CNN said.

About the 'nuclear option': a friendly reminder, that Hillary threatenend to 'totally obliterate Iran'

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
I do not think this has been specifically posted yet, if it has, I apologize.

Basically, during the debate last night, Clinton stated:

"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order it must be followed. There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."

According to this, and other sources I have seen, the information about our nuclear response time is considered top secret and not something to be stated on national TV. I am no expert on these matters. I would love to hear from anyone out there that knows more about this than I do.

SOURCE - Daily Wire

Forget all the nonsense about how we shouldn't be looking at Wikileak. This is something we shouldn't be hearing about.

[post deleted]

originally posted by: Slave2theTruth
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks, I figured it wasn't necessarily something our adversaries couldn't figure out on their own anyway.

On the other hand, I am still amazed that after everything that has happened, she is still so cavalier with TS/Classified info about national security.

How is sharing public knowledge being cavalier with TS/Classified information? Sorry, I don't get why you would think that about her discussing our response time when it is a known not-secret-at-all fact.

AB

I searched around and couldnt find a definitive answer.

The president and secretary of defence together only, can launch nuclear weapons. Lets say the pres and secretary are unavailable for any reason (assassination, kidnapping even lagged out or comms down for a period of time) and in this time an enemy nuclear missile is launched - does the USA just sit twiddling thumbs until they are available, is there an automatic response system in place?

4 minutes from threat detection/confirmation to launch is impressive but it just makes me wonder what would happen if the persons in charge are unavailable.

a reply to: svetlana84

I would like to know the context of that - when did she say this?

It's pretty alarming that she says "If I am President, we are going to attack Iran"

Then says we would obliterate them... and that THIS should be a deterrent so Iran doesn't attack Israel. A deterrent? That doesn't sound like a deterrent, it sounds like straight up aggression and and unprovoked attack.

a reply to: Biigs

That I don't know, but I imagine there is a complicated set of contingency personnel.

I'm pretty sure they thought that through. Someone here might know precisely what happens in that case. The Bloomberg article I linked above was clear that a group would be gathered within 30 seconds from the moment the President says "go."

AB

a reply to: Biigs

It's difficult at best to get the President unavailable. They're surrounded by communications systems everywhere they go. If, by some fluke, they are unavailable there are options. We aren't going to just sit and let the missiles hit and do nothing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Biigs

It's difficult at best to get the President unavailable. They're surrounded by communications systems everywhere they go. If, by some fluke, they are unavailable there are options. We aren't going to just sit and let the missiles hit and do nothing.

Yeah, there was a documentary either early this year or late last year about the UK's response to any incoming .... that response was, oh well sh*t happens, with no retaliation, and this was from our elected officials!!

"As the world teeters on the edge of Armageddon, Britain's top brass are faced with the most chilling decision of all. After Russia has invaded a Nato state, the rapidly escalating crisis threatens the very existence of Britain.
Now, with a nuclear strike on London imminent, military commanders and senior Government figures in a Whitehall bunker must choose whether to launch our Trident missiles in response, having already decided against a nuclear strike at an earlier stage in the crisis.
But the decision is no – and this outcome of an utterly realistic 'war game' throws up deeply troubling questions"

Link



Nice message there