• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton's debate reference to nuclear response rekindles judgement questions

chuckiechan

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Clinton's debate reference to nuclear response rekindles judgement questions | Fox News

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

"Whether the four minutes is accurate or not, anything having to do with response capability is generally classified," Dan Maguire, a former strategic planner with Africom, and with 46 years combined service, told Fox News. "She has a tendency to use previous access and her position as secretary (of state) to give an appearance of knowledge to show she has the answers, rather than protect the information."
Click to expand...


Any other member of the government, or military, who divulged this time line, accurate or not may guilty of a crime. Who investigates things like this?
 
chuckiechan said:
Clinton's debate reference to nuclear response rekindles judgement questions | Fox News




Any other member of the government, or military, who divulged this time line, accurate or not may guilty of a crime. Who investigates things like this?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if the number is accurate. I am not sure if the number is truly protected. I am not sure if it is a crime to reveal the number.

Also from your article.

Two senior defense officials reached by Fox News highly doubt Clinton was read into any nuclear response plans as secretary of state and think the “four-minute” comment was an estimation on her part, not a classified number she revealed.
 
But they aren't the ones who decide if the law has been broken. She was after all, the wife of a former president, and was in a position to know.
 
Nothing's classified with this ex-SecState - not her email server, not her emails, not the nuclear launch timelines - it's all subject to spin.
 
LMAO the desperation for this to be a real issue is hilarious. Its a non issue, there's no information that was exposed that isn't public or classified. Hell PBS has done stories on this very thing.
 
Kreton said:
I am not sure if the number is accurate. I am not sure if the number is truly protected. I am not sure if it is a crime to reveal the number.

Also from your article.

Two senior defense officials reached by Fox News highly doubt Clinton was read into any nuclear response plans as secretary of state and think the “four-minute” comment was an estimation on her part, not a classified number she revealed.
Click to expand...

Her husband was the president. He is the same guy that lost the launch codes, as in misplaced them and didn't tell anyone that he didn't know where he left them. Once a month they ask him for the slip with the launch codes on it and he had to admit that he had lost the slip and didn't tell anyone.

So, if she didn't know the launch time she was talking out of her ass, as usual.
 
Kreton said:
I am not sure if the number is accurate. I am not sure if the number is truly protected. I am not sure if it is a crime to reveal the number.

Also from your article.

Two senior defense officials reached by Fox News highly doubt Clinton was read into any nuclear response plans as secretary of state and think the “four-minute” comment was an estimation on her part, not a classified number she revealed.
Click to expand...

.....unless anything has changed since she was in the White House and was not briefed on this point within the briefing for Presidential Candidates.
 
chuckiechan said:
But they aren't the ones who decide if the law has been broken. She was after all, the wife of a former president, and was in a position to know.
Click to expand...

It does not matter if its a crime or not. You have to show intent for it to be reasonable to prosecute.

Besides she was broadcasting over secured airwaves
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
It does not matter if its a crime or not. You have to show intent for it to be reasonable to prosecute.

Besides she was broadcasting over secured airwaves
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Where'd you learn that?
 
NonoBadDog said:
Her husband was the president. He is the same guy that lost the launch codes, as in misplaced them and didn't tell anyone that he didn't know where he left them. Once a month they ask him for the slip with the launch codes on it and he had to admit that he had lost the slip and didn't tell anyone.

So, if she didn't know the launch time she was talking out of her ass, as usual.
Click to expand...

You mean he left his personal identifier in his other pants?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066451078 said:
FBI Director Comey...
Click to expand...

Got to know better then to believe that lying sack of ****.
 
Kreton said:
I am not sure if the number is accurate. I am not sure if the number is truly protected. I ahttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/20/clintons-debate-reference-to-nuclear-response-rekindles-judgement-questions.html#m not sure if it is a crime to reveal the number.

Also from your article.

Two senior defense officials reached by Fox News highly doubt Clinton was read into any nuclear response plans as secretary of state and think the “four-minute” comment was an estimation on her part, not a classified number she revealed.
Click to expand...
She sounded pretty certain.
 
American said:
You mean he left his personal identifier in his other pants?
Click to expand...
Everybody keeps their personal identifer in their pants. Well.... Everyone except Trump and Bill

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
American said:
She sounded pretty certain.
Click to expand...
It does not mattet. The media isnt concerned with national security concerns. Todays headlines is Trump picking on Clinton at last moghts roast. The roast is big news out nuclear strike time being revealed is hardly woth mentionong. Nothing to see here leys keep it moving along folks

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO the desperation for this to be a real issue is hilarious. Its a non issue, there's no information that was exposed that isn't public or classified. Hell PBS has done stories on this very thing.
Click to expand...

Not sure that is actually true...I mean I have seen other doc's, and shows that talk of a response time (total time) that a missile would strike the enemy...But I don't recall any shows that I have seen that actually got into the time it takes for the missile to be launched, after the POTUS gives the order...Can you link to the PBS story, and show where in the story they talk about this detail?
 
j-mac said:
Not sure that is actually true...I mean I have seen other doc's, and shows that talk of a response time (total time) that a missile would strike the enemy...But I don't recall any shows that I have seen that actually got into the time it takes for the missile to be launched, after the POTUS gives the order...Can you link to the PBS story, and show where in the story they talk about this detail?
Click to expand...

I bet AJ hasn't even looked it up yet. Maybe he'll do that now.
 
chuckiechan said:
Any other member of the government, or military, who divulged this time line, accurate or not may guilty of a crime. Who investigates things like this?
Click to expand...

How do you know that is the "real" time it takes?
 
The four-minute number resonates in Britain. Europe lived under the threat of annihilation during the cold war. It was accepted knowledge in the UK at least, that if the Russians came over the borders, and the advance wasn't stopped conventionally within 24/36 hours, then it would get very hot very quickly. The time given from launch to arrival of the Russian missiles was 4 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_warning
 
American said:
I bet AJ hasn't even looked it up yet. Maybe he'll do that now.
Click to expand...

I just looked to see if he was still online, and he isn't, so, my guess is that he is working, or whatever he does....But, I am genuinely interested, because that made me do a double take last night, when she said it...I thought what the hell is she doing talking about that....And my guess is that it must be embarrassing to demo's because the only ones to have pointed it out so far is FNC....
 
Manc Skipper said:
The four-minute number resonates in Britain. Europe lived under the threat of annihilation during the cold war. It was accepted knowledge in the UK at least, that if the Russians came over the borders, and the advance wasn't stopped conventionally within 24/36 hours, then it would get very hot very quickly. The time given from launch to arrival of the Russian missiles was 4 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_warning
Click to expand...

That's launch to arrival, NOT POTUS order to launch...I have to believe that this is guarded information...
 
Kreton said:
Saying something with confidence doesn't make it true, or a crime. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton. There is no need to reach this hard.
Click to expand...

So, it's not possible to believe that she may have slipped when she disclosed that information?
 
Kreton said:
Saying something with confidence doesn't make it true, or a crime. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton. There is no need to reach this hard.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom