Clinton reveal more state secrets?

[GMDino]

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/

Quote:At 8:35 PM on 19 October 2016, Clinton published a tweet on the same subject, stating that a president's decision to use nuclear weapons "can take as little as four minutes" (from order to launch) suggesting that the window she referenced was somewhat fluid:

Quote:[/url]

 Follow
Hillary Clinton 

@HillaryClinton
When the president gives the order to launch a nuclear weapon, that’s it. The officer has to launch. It can take as little as four minutes.
9:35 PM - 19 Oct 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   3,6453,645 Retweets
   
• 
   9,3319,331 likes
  

Most of the people tweeting that Clinton had "leaked" classified information by mentioning this window cited no specific information substantiating that to be true (or explaining how they themselves could know and openly discuss information that was supposedly classified).

If the information were indeed classified, confirming it with any government agency would prove difficult, for obvious reasons. An alternative method of determining whether Clinton inadvertently disclosed classified information about nuclear protocols would be to verify if that information was already publicly known and open discussed. Indeed, on 5 August 2016 Foreign Policy magazine published an article about that very subject with a subhead that openly proclaimed it:

The piece had been inspired by (an unsubstantiated) rumor spread by MSNBC host Joe Scarborough suggesting that Donald Trump appeared interested in having the United States use nuclear weapons. The article's author cited a book "Walter Slocombe wrote nearly 30 years ago" as well as a contemporaneous "nuclear timeline" examining whether nuclear "launch under attack" was "feasible." Based on discussion that occurred during the MSNBC segment about the steps leading up to the use of nukes, the article focused on the "timeline" of nuclear events based on an anecdote from 1979:

Quote:

All those steps leave something like eight minutes from the first call to the White House to the last moment at which the president can act.

Much of those eight minutes is lost to the task of informing the president. The first call to the White House isn’t to the president, of course. It is to a person designated by the president for this task. (Well, probably the military assistant to that person — another minute ticks off the clock.) In November 1979, that person was Zbigniew Brzezinski — then-President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor and father to Mika, who was sitting next to Scarborough, solemnly shaking her head at the idea of Trump with the bomb.

You should really watch Zbig tell the story, though the bottom line is that he recalled having only three minutes to decide whether or not to inform the president, after which the president had four minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate. At the end of his three minutes, Brzezinski’s military assistant called back to tell him it was a false alarm — someone had left a training tape running. Brzezinski went back to bed. He never woke his wife, by the way. He decided that if it was a Soviet nuclear attack, it was better to let her die in her sleep.

(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.)

Internet chatter from 2015 also described "four minutes" as an old Cold War rule of thumb for the timeframe between first detection of incoming nuclear missiles and those missiles' hitting their targets.

Most articles on the subject published prior to the debate referenced (as Clinton's tweet appeared to do) awindows of roughly between four to 12 minutes in which a sitting President must decide to launch a nuclear attack:

Quote:

Although [nuclear response protocol] remains shrouded in secrecy, we actually know a great deal about it, beginning with the president’s first task of opening the “nuclear suitcase” in an emergency to review his nuclear attack options ... Let us say the president is awakened in the middle of the night (the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call) by his or her top nuclear adviser and told of an incoming nuclear strike. Since the flight time of missiles fired from launch stations in Russia or China to the White House is 30 minutes, and 12 minutes or less for missiles fired from submarines lurking in the Western Atlantic Ocean (Russian subs historically favor a patrol area to the west of Bermuda), the steadiness and brainpower of the commander in chief in such circumstances are serious questions indeed.

This call has never happened, but if it ever does, the situation would be as stressful and dangerous as things ever get inside the Oval Office. The closest we came to such a call occurred in 1979, when the consoles at our early warning hub in Colorado lit up with indications of a large-scale Soviet missile attack. President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, received back-to-back calls in the middle of the night informing him of the imminent nuclear destruction of the United States ... Just before he picked up the phone to call Carter, Brzezinski received a third call, this time canceling the alarm. It was a mistake caused by human and technical error. A training tape simulating an all-out Soviet attack had inadvertently slipped into the actual real-time attack early warning network. The impending nuclear holocaust was a mirage that confused the duty crew. (They were fired for taking eight minutes instead of the required three minutes to declare their degree of confidence that an attack against North America was underway.)

How would a President Trump behave under such duress, informed of the attack and the imminent destruction of the nation’s capital and himself? He would have only a few minutes to consider the reliability of the attack report and decide whether and how to retaliate. If the attack is real, and he hesitates, a president will likely be killed and the chain of command decapitated, perhaps permanently.

Among the people weighing in after the debate were who were able to assess the rumor and rate it was nuclear security expert Joe Cirincione, who issued two tweets about the controversy — one explicitly stating that Clinton did not disclose classified information and another reiterating that the information was already widely known and often cited:

Quote:

 Follow
Joe Cirincione @Cirincione
No, @HillaryClinton did not reveal any secret about how quickly we can launch . This is widely known, often cited. http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reducing-alert-rates-of-nuclear-weapons-400.pdf …
10:06 AM - 20 Oct 2016

• 
  
   
• 
   6969 Retweets
   
• 
   5757 likes
  

Quote:

[url=https://twitter.com/Cirincione] Follow
Joe Cirincione @Cirincione
Another example of public expert citation of the dangerously fast, 4-5 minute launch times of our nuclear missiles.http://www.globalzero.org/files/global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report_0.pdf …
10:10 AM - 20 Oct 2016

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 01:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

Putin is not some rube who depends on the right wing echo chamber for 100% of his information.  So he already knew this information from this 2012 report from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reducing-alert-rates-of-nuclear-weapons-400.pdf) or from this 2015 report from the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction (http://www.globalzero.org/files/global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report_0.pdf)

[SunsetBengal]

(10-20-2016, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Putin is not some rube who depends on the right wing echo chamber for 100% of his information.  So he already knew this information from this 2012 report from the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/reducing-alert-rates-of-nuclear-weapons-400.pdf) or from this 2015 report from the Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction (http://www.globalzero.org/files/global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report_0.pdf)

It just kills you that the Democrat Campaign is going down in flames, caught up in all of their own law breaking ways.

Me, I'm just over here going 

[fredtoast]

(10-20-2016, 05:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It just kills you that the Democrat Campaign is going down in flames, caught up in all of their own law breaking ways.

Me, I'm just over here going 

Going down in flames?

I just embarrassed you for listening to the right wing echo chamber, but you still believe everything they say?

Remember when you claimed Hillary would not be healthy for the debate?

Don't you ever learn?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-20-2016, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Knowledgible people know that she can not reveal MORE state secrets if she has not already revealed some.

I was referencing the email scandal and the fact that the FBI admitted Hillary MAY have been hacked by foreign sources when I said "more". (And, yes, I know there was no conclusive evidence, yet, that she WAS hacked, hence another reason why I made the title a question)

[Dill]

(10-20-2016, 05:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It just kills you that the Democrat Campaign is going down in flames, caught up in all of their own law breaking ways.

Me, I'm just over here going 

Absolutely. Trump told us he won all three debates, and that all the polls have him ahead of Clinton.

Democrats are going down and the US will finally have a strong leader who can distinguish fact from fiction.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-23-2016, 04:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Absolutely. Trump told us he won all three debates, and that all the polls have him ahead of Clinton.

Democrats are going down and the US will finally have a strong leader who can distinguish fact from fiction.

Well, it ain't all Sunshine and Rainbows for the pro-Trump crowd.  The guy certainly has his shortcomings.  However, I would rather take my chances on a guy with no political history, over a career crook.

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2016, 04:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, it ain't all Sunshine and Rainbows for the pro-Trump crowd.  The guy certainly has his shortcomings.  However, I would rather take my chances on a guy with no political history, over a career crook.

They're both career crooks. One is private sector, one is public.

[Dill]

(10-23-2016, 06:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They're both career crooks. One is private sector, one is public.

An odd sort of crook who provides half the world's AIDs victims with medicine, and uses the world stage in a developing country to affirm women's rights.  Can crooks in the public sector do good in the world?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-23-2016, 08:49 PM)Dill Wrote: An odd sort of crook who provides half the world's AIDs victims with medicine, and uses the world stage in a developing country to affirm women's rights.  Can crooks in the public sector do good in the world?

Trump created jobs (in Bangladesh for pennies on the dollar.)

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2016, 08:49 PM)Dill Wrote: An odd sort of crook who provides half the world's AIDs victims with medicine, and uses the world stage in a developing country to affirm women's rights.  Can crooks in the public sector do good in the world?

Absolutely. No one is 100% good or 100% bad. Look, where there's smoke, there's fire. There are too many things going on to deny there is a preponderance of evidence that something is amiss with the Clintons. A preponderance is not a high enough standard, though, for a finding of guilty in a court. And I don't even know if anything legitimately illegal took place. I do see plenty of ethically questionable behavior, though, and that concerns me.

[Dill]

(10-24-2016, 09:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely. No one is 100% good or 100% bad. Look, where there's smoke, there's fire. There are too many things going on to deny there is a preponderance of evidence that something is amiss with the Clintons. A preponderance is not a high enough standard, though, for a finding of guilty in a court. And I don't even know if anything legitimately illegal took place. I do see plenty of ethically questionable behavior, though, and that concerns me.

I hear what you are saying. But what bothers me in this case is that a lot of the "smoke" is generated by rich Republican donors paying people to create it, along with the the usual suspects at Fox News. Benghazi is a prime example, but I could tick off a list going back to the "murder" of Vince Foster and Whitewater (8 years taxpayer money was wasted on that one).  Clinton's husband does appear to be a womanizer, though like her also a very competent politician.  

Most of what currently raises suspicions about Clinton should be classified as innuendo. A secret service agent claims she was terrible to work under and maybe threw a lamp at Bill, though no one actually saw that. The King of Morocco offered to donate 12 million to the Clinton Foundation--though nothing ever came of that, etc. This is in contrast to Trump scandals, which rest largely upon what he himself says before an audience of millions.

The Clinton's, since his presidency, have seemed bent on doing good, public work in one way or another, as opposed to the self-aggrandizing, Xenophobic, Trump, whose chaotic business history is matter of public/court record.  It is not Fox News but angry, stiffed contractors/customers who are his accusers.

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 10:19 AM)Dill Wrote: I hear what you are saying. But what bothers me in this case is that a lot of the "smoke" is generated by rich Republican donors paying people to create it, along with the the usual suspects at Fox News. Benghazi is a prime example, but I could tick off a list going back to the "murder" of Vince Foster and Whitewater (8 years taxpayer money was wasted on that one).  Clinton's husband does appear to be a womanizer, though like her also a very competent politician.  

Most of what currently raises suspicions about Clinton should be classified as innuendo. A secret service agent claims she was terrible to work under and maybe threw a lamp at Bill, though no one actually saw that. The King of Morocco offered to donate 12 million to the Clinton Foundation--though nothing ever came of that, etc. This is in contrast to Trump scandals, which rest largely upon what he himself says before an audience of millions.

The Clinton's, since his presidency, have seemed bent on doing good, public work in one way or another, as opposed to the self-aggrandizing, Xenophobic, Trump, whose chaotic business history is matter of public/court record.  It is not Fox News but angry, stiffed contractors/customers who are his accusers.

You're preaching to the choir here. Even though I am not a Clinton supporter, I believe she would be less damaging to our country and is not as crooked as Trump. But, this is something that I think a lot of people defending either one of those two tend to forget, is that in the world of politics, in the world of public opinion and foreign affairs, the image is everything. The perception is reality. If someone appears to be not trustworthy because of those innuendos, then that perception is there.

When we are working on diplomatic relations with country x who is not on good terms with country y, yet there is an innuendo out there of favorable treatment to country y by the Diplomat in Chief (one of the roles of POTUS), then it can cause problems.

As for the stuff about Clinton from SS agents, I've heard some of the stories from primary sources, people that were there. Someone in particular that was the target of a tirade or two from her. And these are stories I was privy to over a decade ago. I have to admit, I do not like Clinton on a personal level because I am one of those that sees the way you treat those there to serve you as a reflection of your true character, but I separate my opinions of her as a person from those I have of her as a politician. She is an effective civil servant, she is good at the game. But I don't think her motives are all that great. She has done all of these things, IMO, with the end goal of becoming POTUS, not for philanthropic ideals. She said to someone close to her when Bill was elected that her goal was 8 years of Bill, and 8 years of Hill, that's been her goal all along and that is what she has been trying to shape the whole time.

[Dill]

(10-24-2016, 10:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're preaching to the choir here. Even though I am not a Clinton supporter, I believe she would be less damaging to our country and is not as crooked as Trump. But, this is something that I think a lot of people defending either one of those two tend to forget, is that in the world of politics, in the world of public opinion and foreign affairs, the image is everything. The perception is reality. If someone appears to be not trustworthy because of those innuendos, then that perception is there.

When we are working on diplomatic relations with country x who is not on good terms with country y, yet there is an innuendo out there of favorable treatment to country y by the Diplomat in Chief (one of the roles of POTUS), then it can cause problems.

You are a thoughtful person, Bels, and I always respect what you have to say. In this case, though, I think we should be careful not to accept "perception" as identical to reality, while recognizing your point that for enough people it is. This would be one of the central points made in my ideal civics course, that we strive to make this distinction.

As for the effect on diplomatic relations, we live in a world now in which, if "perception" can be crafted and manipulated, it will be.  Any politician may him or herself have very little control over this.

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: You are a thoughtful person, Bels, and I always respect what you have to say. In this case, though, I think we should be careful not to accept "perception" as identical to reality, while recognizing your point that for enough people it is. This would be one of the central points made in my ideal civics course, that we strive to make this distinction.

As for the effect on diplomatic relations, we live in a world now in which, if "perception" can be crafted and manipulated, it will be.  Any politician may him or herself have very little control over this.

I'm not advocating that perception should be reality, only that is. If people understood public opinion in the political realm then they may be more inclined to work to understand the issues more, and I'm all for that, but that just isn't the case. Even among those that should know better.

[Dill]

(10-24-2016, 10:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not advocating that perception should be reality, only that is. If people understood public opinion in the political realm then they may be more inclined to work to understand the issues more, and I'm all for that, but that just isn't the case. Even among those that should know better.

I am in complete agreement with you on this. I only add that schools should do more to address this problem at the secondary and tertiary level, when people can still absorb standards without the heavy emotional investment in one party or the other which so many adults have. 

I should add that the press could a better job, especially of explaining to the public what the function of the press is--and it isn't always just to report "facts."