Pentagon: Hillary Clinton Should Be Arrested For Leaking Top Secret Nuclear Intelligence on National TV

[txradioguy]

Zero.  But i did have a TS clearance, and so know how such information is supposed to be handled, including nonconfirmation of factual speculation in the media.

Yeah and I slept in a Holiday Inn. 

Having a TS doesn't give you any kind of special knowledge about the media or how those of us that handle things like this on a daily basis operate.

If it is approved for publication, it is no longer classified.  So again, this should be an extraordinarily easy thing to do.  Ask if it was accurate, with follow-ups as necessary.  If you get answers than it isn't classified.

You're assuming this hasn't already been done in the past.  An assumption with no basis in fact.

I don't want this to be one of those meaningless issues that gets brought up years from now as Hillary "getting away" with something.  Ask the damn question, then the issue will be put to rest.

Tell you what.  You stick to what you know about the military and let me handle things like this.  Your out of your depth here.

I tried to be nice about it and impart some actual knowledge of how things work...and you're so hell bent this being some kind of leak you refuse to listen to reason.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You have completely missed the point.

Whether you personally, because of your position, are confident that this information was unclassified/declassified is irrelevant.  The average person/voter does not have access to that information.

Therefore, one way to clear that up in the minds of the public is by asking about it directly, ina public press conference.  That's what would erase this as an issue.

You reiterating your own personal understanding does not address that point.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@txradioguy @Oceander

And here I thought this was a conservative site. Silly me. Sure are a lot of Hillary boot lickers here. I think I'll wait on a credit spokes person before I conclude that the time it takes from order to launch is not classified information.

See Foreign Policy magazine:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

Looks the 4 min was common knowledge back in August.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Whatever you have to tell yourself to save face kid.

While you're waiting why don't you work on your English a bit.  It's credible spokesperson not credit spokes person.

It always helps to have a good spokes persons around to fix the wheels on the chuck wagon. 

[TomSea]

Thanks TexasRadio and Oceander,

Apologies if we ever mixed it up in the past, I looked at Oceander's previous post history, if he/she supported Romney, that's good enough for me.

[TomSea]

See Foreign Policy magazine:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

Looks the 4 min was common knowledge back in August.

This was covered but it doesn't mean, it still can't be classified I read in one article.

[TomSea]

BTTT

[Oceander]

Reagan would have the same to say about Trump. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

This was covered but it doesn't mean, it still can't be classified I read in one article.

Good point. Just cause the cat has been let out of the bag doesn't mean we need some blabber mouth confirming it. Far be it from me to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

[Oceander]

Not particularly secret.  Ret. Gen. Hayden discussed "launch under attack" with Scarborough.  On August 4, 2016, the Nuclear Threat Initiative discussed this and helpfully provided an interactive timeline for such a scenario.  It is quite detailed and indicates time from first detection to US launch of approximately 20 minutes.  The timeline is here:  http://nit.org/6687a

I rather doubt that information is classified. 

[Oceander]

Not particularly secret.  Ret. Gen. Hayden discussed "launch under attack" with Scarborough.  On August 4, 2016, the Nuclear Threat Initiative discussed this and helpfully provided an interactive timeline for such a scenario.  It is quite detailed and indicates time from first detection to US launch of approximately 20 minutes.  The timeline is here:  http://nit.org/6687a

I rather doubt that information is classified. 

[txradioguy]

It always helps to have a good spokes persons around to fix the wheels on the chuck wagon.

Good point.  Or if there is a need to fix some bicycle wheels.

[MOD3]

Merging these two threads since they are about the same subject.

[txradioguy]

You have completely missed the point.

Whether you personally, because of your position, are confident that this information was unclassified/declassified is irrelevant.  The average person/voter does not have access to that information.

Therefore, one way to clear that up in the minds of the public is by asking about it directly, ina public press conference.  That's what would erase this as an issue.

You reiterating your own personal understanding does not address that point.

And yet...to use your words...an average person/voter who posts on this thread was able to find where it is discussed in Foreign Policy magazine back in August with a simple Google search.

It won't get any simpler than that even if I write it in Crayon for you.

[jpsb]

You have completely missed the point.

Whether you personally, because of your position, are confident that this information was unclassified/declassified is irrelevant.  The average person/voter does not have access to that information.

Therefore, one way to clear that up in the minds of the public is by asking about it directly, ina public press conference.  That's what would erase this as an issue.

Exactly, great point.

[HonestJohn]

You have completely missed the point.

Whether you personally, because of your position, are confident that this information was unclassified/declassified is irrelevant.  The average person/voter does not have access to that information.

Therefore, one way to clear that up in the minds of the public is by asking about it directly, ina public press conference.  That's what would erase this as an issue.

You reiterating your own personal understanding does not address that point.

Anyone who can Google can find this information.  Anyone that can read Snopes can find this information.

Anyone that lived through the Cold War remembers this as the 'rule of thumb' for how long the President has to respond to a Soviet nuclear strike.

This is bunkem (my word of the day).

---

I think I first heard about this in the movie 'The Day After'.

[EC]

Said it on another thread - minimum response time is not classified. It's not exactly shouted about but it is not classified, for the simple reason you WANT your enemies to know just how fast your response is.

Now, WHICH branch of the nuclear triad has that particular response time is classified. Units exceeding the minimum response time is classified. Maximum response time is classified. Autonomous triggers are classified. Targets are classified. Anything to do with the launch codes themselves - their generation algorithm, modes of transmission, duplication protocols - all are classified.

[driftdiver]

Zero.  But i did have a TS clearance, and so know how such information is supposed to be handled, including nonconfirmation of factual speculation in the media.

If it is approved for publication, it is no longer classified.  So again, this should be an extraordinarily easy thing to do.  Ask if it was accurate, with follow-ups as necessary.  If you get answers than it isn't classified.

I don't want this to be one of those meaningless issues that gets brought up years from now as Hillary "getting away" with something.  Ask the damn question, then the issue will be put to rest.

@Maj. Bill Martin
Response times for any kind of military response SHOULD be classified let alone the nuclear response times.   I dont' disagree that the question should be asked but hopefully they wont answer.

[driftdiver]

Yeah and I slept in a Holiday Inn. 

Having a TS doesn't give you any kind of special knowledge about the media or how those of us that handle things like this on a daily basis operate.

You're assuming this hasn't already been done in the past.  An assumption with no basis in fact.

Tell you what.  You stick to what you know about the military and let me handle things like this.  Your out of your depth here.

I tried to be nice about it and impart some actual knowledge of how things work...and you're so hell bent this being some kind of leak you refuse to listen to reason.

@txradioguy @Maj. Bill Martin

There is a HUGE difference between handling a media story and handling classified information.    EVERY person who is granted access to secret information is given extensive training on how to handle it and how to respond to a potential breach of that information.   PR guys in the military don't have the exposure to the highly classified information such as this.   I worked in highly classified environments for 10 years; was exposed and had access to lots of stuff.  Worked in places on a daily basis that didn't exist and weren't on maps.

PR folks werent even aware those places existed.  Sorry, radio guy, you just do not know what you are talking about.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy @Maj. Bill Martin

There is a HUGE difference between handling a media story and handling classified information.    EVERY person who is granted access to secret information is given extensive training on how to handle it and how to respond to a potential breach of that information.   PR guys in the military don't have the exposure to the highly classified information such as this.   I worked in highly classified environments for 10 years; was exposed and had access to lots of stuff.  Worked in places on a daily basis that didn't exist and weren't on maps.

PR folks werent even aware those places existed.  Sorry, radio guy, you just do not know what you are talking about.

You might have been really good at your job and all while you were in.

But I'll tell you the same thing I told the Jar Head...stay in your lane.

Don't pretend you know what my job or my CMF does or doesn't get to see.  I won't pretend to be whatever you did in your MOS.

Wes ee and are privy to lots of things that you and other so called "experts" don't even realize.

And the fact you have no clue as to what Public Affairs is privy to...shows how good we are at our jobs.

[HAPPY2BME]

What does it say when even hardcore liberals speak out against Hillary, and 98% of the people on this forum support her?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8ZqxpbmtOo

[Mod1]

What does it say when even hardcore liberals speak out against Hillary, and 98% of the people on this forum support her?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8ZqxpbmtOo

@HAPPY2BME knock it off.  Your repeated false accusations that members who don't support Trump are actually closet Hillary supporters is growing tiresome.

98% of the members of TBR are most certainly not supporting Hillary Clinton for President.

[txradioguy]

 

[jpsb]

See Foreign Policy magazine:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

Looks the 4 min was common knowledge back in August.

Speculation, the real question is whether the amount of time if takes to go from order to launch is classified. If it is classified and Hillary had access to that info then Hillary committed a felony be devolving that information on broadcast TV. But don't worry your girl can commit felonies at will. The FBI has got her back.

[HAPPY2BME]

Retired General: Clinton ‘Foolish’ For Discussing Nuclear Response Time