Scarecrow video! American ICBMs are meant for rapid response. They will be launched if the Russians launch their ICBMs - which will be detected by the satellites in space. At the same time the guy in the airborne command center will coroborate the disappearance of Beale Thule and Fylingdales EWS, with the loss of communications with the president presumed to be dead, and finally with the incoming russian ICBMs which will still need 15 minutes to arrive. The chance of the "surprise" is zero.
@CatalinElton You stated that American ICBMs :will be launched if the Russians launch their ICBMs". Wrong. United States nuclear weapons will be executed, including the launch of ICBMs when, and only when, the President of the United States so directs. That "guy in the airborne command center" was Major General Autery. He was illustrating his duties as the Airborne Emergency Actions Officer (AEAO) on board the SAC Airborne Command Post. Most of what you pass as fact is, in fact, in error.
@FylthyBeest respect your assessment which is based on "by the book" scenarios, but what happens if an AEAO receives confirmation of the president's death in the capital as a result of a short range nuclear missile attack -shortly after an SLBM or nuclear tipped cruise missile strike? According to the "two-man-rule" in the National Command Authority, the president and the secretary of defense must jointly concurr when issuing the launch order.
@CatalinElton If that be the case then, going down the chain of command the Vice President and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must take over ( if the secretary of defense were also killed).My point is that someone has to be able to strike back at the russians before the first heavy ICBM strike achieves its goal- the destruction of America's accurate and high yield ICBMs.Why would an authorized commander in the National Command Chain keep the ICBMs in the silo
@CatalinElton if he knew that the president and his staff have been killed in the Capital, the EWS sites have also been reportedly obliterated, and the satellites in space also warn of a massive salvo of ICBMs leaving the USSR from the SS-18 silos) and heading out into space. I am absolutely sure that the E-4Bs and the "Looking glass" system would have enabled the National Command Authority to perform the launch on warning of the ICBMs - with or without the president being alive.
@CatalinElton There was no "Looking glass (sic) system". It was the Post Attack Command Control System (PACCS) with the SAC Airborne Command Post (Looking Glass) at its heart. "Enabling" an authority does not mean that that authority will execute.
@CatalinElton Do you have any knowledge of the Constitution or the Presidential line of authority? In descending order, it is the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then cabinet secretaries beginning with the Secretary of State. Where the hell do the Joint Chiefs fall in here? You asked why an authority would keep the ICBMs in the silos? Because, it was believed by many that President Carter would take the first laydown.
@CatalinElton Here's what's on wikipedia the President in theory does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that strategic nuclear weapons be used the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order does require a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, thus the system does in effect serve as a self-imposed restriction upon the President's powers and cannot simply be set aside by whim.
@CatalinElton Don't confuse authority with the process used to convey that authority. ONLY the President of the United States can authorize use of US nuclear weapons. You can cite all you want what you believe to be your knowledge of the "Two Man Policy", Two Man Concept, or whatever it's now called. It does not alter the fact that the use of US nuclear weapons requires Presidential authorization. And, you insult any President stating they might allow restrictions to be "set aside by whim".
@CatalinElton And, while Wikipedia is a very handy source for general use, it is not the source I woul cite when arguing the authority to use nuclear weapons.
@CatalinElton There is no "two-man rule" in the National Command Authority (NCA). True, the NCA consists of the President and the Secretary of Defense. But, the use of US nuclear weapons rests solely with the President. Don't create that which doesn't exist. If the AEAO received confirmation of the President's death, other procedures consistent with the Constitution would be employed.
@CatalinElton My "assessment" was not "based on "by the book" scenarios". I opined based on the fact that a "bolt-out-of-the-blue" scenario was a realistically possible scenario and one that had to be anticipated. Again, you distort what was stated.
@FylthyBeest Secretary Defense Schlesinger himself said in the video: We must not even leave the Russians with the impression that we are going to "ride out an attack"
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that practical reality and official position do not always match. But not everything is official. Secret provisions are always in place. I was just speculating on which those might be.
@CatalinElton After all why just keep your ICBMs in the silo to be destroyed by what you absolutely know is a geniune attack, which has already presumably destroyed the capital?
@FylthyBeest All this discussion is also based on the context of SLBMs being inaccurate. Nowadays the Trident II can destroy ICBM silos in Russia even if all the Minutemen silos were gone.
@CatalinElton The chance of a "surpise", as you call it, was not calculated or assessed to be "zero", at least during the late 1970s and early 1980s. This type of attack was anticipated in a "bolt-out-of-the-blue scenario" and retaliatory consequential scenarios were developed and practiced. Try reading a book or two.
I like to take this moment to salute all the fighting men and women and some transgender that protect us from the useless garage and pay for the gay crap in europe . . . thank you.
Does anyone know? If during Vietnam, did any American forces, ever engage DDR Germans at any point? via a possible exchange programs between war saw pact forces?
As a cold war teen, I miss those days compared to todays war on Terrorism, Can't tell an enemy who looks like you and I, and wears no uniform! and the DDR or East German Uniforms looked great in that tradtional Prussian style.
Every time some generous person uploads a period military piece to YouTube, it only takes about 30 minutes for the anti-US bagging to start and the pro-US arguments to counter them.
Thanks for the upload! Interesting military scenario film made during the Cold War.
My favourite parts here are the of the "D" BUFF`s at March and the alert crews rushing to them, and the KC-135`s. There`s also a clip posted here recently of another alert scramble at March from 1968 using "E" models, mostly with the pre-camofluage paint scheme, but with the same wailing J57`s. Great footage.
@bmacleod52 It's amazing how many liberal, anti-President Reagan, anti-conservative morons jump in here to slam what filmsouth conveyed and at the same time, try to defend President Carter, one of the worst President's this country endured. No, this video did not play well into President Reagan's campaign as he did not rely on this well made and unrelated documentary that was largely shown on liberal PBS channels. If you think I'm brutal, you've heard nothing yet. Idiot.
@FylthyBeest I think Reagan was one of the our greatest presidents and yes Carter was one of our worst (if not the worst) presidents. My comment was to challenge the notion our president had no option but to surrender if we were hit with a pre-emptive strike....
@sladerfoster No, these are not scenes shot for "The Day After". They are scenes shot specifically for this documentary, "First Strike". Many of these scenes were then later used in "The Day After". This documentary was made in 1979. "The Day After" was made several years later.
No-one has ever attacked or invaded america. The american scaremongering has stirred mass panic amongst it's people's and murdered millions of innocent people in it's quest for oil and money. The sooner you people wake up and stop joining these military nazi's and stop invading other people, the safer this world is. America is the cause of the poverty and destruction of Earth. It's a fact their nuclear weapons were disarmed by 'alien' forces. This planet belongs to the people no the americans.
@mrgoldfinder23 Pearl Harbor. The Japanese conquered and occupied 3 Alaskan Islands let alone the entirety of The Phillipinnes. One of our largest basest at the time. The British also invaded America in the war of 1812 and burnt our Capitol and The White House to the ground. In WW1 and WW2 there were foreign submarines operating off our shores. And whatever you were smoking when you came up with our nukes being disarmed by alien forces... I want some.
that first statement in this movie is such a contradiction. Our security depends on these missiles, etc. yeah, right, everyone else has these missiles too, and that can make us all kill each other which is the opposite of security.
@creativeprojects720 Firstly, not "everyone else has these missiles too." There are only a limited number of countries with nuclear weapons and a smaller number yet with missiles that could carry these nuclear weapons over an intercontinental distance. Secondly, the threat of a nuclear response to a first stike and a subsequent mutually assured destruction did, in fact, ensure a degree of security. This security, though more uncertain since the reorganization of the Air Force, still exists.
@FylthyBeest well I was generalizing when I said "everyone". China has some serious ones (long distance). North korea has some, India possibly has some? Russia still has a lot (long distance) , and the united states has a lot. (long distance) As far as I have heard the usa and russia have reduced their missiles down to about 1000 , in each country (usa and russia).
@creativeprojects720 well I think a better idea than a retaliation, would be a way to shoot them down in the air. I think the usa had a program of missiles that did this at one time or still does, but maybe it's success rate is low. Anyway, it's a tricky subject in my view.
Vindicari, just to be clear, would be the primary abomination to which I was referring in my previous post. Funny how Failsafe came up. I happen to be putting it in my DVD player right now..and I assure you in the strongest possible terms Vindicari..I AM stating the facts. HooshlsASoup -- some of the people that drop by here amaze me; they actually believe what they're saying! I know of -one- banned short movie BBC's "The War Game" (I believe thats the title) They eventually ran it anyway :-)
If the urban population is attacked then why cease fire? If only to build up enough internal resources so as not to mix blood during the battle resulting in a new country/way of life being formation. As it appears the USA has been invaded at every entry point and the heads are taken. For those still alive in soul, you are the true America. The media is being used to attack the urban population right now. Certain patterns are seen through media that guide to emotionalism and deny discernment.
What happens to the ICBM crew after they launched their missiles? I heard that one crew had to wait until all missiles were launched then they had to dig themselves out and then walk to the National Guard base in Helena, Montana over 200 miles away.
@MrBennetzen I'm still awaiting your answer. When did one of our missile crews launch the missiles under their control, dig themselves out of their Launch Control Center/Launch Control Facility (LCC/LCF)? What National Guard base (or was it a post) did they walk to? Did they stop anywhere to eat? This is most enlightening.
@FylthyBeest These were orders from their commander. What they had to do was walk 200 miles in radioactive debris from there silo to the National Guard base assuming they didn't get blown up in their silos. The missile crews thought of this as a joke because they knew they were going to be dead within an hour. No missiles were fired in anger. There would be no point in stopping anywhere to eat after the missiles were launched because all the eateries would be blasted and everyone would be dead.
I want all to know that I truly appreciate commentary from ChristopherSaindon, HooshisASoup, and other well-meaning patriots who truly understand what the United States has contributed to our world.
@FylthyBeest Thank you sir. And I see someone emptied the comment "trash" all over one of the best YouTube video/comments pages on the Internet. I appreciate you too, and as I have said in the past, you've taught me more than I could have ever hoped for in a formal education setting. These people, devoid of respect, careless -- reckless -- with their poorly-reasoned "facts" and ramblings are abominations in the company of the good people that contribute thoughtfully to this ongoing discussion.
@ChristopherSaindon You're quite welcome. After reading the exchanges with our "confused" Western European "friend", I'm sure you saw why I responded as I did. I was appalled that a countryman of one of our staunchest allies would besmirch the United States as he did. He not only insulted us, he insulted his own countrymen. They are able to say "Long live the Queen" because we worked together. Unfortunately, even some in the US don't understand the importance.
Clips from this 1979 documentary was used in MGM 1983 film "The Day After"; of which were probably the best action scenes in the movie. The "The Day After" movie portrayed the realistic event of a nuclear war, but had multiple story lines of different families and persons. The actors: Jason Robards, Steven Gutttenberg, JoBeth Williams and John Lithgow. I would highly recommend it; if you can find a copy to rent or buy.
@yhenry77 You know what I found to be even better than "The Day After" was the ABC special the night of the broadcast. Panel of guests were Dr. Henry Kissinger, Carl Sagan, Brent Scowcroft, William F. Buckley, Jr., Elie Wiesel, and Robert McNamara. Remarkable and very different views of where we would end up, the attitude of the USSR, the danger of over-hyping one side or the other's ABM capability (which could send a message to the other side that perhaps the MAD scale was unbalanced), etc.
@yhenry77 And thanks for the post. The DVD of "The Day After" can be found "new" for a very low price on Amazon, EBay sometimes, other online sites. It is certainly worth watching. Other excellent movies are World War III with David Seoul (a wild and unique storyline where you'll learn about desant war tactics, the"Buzzsaw" defense strategy when heavily outnumbered in a fixed-defensive position, and more..), "By Dawn's Early Light," old but entertaining "Failsafe," and "Threads."
consider America's biggest industry is weapons manufacture and sales, the need for war is an economic necessity ergo we invent enemies and exaggerate petty disputes which are none of our business to create the need for weapons which we sell.
@vindicari An all encompassing statement. You just categorized all Americans. Moron. Why don't you do what you probably do best? Go sit on a shipping crate and pick your nose? It was our all-American redneck ancestors who kept you from speaking German. And why don't you try going back to school and learning to pronunicate? I agree completely with HoohlsASoup. You are an ignorant asshole. I suspect you're quite uneducated. You're obviously uninformed. How dare you attack Americans?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@FylthyBeest just who are Americans? the indigenous population of the country were the indians, you are certainly not american (unless you are an indian) america was stolen from the owners by white trash, the dregs of european society, outcasts, in a nutshell, immigrants. who gave america to the white settlers? America will be sucking up to Brazil very soon since the discovery of the biggest oilfield on the planet.
@RFKFANTS67 Contrary to vindican's comment, "Fail Safe" was never banned in the United States, and certainly not "banned by American paranoia" as he claims.
The United States has no federal agency charged with either permitting or restricting the exhibition of motion pictures.
@vindicari Funny how you sneer at Americans for "not being American" when Brazilians are exactly the same. Just how much of Brazil's population can claim Amerindian heritage compared to that of American society? A mere fraction.
I love how you claim "Fail Safe" was "banned by American paranoia." That movie was NEVER banned in the United States, you ignorant asshole. You must be delusional if you think you "merely state the facts" with bullshit lies like that.
@vindicari Again, I'm going to agree with HooshisASoup. You now clearly believe you're an expert on American history and South American Politics and Economics. No one here insulted your country or countrymen. Yet, you believe you have a right to insult Americans stating our ancestors were white trash. You are a bigot of the first order and an extraordinary asshole. You, are an uninformed bigot.
@vindicari No more anti-American comments, Stupid? Of all that I've read on social networking sites, your comments are probably the most vile. I hope you crawl back under your moss covered rock and hibernate for an eternity. You are repulsive. I would say you're pathetic but, I don't pity you. You're without use. How does it feel to be worthless? Don't answer shit box. I really don't want to know. Enjoy your miserable, useless existence, bigot.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@FylthyBeest forget about it, in the words of paul simon, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. we all have truths, you may not like mine, i may not like your's. but that is democracy.
@vindicari "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Gee, that sounds like you, with the lies you've claimed are "truth," like your sneering claim that "Fail Safe" was banned in the United States.
@vindicari And again you stereotype and categorize all Americans (shove your "yanks" comment where the sun doesn't shine, asswipe) with one all encompassing comment. You're many times worse than just a disgusting hypocrite. As far as I'm concerned, you are without worth. Bigot.
@vindicari What "truth?" All I see is a brainless bigot (you) spewing bald-faced, hatemongering lies that anyone could expose with a little fact-checking.
@vindicari You're rather prejudiced, aren't you? This documentary was produced during the "Second Cold War" when the Soviets were behaving much more aggressively. It reflects the state of the world at that time.
Of course, none of that would matter to an ignorant asshole like you who views Americans as barbaric savages that rely only on "weapons manufacture and sales."
This is very unrealistic, those b52s would have been off the ground in about 10 minutes and the ICBMs would have been out of the ground in about 2 and submarine missiles would been out of the subs in about 5
@complainer46 Cite your references. Where do you get your facts, particularly considering this is a 1979 documentary? Alert aircraft and missiles would launch, if capable, within allowable time periods (albeit quick)only after receiving positive control launch (aircraft) or valid execution (aircraft/missile) instructions. Cite your facts. Oops. You have none to cite.
@FylthyBeest well they are called MINUTEman missiles for a reason...subs can't be to much longer and b52's was a complete guess but under those conditions i can imagine them moving rather quickly
@complainer46 Are you a child? Again, you cited no references to your incredulous statements passed off as fact. Read your history and use your brain. Assemble some facts. I believe you're a patriot. But, use factual data to announce opinion.
@FylthyBeest Just thinking out loud I suppose. I would love that responsibility..that awesome responsibility as I believe I would have served the country well. Looking for work in 2011 with bleak prospects it's probably a futile reflex comment I made. I do however stand by it. If I could participate in any way at a facility like Pave Paws, NORAD, etc.. I would clean computer screens and desks to make a living if it came to that. Have a great Thanksgiving my friend.
@ChristopherSaindon I don't believe it's a "futile reflex comment" at all. I believe it's a response rooted in patriotism. You have a great Thanksgiving as well.
I had a question regarding the Air Force and Navy: Were the 2 different branches involved in healthy competition or was the relationship, at least at times, better classified as adversarial? I understand General E. LeMay was often a difficult man to deal with (as an example) but with my strict standards demanding a high level of respect regardless of what I initially hear I wanted to ask this on this specific site before forming any conclusions. Thanks as always!
Does anyone know if "desant" units existed in the US Armed Forces? Would this be another element of what would fall under the definition of a mission for the Navy SEALS? I also -- on another subject -- would urge anyone interested in Cold War history to read about the Texas Tower Tragedy (recommended to me on this site by FylthyBeest). You just can't find a limit to the sacrifice and dedication of some Americans. I spent several hours reading about this and it was worth every second!
@ChristopherSaindon or it could also be a mission for what is called Combat Applications Group (the president's own personal, private army) aka `Delta Force' .
@sr71ablackbird Did the Russian's ever take a shot at the Blackbird? They had to KNOW about it, I have just never heard of a verified attempt to bring one down...did they have a SAM that could even reach it?
@ChristopherSaindon Chris, you're an intelligent man. Please, don't allow his moniker to deceive you. Nor does the President have a "personal, private army".
@FylthyBeest yes, he does, it's called the Combat Applications Group. The president can send them anywhere he wants. Those are just facts stated from a former C.A.G. member.
@FylthyBeest I was just trying to be polite. The personal private army about which he spoke was either bogus talk from someone trying to sound important, or the massive "SUV" that the counter-terror guys ride in during motorcade trips. I thought some common question about the Blackbird would flush him out. Most SR71 enthusiasts know everything possible and allowed. It's my Father's favorite plane next to the B52 (taught me about these before I was 8). Thanks Fylthybeest. Have a good day sir!
@ChristopherSaindon what other questions ? the equipment on it do you want to know about? the Synthetic appeature radar ?, the technical objective cameras ?, the JP-7 fuel that it takes which is so cold that one could pour it into a bucket & just toss a match into it to put the match out ? which also serves as the aircraft's coolant & it's center of gravity ? Or the catylist it takes from the `start-cart' called Tri-Ethyl Borane that is need to start it ? or how the jet shifts it's cycle from
@ChristopherSaindon Understood. I hope his 27-year old Kodak Instamatic pictures can be developed. By the way, if you were unable to find anything regarding the TCHC, that would be my mistake. That term was not necessarily used by AT&T. They more often referred to the TCHC as L-3 and L-4, etc. The underground cables traversed the US connecting critcal locations. Other locations were tied in by their microwave repeater system using massive towers such as the one located in Lyons, Nebraska.
@FylthyBeest Found 2 well-run archives on-line incl. both the Texas Towers and AT&T, TCHC, etc.. also something on "REL 2600 Troposcatter Radio Equipment" (AT&T also). Sure is fun research sir.
@ChristopherSaindon Yes, it is. Cold War history is certainly more interesting than many would guess. On a different note, I'm not too sure I understood the recent barrage you received. That was quite unexpected.
@ChristopherSaindon turbojet to ramjet once it reaches 1,600 MPH ? or what about the 160,00 shaft hp that it has ? or better yet, how about HABU ? are those common enough for you or have you never heard about that before?
@sr71ablackbird No my SR71question was just whether or not one was ever in danger of being attacked by surface-to-air missile fire or fighter jets. The "desant" unit question was really critical but I have found an excellent archive of documents entitled "Desant War Fighting."
@ChristopherSaindon or that Beale was the home 1 srs 9 srw of SAC, end of 80s, 8 crews 6 active craft - 3 @ Beale , 1 @ detachment 1 kadena ab at okinawa, 2 @ detachment 4 @ RAF Mildenhol in suffolk, eng. and that 1 of the aircraft was kept at 'ready' status at all times ?
@ChristopherSaindon in theory they would by flying a mig-25 foxbat which can fly a mach 3.2 (it would be a short flight because after that the engines must be changed) , but it never happened, due to Russia's primitive technology, however, North Korea did shoot at it.
I like documentary productions in general, not movies, but the movie "World War III" (Rock Hudson, David Seoul) is quite an interesting one. I am not entirely sure that a Soviet "desant" unit holding a portion of the Pipeline hostage for the resumption of grain shipments would lead so swiftly to a nuclear war. If hardliners in the USSR wrestled control of Soviet nuclear forces I doubt they spend the time setting-up a scenario so relativelty insignificant. VERY entertaining movie however!
I always thought that this was a terrible film because the authors have no idea, no true concept of the depth of defense that exists. They sit in their Hollywood homes and made these scare films that, if you knew the truth, would make you laugh.
@ddd1953 The "Surrender or face Obliteration" part is when this went off the rails for me; I just don't have the DNA to process and accept that, and I am quite certain that I am not the only one. I just race by that part (and the audio of "cease fire") with the time/progress bar and enjoy watching these exceptional men and women carry out their mission :-)
@ddd1953 I do not agree with your assertion that "they sit in their Hollywood homes and made these scare films . . . " where this documentary is concerned. The producer and his crew spent much time on location filming simulations approved by military leaders. The interior shots of the EC-135C "Looking Glass" and the crewmembers filmed are real. The SAC leaders who approved this filming would not have done so if it belied SAC's important defensive role. And, the producer was quite educated.
Sir, I have spent the last 5 hours reading about Texas Tower 4. 28 good American's who decicated, and ultimately gave, their lives to providing us a few extra minutes of warning. Profoundly sad indeed, but I am not at all surprised they remained in place despite the numerous indications of the progressive and extremely dangerous failure of the support structure.
@ChristopherSaindon Thank you for researching. I believe the collapse of Texas Tower 4 resulting in the loss of 28 great Americans is one of the saddest and most overlooked tragedies of the Cold War. The more one searches, the more one finds. Other Texas Tower airman suffered of remorse for years. Those assigned to the Navy vessels attempting to rescue the airmen before the collapse and then searching for them were forlorned. Courts Martials followed. A documentary is on YouTube.
@ChristopherSaindon The Texas Towers were so unusual that ocean liner captains diverted so the passengers could see them. Imagine enlisting in the Air Force believing you would be involved with aeronautics and finding yourself assigned to a platform mounted on stilts 90 feet above the Atlantic ocean with no sight of land. Some surmise that most of the 28 who perished were on deck in that hellish storm clearing the deck for a rescue helicopter that would never arrive.
@ChristopherSaindon I did not intend to disregard your kind words about these men. You too found the entire situation troubling. An amazing time and situation.
@FylthyBeest It was sir. But I am glad you told me about it. I'll be moving on to the other items later today and definately through the weekend. Thank you for all the suggestions for additional research sir. You've been such a good friend to me!
..the TCHC and the other items you have mentioned. Finally, just so you know (I believe you do), the respect and admiration I have for everyone with whom you served will ALWAYS be there, will remain as I share it with my children, Nephew's and Niece, and includes and has always included you personally sir. Thank you again for the new material, and have a great morning! :-)
My favourite part here is the BUFF/KC scramble at March. Wished they had shown the smoky cart-starts. And we don`t really hear it, but the noise must have been defeaning, especially with those old J57`s. I once got to watch a "G" version start-up(using the power cart) which was loud, and that was only one! Imagine the noise here with all nine planes running!
@FylthyBeest Actually, the "G" BUFF I watched start up, at K.I. Saywer, used the external power cart. That`s what I meant by that. I was hoping it would taxi and take-off, but they then shut it down. It was only doing an engine run-up it turned out. Still I`ve never heard a sound quite like that at any airbase or civil airport I`ve been to before or since.
@mattsieluv speaking of K.I. Sawyer , i was just wondering if you knew if the AFB was still operational ? I guess that they decommissioned Wurtsmith in Oscoda a while back.
@sr71ablackbird No, K.I. was closed in 1995, Wurtsmith two years before. Two of several affected by Clinton`s cutbacks. It was inevitable though after the Cold War was over. I first visited K.I. in 1989 and returned in 2007 and again in 2010. It`s a civilian airport now and some businesses occupy a few of the old buidings, but alot of it is a ghost town. There is still a "D" BUFF on display there.
@mattsieluv k, thanks. I didn't know for sure. I did manage to go to Wurtsmith back in the early 80s where they had BUFFs and KC-135s up there, no pics of the aircraft were allowed. It had a some lake across from it, but the mess hall there (more like a classy, fancy restaurant) recessed lighting, a plush blue carpet and believe it or not some pretty awesome food. it beat the powered eggs up at Phelps-Collins ANGB, but those weren't all that bad up there either when given what they had.
@sr71ablackbird I took several pics at K.I. Saywer during my first visit, including inside the KC-135 we were allowed to go on. They never said anything so I assume it was all right, but we were not taken anywhere near the alert facility or the storage area where they kept the nukes.
@mattsieluv yes, the would allow just about anyone to look inside a KC-135, the flight crew at Wurtsmith said that it was about the only `job' one could lay down on' ...lol.. but as for the B-52s, it was a different story all together. A group of which I used to be in called Civil Air Patrol, (an auxiliary of the U.S. A. F.) , we could see what was under the nosecone of a B-52, but no pictures of it, they had a demonstration of the alert team, & it only took 2 minutes if that, to fully load it.
@sr71ablackbird I seriously doubt that the "flight crew at Wurtsmith said that it was about the only 'job' one could lay down on". Specifically, if anyone said this, it was a boom operator. The boomer is one member of a four-person crew. I'm sure this is what you meant.
@FylthyBeest No, the captain there actually said that about laying in the pod of the refueling boom and yes, that is what i meant, nonetheless though he did say that...lol... I have to get the pictures there that i was able to take developed. I took them back in 1984 with a kodak instamatic 110 that my mother got for me. I have to send the pics to develop. Also got to go up in the ATC, they believe in exercise, 40 flights of stairs and NO elevator...lol..
@mattsieluv You're correct that K I Sawyer was identified by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) 1993 during President Clinton's administration. But Wurtsmith was identified by BRAC 91 during President George H W Bush's administration. I also agree with you that closures were inevitable. And, regardless of who or what party was in charge of the administration at those times.
@FylthyBeest I did read that later about Wurtsmith. Bush had already made some cutbacks, then Clinton sped it up. The main base featured here, March, was another victim. Reduced to an Air Reserve Base in 1996. Beale though still remains an active base, and the PAVE PAWS there is still in operation.
I have always found the Soviet bomber to be something of a joke. The old film that shows the "Bison" lumbering through the air -- it's almost funny to think of one of those with a pack of F16s swarming around it (they would almost have to stall to slow down enough to shoot it :-) No doubt the USSR had an unbelievably destructive attack OPTION, and they were wise enough to NEVER even think about it; if you attack the USA with nuclear weapons you only get 1 mistake -- and it will be your last!
It's a ghastly shame that (some) of our best aircrews in this scenario were wiped on the ground by such a concentration of Soviet boomers.........Lets all hope that we never allow "boomer bastions" near our shores or this movie becomes REALITY.
Out of curiosity, isn't a single surviving nuclear submarine (SSBN) enough to wreck all the major cities of a country, assuming it used Trident MIRVS? Today, a single one can hit half the planet with 24 SLBMs containing more than 240 warheads, but the technology probably wasn't quite as good back then.
@Storm7289 That is true, a nuke in the right spot, particularly a country's central financial sector, can cripple it. If detonated high enough, it can also be used as an EMP.
@CobaltX07 very true, a nuclear device would not even have to cause any physcial damage to inflict tremendous loss. imagine what an emp would do to a mega city. some of that emp damage is also irreversible
BTW: no way in hell would most of the SSBNs be lost... and knocking out almost 1,000 US ICBMs would have required a blizzard of Soviet ICBMs... given the incoming threat would POTUS have waited to counter launch? Maybe... but again, more than enough counterforce existed in the SSBNs.
And any US stand down after that attack would be as likely as the US suing for peace with Imperial Japan 10 minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor... no way in hell!
@PaulFarace Not as dated as you may think. What you estimate it may have taken to disable most of the SSBNs and 1,000 ICBMs is arguable. One must consider that this documentary posed a "bolt-out-of-the-blue" scenario. One must also consider factors such as fratricide and phenomena such as electro-magnetic pulse and spacecraft charging. "Would POTUS have waited . . . ?" Carter may have. It's during his administration when this documentary was made. Would Carter have stood down? Who knows?
@PaulFarace I agree :-) I was disturbed by this when I first saw it (actually was going out of my mind pounding my fist like Kruschev banged his shoe) but someone I consider now to be a good friend of mine (posts here often) explained the real point being made here and assured me that my current knowledge of what we have had in place before, during, and most importantly after this is absolutely solid. The professionalism that shines so brightly from these fine men in First Strike is AWESOME too!
@PaulFarace FylthyBeest5 -- to say that he "knows his stuff" would be something of a monumental understatement :-) BTW..I have wondered what President Carter would have done during many sleepless nights. I BELIEVE (hope) that he would have reacted slowly but eventually would have ordered a counterstrike. But I just don't know :-( I don't like to speak disrespectfully of ANY President incl. the ones I felt were weak, but President Carter worried me even at my young age during his term.
@ChristopherSaindon You flatter me. I don't deserve it but, I do appreciate the thoughts. I was fortunate enough to have flown with others on a command and control platform that allowed us an insight not afforded those we served. That good fortune taught me much. Who but President Carter would truly know how he would have reacted? But, we heard many times, that President Carter's intent was never to launch under warning. Reportedly, he would retaliate only when the US was struck. (1 of ?)
@ChristopherSaindon (2 of ?) A crucial problem with the President taking the "first laydown" of nuclear weapons, if what we heard was truly his intent, is that proper reaction time would be negated. If we suffered a nuclear laydown with associated electro-magnetic pulse effects, effects that no science has been able to substantially analyze, would the US be able to respond, particularly in that time period? He may not have had sufficient "decision time remaining" to execute. (2 of ?)
@ChristopherSaindon (3 of ?) Would disregard of decsion time remaining (DTR) eliminate any possibility of responding? Would responding under warning only and without having suffered a nuclear strike run the risk of wrongy retaliating because of faulty warning? Who knows? Was President Carter misguided or a genius? Maybe both. Maybe neither. Chris, some may respond to this post claiming that EMP would definitely prevent an appropriate response. (3 of ?)
@ChristopherSaindon (4 of ?) Some may claim that command control communications systems at that time were adequately protected. Who knows? Some will claim that they do know. Here's a fact. The only above ground atomic/nuclear blasts conducted over populated areas were over two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. Though there are reports of a resulting phenomena later named EMP, no one at that time anticipated such a phenomenon nor did they have the science to study it. (4 of ?)
@ChristopherSaindon (5 of ?) Does one trust the many warning systems and launch based on systems warnings and the human interpretations or does one wait for verification that millions of Americans were incinerated? I personally would react to the former and not take the chance on the latter. But, I am not the President. Nor would I want that particular responsibility. Do I believe President Carter was intelligent? Absolutely. Do I believe he was a good leader? Absolutely not. (5 of ?)
@ChristopherSaindon (6 of ?) Chris, I appreciate greatly your admiration for those with whom I had the pleasure to serve. I respect your appreciation for all our warriors including our "cold" warriors. I ask you to take the time to research fallen cold warriors such as the very courageous 28 men who gave their lives the night of January 15, 1961, when their early warning platform, Texas Tower 4, collapsed into a cold, stormy Atlantic Ocean. As a meteoroglist, this may interest you. (6 of ?)
@ChristopherSaindon (7 of 7) Chris, as a cold war scholar, you will find the story of the Texas Towers fascinating. And sad. Also, look into those very brave civilian cold warriors who served with AT&T's historic Long Lines Division and manned the many communications centers that supported the long lines including the Transcontinental Hardened Cable (TCHC). And, research the Cable Ship Long Lines. Fascinating. Many cold warriors gave their lives in reconnaissance. All heroic. (7 of 7)
@FylthyBeest I will begin reading about these different events immediately sir. And I thank you for providing SO many opportunities for my knowledge and love of this subject to grow and expand. I am extremely disappointed in, on yet another level, President Carter's "tiers of weakness" that seem to grow higher and higher as I age. (Continued)
@FylthyBeest I have heard about, and read about, his policy that basically made the obliteration of America's military sites, cities, and (her most important and irreplaceable component) citizens -- and I must confess that I had always held out a small amount of hope that this -- in my opinion ABOMINATION of a "policy" was meant to convey a "disarming tone" more than anything else. (Continued)
@FylthyBeest You have verified what I always feared: that President Carter (again affording him still my requisite level of understood respect for the office he held) was not only an extremely disappointing Leader in almost all respects, but was indeed so weak (against even the most modest benchmarks that can be applied) with respect to a response to a first strike attempt by the USSR that it put this greatest country on God's earth in extreme danger; unacceptable and unforgivable. (Continued)
...and then they asked for the increase in funding.
TheArtimusMaximus 2 days ago
Scarecrow video! American ICBMs are meant for rapid response. They will be launched if the Russians launch their ICBMs - which will be detected by the satellites in space. At the same time the guy in the airborne command center will coroborate the disappearance of Beale Thule and Fylingdales EWS, with the loss of communications with the president presumed to be dead, and finally with the incoming russian ICBMs which will still need 15 minutes to arrive. The chance of the "surprise" is zero.
CatalinElton 5 days ago
@CatalinElton You stated that American ICBMs :will be launched if the Russians launch their ICBMs". Wrong. United States nuclear weapons will be executed, including the launch of ICBMs when, and only when, the President of the United States so directs. That "guy in the airborne command center" was Major General Autery. He was illustrating his duties as the Airborne Emergency Actions Officer (AEAO) on board the SAC Airborne Command Post. Most of what you pass as fact is, in fact, in error.
FylthyBeest 2 days ago
@FylthyBeest respect your assessment which is based on "by the book" scenarios, but what happens if an AEAO receives confirmation of the president's death in the capital as a result of a short range nuclear missile attack -shortly after an SLBM or nuclear tipped cruise missile strike? According to the "two-man-rule" in the National Command Authority, the president and the secretary of defense must jointly concurr when issuing the launch order.
CatalinElton 2 days ago
@CatalinElton If that be the case then, going down the chain of command the Vice President and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs must take over ( if the secretary of defense were also killed).My point is that someone has to be able to strike back at the russians before the first heavy ICBM strike achieves its goal- the destruction of America's accurate and high yield ICBMs.Why would an authorized commander in the National Command Chain keep the ICBMs in the silo
CatalinElton 2 days ago
@CatalinElton if he knew that the president and his staff have been killed in the Capital, the EWS sites have also been reportedly obliterated, and the satellites in space also warn of a massive salvo of ICBMs leaving the USSR from the SS-18 silos) and heading out into space. I am absolutely sure that the E-4Bs and the "Looking glass" system would have enabled the National Command Authority to perform the launch on warning of the ICBMs - with or without the president being alive.
CatalinElton 2 days ago
@CatalinElton There was no "Looking glass (sic) system". It was the Post Attack Command Control System (PACCS) with the SAC Airborne Command Post (Looking Glass) at its heart. "Enabling" an authority does not mean that that authority will execute.
FylthyBeest 2 days ago
@CatalinElton Do you have any knowledge of the Constitution or the Presidential line of authority? In descending order, it is the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and then cabinet secretaries beginning with the Secretary of State. Where the hell do the Joint Chiefs fall in here? You asked why an authority would keep the ICBMs in the silos? Because, it was believed by many that President Carter would take the first laydown.
FylthyBeest 2 days ago
Comment removed
CatalinElton 1 day ago
@CatalinElton Here's what's on wikipedia the President in theory does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that strategic nuclear weapons be used the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order does require a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, thus the system does in effect serve as a self-imposed restriction upon the President's powers and cannot simply be set aside by whim.
CatalinElton 1 day ago
Comment removed
FylthyBeest 22 hours ago
@CatalinElton Don't confuse authority with the process used to convey that authority. ONLY the President of the United States can authorize use of US nuclear weapons. You can cite all you want what you believe to be your knowledge of the "Two Man Policy", Two Man Concept, or whatever it's now called. It does not alter the fact that the use of US nuclear weapons requires Presidential authorization. And, you insult any President stating they might allow restrictions to be "set aside by whim".
FylthyBeest 22 hours ago
@CatalinElton And, while Wikipedia is a very handy source for general use, it is not the source I woul cite when arguing the authority to use nuclear weapons.
FylthyBeest 22 hours ago
@CatalinElton There is no "two-man rule" in the National Command Authority (NCA). True, the NCA consists of the President and the Secretary of Defense. But, the use of US nuclear weapons rests solely with the President. Don't create that which doesn't exist. If the AEAO received confirmation of the President's death, other procedures consistent with the Constitution would be employed.
FylthyBeest 2 days ago
@FylthyBeest What exactly are those procedures?
CatalinElton 1 day ago
@CatalinElton My "assessment" was not "based on "by the book" scenarios". I opined based on the fact that a "bolt-out-of-the-blue" scenario was a realistically possible scenario and one that had to be anticipated. Again, you distort what was stated.
FylthyBeest 2 days ago
@FylthyBeest Secretary Defense Schlesinger himself said in the video: We must not even leave the Russians with the impression that we are going to "ride out an attack"
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that practical reality and official position do not always match. But not everything is official. Secret provisions are always in place. I was just speculating on which those might be.
CatalinElton 2 days ago
@CatalinElton After all why just keep your ICBMs in the silo to be destroyed by what you absolutely know is a geniune attack, which has already presumably destroyed the capital?
CatalinElton 2 days ago
@FylthyBeest All this discussion is also based on the context of SLBMs being inaccurate. Nowadays the Trident II can destroy ICBM silos in Russia even if all the Minutemen silos were gone.
CatalinElton 2 days ago
@CatalinElton The chance of a "surpise", as you call it, was not calculated or assessed to be "zero", at least during the late 1970s and early 1980s. This type of attack was anticipated in a "bolt-out-of-the-blue scenario" and retaliatory consequential scenarios were developed and practiced. Try reading a book or two.
FylthyBeest 2 days ago
5:43 Let's make our bomber crews run across loose gravel stones so they can fall and break a bone before emergency deployment.
wvd1979 6 days ago
Confidence is high Confidence is high that we are all fucked!!!!
MrROTD 1 week ago in playlist More videos from filmsouth
5:15
I like to take this moment to salute all the fighting men and women and some transgender that protect us from the useless garage and pay for the gay crap in europe . . . thank you.
lazyfreedom98 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
lazyfreedom98 2 weeks ago
Do they still make Tab Cola?
BADDOOKUS 2 weeks ago
Oh...lol..nevermind..should have waited for the credits! LOL!
kidnotorious2001 3 weeks ago
I believe alot of the scenes in this movie were also included in the classic "The day after".
kidnotorious2001 3 weeks ago
Bad day much?
gurusurfers 3 weeks ago
Does anyone know? If during Vietnam, did any American forces, ever engage DDR Germans at any point? via a possible exchange programs between war saw pact forces?
RFKFANTS67 4 weeks ago
As a cold war teen, I miss those days compared to todays war on Terrorism, Can't tell an enemy who looks like you and I, and wears no uniform! and the DDR or East German Uniforms looked great in that tradtional Prussian style.
RFKFANTS67 4 weeks ago
Every time some generous person uploads a period military piece to YouTube, it only takes about 30 minutes for the anti-US bagging to start and the pro-US arguments to counter them.
Thanks for the upload! Interesting military scenario film made during the Cold War.
AFTrash 1 month ago
Comment removed
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
I gotta hand it Reagan's tough policy against the Russians. After Carter's weak-handed policies. I'm sure it was like getting hit by a sledgehammer.
SauceMonster82 1 month ago
@SauceMonster82 by weak handed, you must mean...non agressive???
McPuffins509 4 weeks ago
Many thanks for uploading this.
cmciaranmasterson 1 month ago
@vindicari Not sure if trolling or just incredibly stupid.
SauceMonster82 1 month ago
@SauceMonster82 He is incredibly stupid, bigoted, anti-American, and completely ignorant of the country that allied with his.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
I also like the creepy synth music in this. It reminds me alot of Tangerine Dream. Wonder if the composer had them in mind?
mattsieluv 1 month ago
My favourite parts here are the of the "D" BUFF`s at March and the alert crews rushing to them, and the KC-135`s. There`s also a clip posted here recently of another alert scramble at March from 1968 using "E" models, mostly with the pre-camofluage paint scheme, but with the same wailing J57`s. Great footage.
mattsieluv 1 month ago
In 1979 the president is forced to just give up and order cease fire? Guess this video played well in Reagan's 1980 election campaign.
Showing Carter as cowardly and indecisive, it probably had a marginal effect in his victory over Carter
bmacleod52 1 month ago
@bmacleod52 It's amazing how many liberal, anti-President Reagan, anti-conservative morons jump in here to slam what filmsouth conveyed and at the same time, try to defend President Carter, one of the worst President's this country endured. No, this video did not play well into President Reagan's campaign as he did not rely on this well made and unrelated documentary that was largely shown on liberal PBS channels. If you think I'm brutal, you've heard nothing yet. Idiot.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@FylthyBeest I think Reagan was one of the our greatest presidents and yes Carter was one of our worst (if not the worst) presidents. My comment was to challenge the notion our president had no option but to surrender if we were hit with a pre-emptive strike....
bmacleod52 3 weeks ago
Are these scenes from the day after? why the putting scenes in from that movie?
sladerfoster 1 month ago
@sladerfoster No, these are not scenes shot for "The Day After". They are scenes shot specifically for this documentary, "First Strike". Many of these scenes were then later used in "The Day After". This documentary was made in 1979. "The Day After" was made several years later.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
No-one has ever attacked or invaded america. The american scaremongering has stirred mass panic amongst it's people's and murdered millions of innocent people in it's quest for oil and money. The sooner you people wake up and stop joining these military nazi's and stop invading other people, the safer this world is. America is the cause of the poverty and destruction of Earth. It's a fact their nuclear weapons were disarmed by 'alien' forces. This planet belongs to the people no the americans.
mrgoldfinder23 1 month ago
Comment removed
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
Comment removed
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
Comment removed
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@mrgoldfinder23 "No-one has ever attacked or invaded America"
What the fuck do you think "Pearl Harbor" was???? A birthday party????
Read a book!!!
nikemac84 4 weeks ago
@nikemac84 Hahah and The British invaded America in 1812 and burnt our White House and Capitol to the ground.
gayfarmerboy 2 weeks ago
@mrgoldfinder23 Pearl Harbor. The Japanese conquered and occupied 3 Alaskan Islands let alone the entirety of The Phillipinnes. One of our largest basest at the time. The British also invaded America in the war of 1812 and burnt our Capitol and The White House to the ground. In WW1 and WW2 there were foreign submarines operating off our shores. And whatever you were smoking when you came up with our nukes being disarmed by alien forces... I want some.
gayfarmerboy 2 weeks ago
ICBM's are the most horrible thing man has come up with.
creativeprojects720 1 month ago
that first statement in this movie is such a contradiction. Our security depends on these missiles, etc. yeah, right, everyone else has these missiles too, and that can make us all kill each other which is the opposite of security.
creativeprojects720 1 month ago
@creativeprojects720 Firstly, not "everyone else has these missiles too." There are only a limited number of countries with nuclear weapons and a smaller number yet with missiles that could carry these nuclear weapons over an intercontinental distance. Secondly, the threat of a nuclear response to a first stike and a subsequent mutually assured destruction did, in fact, ensure a degree of security. This security, though more uncertain since the reorganization of the Air Force, still exists.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@FylthyBeest well I was generalizing when I said "everyone". China has some serious ones (long distance). North korea has some, India possibly has some? Russia still has a lot (long distance) , and the united states has a lot. (long distance) As far as I have heard the usa and russia have reduced their missiles down to about 1000 , in each country (usa and russia).
creativeprojects720 1 month ago
@creativeprojects720 well I think a better idea than a retaliation, would be a way to shoot them down in the air. I think the usa had a program of missiles that did this at one time or still does, but maybe it's success rate is low. Anyway, it's a tricky subject in my view.
creativeprojects720 1 month ago
@FylthyBeest How was the air force reorganized, or when?
creativeprojects720 1 month ago
Vindicari, just to be clear, would be the primary abomination to which I was referring in my previous post. Funny how Failsafe came up. I happen to be putting it in my DVD player right now..and I assure you in the strongest possible terms Vindicari..I AM stating the facts. HooshlsASoup -- some of the people that drop by here amaze me; they actually believe what they're saying! I know of -one- banned short movie BBC's "The War Game" (I believe thats the title) They eventually ran it anyway :-)
ChristopherSaindon 1 month ago in playlist Looking Glass
If the urban population is attacked then why cease fire? If only to build up enough internal resources so as not to mix blood during the battle resulting in a new country/way of life being formation. As it appears the USA has been invaded at every entry point and the heads are taken. For those still alive in soul, you are the true America. The media is being used to attack the urban population right now. Certain patterns are seen through media that guide to emotionalism and deny discernment.
Nueroactive 1 month ago
What happens to the ICBM crew after they launched their missiles? I heard that one crew had to wait until all missiles were launched then they had to dig themselves out and then walk to the National Guard base in Helena, Montana over 200 miles away.
MrBennetzen 1 month ago
@MrBennetzen And, when did this happen? Interesting.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@MrBennetzen I'm still awaiting your answer. When did one of our missile crews launch the missiles under their control, dig themselves out of their Launch Control Center/Launch Control Facility (LCC/LCF)? What National Guard base (or was it a post) did they walk to? Did they stop anywhere to eat? This is most enlightening.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@FylthyBeest These were orders from their commander. What they had to do was walk 200 miles in radioactive debris from there silo to the National Guard base assuming they didn't get blown up in their silos. The missile crews thought of this as a joke because they knew they were going to be dead within an hour. No missiles were fired in anger. There would be no point in stopping anywhere to eat after the missiles were launched because all the eateries would be blasted and everyone would be dead.
MrBennetzen 1 month ago
With the way things are going with Russia and Iran..it could only be a matter of time before this is real..
journeystarr 1 month ago
cease fire? must haver been a bleeding-heart liberal democrat as president
bobbyeph 1 month ago
@bobbyeph When this documentary was made, President Carter was the Commander in Chief. Big surprise, huh?
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
I want all to know that I truly appreciate commentary from ChristopherSaindon, HooshisASoup, and other well-meaning patriots who truly understand what the United States has contributed to our world.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@FylthyBeest Thank you sir. And I see someone emptied the comment "trash" all over one of the best YouTube video/comments pages on the Internet. I appreciate you too, and as I have said in the past, you've taught me more than I could have ever hoped for in a formal education setting. These people, devoid of respect, careless -- reckless -- with their poorly-reasoned "facts" and ramblings are abominations in the company of the good people that contribute thoughtfully to this ongoing discussion.
ChristopherSaindon 1 month ago
@ChristopherSaindon You're quite welcome. After reading the exchanges with our "confused" Western European "friend", I'm sure you saw why I responded as I did. I was appalled that a countryman of one of our staunchest allies would besmirch the United States as he did. He not only insulted us, he insulted his own countrymen. They are able to say "Long live the Queen" because we worked together. Unfortunately, even some in the US don't understand the importance.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
We need to launch missiles at the band Nickelback!
BubbaBodecker 2 months ago
Clips from this 1979 documentary was used in MGM 1983 film "The Day After"; of which were probably the best action scenes in the movie. The "The Day After" movie portrayed the realistic event of a nuclear war, but had multiple story lines of different families and persons. The actors: Jason Robards, Steven Gutttenberg, JoBeth Williams and John Lithgow. I would highly recommend it; if you can find a copy to rent or buy.
yhenry77 2 months ago
@yhenry77 You know what I found to be even better than "The Day After" was the ABC special the night of the broadcast. Panel of guests were Dr. Henry Kissinger, Carl Sagan, Brent Scowcroft, William F. Buckley, Jr., Elie Wiesel, and Robert McNamara. Remarkable and very different views of where we would end up, the attitude of the USSR, the danger of over-hyping one side or the other's ABM capability (which could send a message to the other side that perhaps the MAD scale was unbalanced), etc.
ChristopherSaindon 2 months ago
@yhenry77 And thanks for the post. The DVD of "The Day After" can be found "new" for a very low price on Amazon, EBay sometimes, other online sites. It is certainly worth watching. Other excellent movies are World War III with David Seoul (a wild and unique storyline where you'll learn about desant war tactics, the"Buzzsaw" defense strategy when heavily outnumbered in a fixed-defensive position, and more..), "By Dawn's Early Light," old but entertaining "Failsafe," and "Threads."
ChristopherSaindon 2 months ago
@yhenry77 Excellent and correct.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
@yhenry77 I have it on vhs, First strike has more footage then THe Day after which seem to have alot of segments cut out:{
RFKFANTS67 2 months ago
@RFKFANTS67 That's because "The Day After", a made-for-TV movie, used footage from "First Strike", a documentary.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
consider America's biggest industry is weapons manufacture and sales, the need for war is an economic necessity ergo we invent enemies and exaggerate petty disputes which are none of our business to create the need for weapons which we sell.
vindicari 2 months ago
@vindicari Grow up, moron. Get an education. Slam your own country.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FylthyBeest Jeez are all Americans rednecks, go sit on the porch and pick your banjo
vindicari 2 months ago
@vindicari An all encompassing statement. You just categorized all Americans. Moron. Why don't you do what you probably do best? Go sit on a shipping crate and pick your nose? It was our all-American redneck ancestors who kept you from speaking German. And why don't you try going back to school and learning to pronunicate? I agree completely with HoohlsASoup. You are an ignorant asshole. I suspect you're quite uneducated. You're obviously uninformed. How dare you attack Americans?
FylthyBeest 2 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FylthyBeest just who are Americans? the indigenous population of the country were the indians, you are certainly not american (unless you are an indian) america was stolen from the owners by white trash, the dregs of european society, outcasts, in a nutshell, immigrants. who gave america to the white settlers? America will be sucking up to Brazil very soon since the discovery of the biggest oilfield on the planet.
vindicari 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@vindicari watch an old movie which was banned by american paranoia but is now available. Fail Safe.
vindicari 2 months ago
@vindicari is it available on youtube, without being broken into segments?
RFKFANTS67 2 months ago
@RFKFANTS67 Contrary to vindican's comment, "Fail Safe" was never banned in the United States, and certainly not "banned by American paranoia" as he claims.
The United States has no federal agency charged with either permitting or restricting the exhibition of motion pictures.
HooshIsASoup 2 months ago 12
@vindicari Funny how you sneer at Americans for "not being American" when Brazilians are exactly the same. Just how much of Brazil's population can claim Amerindian heritage compared to that of American society? A mere fraction.
I love how you claim "Fail Safe" was "banned by American paranoia." That movie was NEVER banned in the United States, you ignorant asshole. You must be delusional if you think you "merely state the facts" with bullshit lies like that.
HooshIsASoup 2 months ago 21
Comment removed
bettafishsteven 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vindicari Again, I'm going to agree with HooshisASoup. You now clearly believe you're an expert on American history and South American Politics and Economics. No one here insulted your country or countrymen. Yet, you believe you have a right to insult Americans stating our ancestors were white trash. You are a bigot of the first order and an extraordinary asshole. You, are an uninformed bigot.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago 2
@vindicari No more anti-American comments, Stupid? Of all that I've read on social networking sites, your comments are probably the most vile. I hope you crawl back under your moss covered rock and hibernate for an eternity. You are repulsive. I would say you're pathetic but, I don't pity you. You're without use. How does it feel to be worthless? Don't answer shit box. I really don't want to know. Enjoy your miserable, useless existence, bigot.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FylthyBeest forget about it, in the words of paul simon, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. we all have truths, you may not like mine, i may not like your's. but that is democracy.
vindicari 1 month ago
@vindicari "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Gee, that sounds like you, with the lies you've claimed are "truth," like your sneering claim that "Fail Safe" was banned in the United States.
You're a disgusting hypocrite.
HooshIsASoup 1 month ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@FylthyBeest jeez you yanks hate the truth
vindicari 1 month ago
@vindicari And again you stereotype and categorize all Americans (shove your "yanks" comment where the sun doesn't shine, asswipe) with one all encompassing comment. You're many times worse than just a disgusting hypocrite. As far as I'm concerned, you are without worth. Bigot.
FylthyBeest 1 month ago
@vindicari What "truth?" All I see is a brainless bigot (you) spewing bald-faced, hatemongering lies that anyone could expose with a little fact-checking.
ShiggityBlam 1 month ago 2
war mongering at it's best
vindicari 2 months ago
@vindicari You're rather prejudiced, aren't you? This documentary was produced during the "Second Cold War" when the Soviets were behaving much more aggressively. It reflects the state of the world at that time.
Of course, none of that would matter to an ignorant asshole like you who views Americans as barbaric savages that rely only on "weapons manufacture and sales."
HooshIsASoup 2 months ago 3
@HooshIsASoup Well said! Thank you.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@HooshIsASoup where did I say Americans were barbaric savages? i merely state facts.
vindicari 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vindicari Look at what you said to FylthyBeest. "Jeez are all Americans rednecks, go sit on the porch and pick your banjo"
Done shooting yourself in the foot yet?
HooshIsASoup 2 months ago 3
even with only 10 or 15 ballistic missile subs and a handful of ICBMs left, we could take down any country in the world.
thevansmack 2 months ago
This is very unrealistic, those b52s would have been off the ground in about 10 minutes and the ICBMs would have been out of the ground in about 2 and submarine missiles would been out of the subs in about 5
complainer46 2 months ago
@complainer46 Cite your references. Where do you get your facts, particularly considering this is a 1979 documentary? Alert aircraft and missiles would launch, if capable, within allowable time periods (albeit quick)only after receiving positive control launch (aircraft) or valid execution (aircraft/missile) instructions. Cite your facts. Oops. You have none to cite.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
@FylthyBeest well they are called MINUTEman missiles for a reason...subs can't be to much longer and b52's was a complete guess but under those conditions i can imagine them moving rather quickly
complainer46 2 months ago
@complainer46 Are you a child? Again, you cited no references to your incredulous statements passed off as fact. Read your history and use your brain. Assemble some facts. I believe you're a patriot. But, use factual data to announce opinion.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
The footage from 4:16 to 4:39 is noted as NORAD but is actually the old SAC Underground Command Center.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
I wish PAVE PAWS was hiring :-)
ChristopherSaindon 2 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon Why is that?
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
@FylthyBeest Just thinking out loud I suppose. I would love that responsibility..that awesome responsibility as I believe I would have served the country well. Looking for work in 2011 with bleak prospects it's probably a futile reflex comment I made. I do however stand by it. If I could participate in any way at a facility like Pave Paws, NORAD, etc.. I would clean computer screens and desks to make a living if it came to that. Have a great Thanksgiving my friend.
ChristopherSaindon 2 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon I don't believe it's a "futile reflex comment" at all. I believe it's a response rooted in patriotism. You have a great Thanksgiving as well.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
@FylthyBeest Thank you sir.
ChristopherSaindon 2 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon You're quite welcome, Patriot.
FylthyBeest 2 months ago
I had a question regarding the Air Force and Navy: Were the 2 different branches involved in healthy competition or was the relationship, at least at times, better classified as adversarial? I understand General E. LeMay was often a difficult man to deal with (as an example) but with my strict standards demanding a high level of respect regardless of what I initially hear I wanted to ask this on this specific site before forming any conclusions. Thanks as always!
ChristopherSaindon 2 months ago
Does anyone know if "desant" units existed in the US Armed Forces? Would this be another element of what would fall under the definition of a mission for the Navy SEALS? I also -- on another subject -- would urge anyone interested in Cold War history to read about the Texas Tower Tragedy (recommended to me on this site by FylthyBeest). You just can't find a limit to the sacrifice and dedication of some Americans. I spent several hours reading about this and it was worth every second!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon or it could also be a mission for what is called Combat Applications Group (the president's own personal, private army) aka `Delta Force' .
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@sr71ablackbird Did the Russian's ever take a shot at the Blackbird? They had to KNOW about it, I have just never heard of a verified attempt to bring one down...did they have a SAM that could even reach it?
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon Chris, you're an intelligent man. Please, don't allow his moniker to deceive you. Nor does the President have a "personal, private army".
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest yes, he does, it's called the Combat Applications Group. The president can send them anywhere he wants. Those are just facts stated from a former C.A.G. member.
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest I was just trying to be polite. The personal private army about which he spoke was either bogus talk from someone trying to sound important, or the massive "SUV" that the counter-terror guys ride in during motorcade trips. I thought some common question about the Blackbird would flush him out. Most SR71 enthusiasts know everything possible and allowed. It's my Father's favorite plane next to the B52 (taught me about these before I was 8). Thanks Fylthybeest. Have a good day sir!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon what other questions ? the equipment on it do you want to know about? the Synthetic appeature radar ?, the technical objective cameras ?, the JP-7 fuel that it takes which is so cold that one could pour it into a bucket & just toss a match into it to put the match out ? which also serves as the aircraft's coolant & it's center of gravity ? Or the catylist it takes from the `start-cart' called Tri-Ethyl Borane that is need to start it ? or how the jet shifts it's cycle from
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon Understood. I hope his 27-year old Kodak Instamatic pictures can be developed. By the way, if you were unable to find anything regarding the TCHC, that would be my mistake. That term was not necessarily used by AT&T. They more often referred to the TCHC as L-3 and L-4, etc. The underground cables traversed the US connecting critcal locations. Other locations were tied in by their microwave repeater system using massive towers such as the one located in Lyons, Nebraska.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest Found 2 well-run archives on-line incl. both the Texas Towers and AT&T, TCHC, etc.. also something on "REL 2600 Troposcatter Radio Equipment" (AT&T also). Sure is fun research sir.
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherSaindon Yes, it is. Cold War history is certainly more interesting than many would guess. On a different note, I'm not too sure I understood the recent barrage you received. That was quite unexpected.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon turbojet to ramjet once it reaches 1,600 MPH ? or what about the 160,00 shaft hp that it has ? or better yet, how about HABU ? are those common enough for you or have you never heard about that before?
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@sr71ablackbird No my SR71question was just whether or not one was ever in danger of being attacked by surface-to-air missile fire or fighter jets. The "desant" unit question was really critical but I have found an excellent archive of documents entitled "Desant War Fighting."
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon or that Beale was the home 1 srs 9 srw of SAC, end of 80s, 8 crews 6 active craft - 3 @ Beale , 1 @ detachment 1 kadena ab at okinawa, 2 @ detachment 4 @ RAF Mildenhol in suffolk, eng. and that 1 of the aircraft was kept at 'ready' status at all times ?
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon in theory they would by flying a mig-25 foxbat which can fly a mach 3.2 (it would be a short flight because after that the engines must be changed) , but it never happened, due to Russia's primitive technology, however, North Korea did shoot at it.
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
I like documentary productions in general, not movies, but the movie "World War III" (Rock Hudson, David Seoul) is quite an interesting one. I am not entirely sure that a Soviet "desant" unit holding a portion of the Pipeline hostage for the resumption of grain shipments would lead so swiftly to a nuclear war. If hardliners in the USSR wrestled control of Soviet nuclear forces I doubt they spend the time setting-up a scenario so relativelty insignificant. VERY entertaining movie however!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
I always thought that this was a terrible film because the authors have no idea, no true concept of the depth of defense that exists. They sit in their Hollywood homes and made these scare films that, if you knew the truth, would make you laugh.
ddd1953 3 months ago
@ddd1953 The "Surrender or face Obliteration" part is when this went off the rails for me; I just don't have the DNA to process and accept that, and I am quite certain that I am not the only one. I just race by that part (and the audio of "cease fire") with the time/progress bar and enjoy watching these exceptional men and women carry out their mission :-)
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ddd1953 I do not agree with your assertion that "they sit in their Hollywood homes and made these scare films . . . " where this documentary is concerned. The producer and his crew spent much time on location filming simulations approved by military leaders. The interior shots of the EC-135C "Looking Glass" and the crewmembers filmed are real. The SAC leaders who approved this filming would not have done so if it belied SAC's important defensive role. And, the producer was quite educated.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
Sir, I have spent the last 5 hours reading about Texas Tower 4. 28 good American's who decicated, and ultimately gave, their lives to providing us a few extra minutes of warning. Profoundly sad indeed, but I am not at all surprised they remained in place despite the numerous indications of the progressive and extremely dangerous failure of the support structure.
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon Thank you for researching. I believe the collapse of Texas Tower 4 resulting in the loss of 28 great Americans is one of the saddest and most overlooked tragedies of the Cold War. The more one searches, the more one finds. Other Texas Tower airman suffered of remorse for years. Those assigned to the Navy vessels attempting to rescue the airmen before the collapse and then searching for them were forlorned. Courts Martials followed. A documentary is on YouTube.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon The Texas Towers were so unusual that ocean liner captains diverted so the passengers could see them. Imagine enlisting in the Air Force believing you would be involved with aeronautics and finding yourself assigned to a platform mounted on stilts 90 feet above the Atlantic ocean with no sight of land. Some surmise that most of the 28 who perished were on deck in that hellish storm clearing the deck for a rescue helicopter that would never arrive.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon I did not intend to disregard your kind words about these men. You too found the entire situation troubling. An amazing time and situation.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest It was sir. But I am glad you told me about it. I'll be moving on to the other items later today and definately through the weekend. Thank you for all the suggestions for additional research sir. You've been such a good friend to me!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
..the TCHC and the other items you have mentioned. Finally, just so you know (I believe you do), the respect and admiration I have for everyone with whom you served will ALWAYS be there, will remain as I share it with my children, Nephew's and Niece, and includes and has always included you personally sir. Thank you again for the new material, and have a great morning! :-)
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
My favourite part here is the BUFF/KC scramble at March. Wished they had shown the smoky cart-starts. And we don`t really hear it, but the noise must have been defeaning, especially with those old J57`s. I once got to watch a "G" version start-up(using the power cart) which was loud, and that was only one! Imagine the noise here with all nine planes running!
mattsieluv 3 months ago
@mattsieluv I enjoyed cartridge starts with 135s but not B-52s. I envy you.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest Actually, the "G" BUFF I watched start up, at K.I. Saywer, used the external power cart. That`s what I meant by that. I was hoping it would taxi and take-off, but they then shut it down. It was only doing an engine run-up it turned out. Still I`ve never heard a sound quite like that at any airbase or civil airport I`ve been to before or since.
mattsieluv 3 months ago
@mattsieluv speaking of K.I. Sawyer , i was just wondering if you knew if the AFB was still operational ? I guess that they decommissioned Wurtsmith in Oscoda a while back.
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@sr71ablackbird No, K.I. was closed in 1995, Wurtsmith two years before. Two of several affected by Clinton`s cutbacks. It was inevitable though after the Cold War was over. I first visited K.I. in 1989 and returned in 2007 and again in 2010. It`s a civilian airport now and some businesses occupy a few of the old buidings, but alot of it is a ghost town. There is still a "D" BUFF on display there.
mattsieluv 3 months ago
@mattsieluv k, thanks. I didn't know for sure. I did manage to go to Wurtsmith back in the early 80s where they had BUFFs and KC-135s up there, no pics of the aircraft were allowed. It had a some lake across from it, but the mess hall there (more like a classy, fancy restaurant) recessed lighting, a plush blue carpet and believe it or not some pretty awesome food. it beat the powered eggs up at Phelps-Collins ANGB, but those weren't all that bad up there either when given what they had.
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@sr71ablackbird I took several pics at K.I. Saywer during my first visit, including inside the KC-135 we were allowed to go on. They never said anything so I assume it was all right, but we were not taken anywhere near the alert facility or the storage area where they kept the nukes.
mattsieluv 3 months ago
@mattsieluv yes, the would allow just about anyone to look inside a KC-135, the flight crew at Wurtsmith said that it was about the only `job' one could lay down on' ...lol.. but as for the B-52s, it was a different story all together. A group of which I used to be in called Civil Air Patrol, (an auxiliary of the U.S. A. F.) , we could see what was under the nosecone of a B-52, but no pictures of it, they had a demonstration of the alert team, & it only took 2 minutes if that, to fully load it.
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@sr71ablackbird I seriously doubt that the "flight crew at Wurtsmith said that it was about the only 'job' one could lay down on". Specifically, if anyone said this, it was a boom operator. The boomer is one member of a four-person crew. I'm sure this is what you meant.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest No, the captain there actually said that about laying in the pod of the refueling boom and yes, that is what i meant, nonetheless though he did say that...lol... I have to get the pictures there that i was able to take developed. I took them back in 1984 with a kodak instamatic 110 that my mother got for me. I have to send the pics to develop. Also got to go up in the ATC, they believe in exercise, 40 flights of stairs and NO elevator...lol..
sr71ablackbird 3 months ago
@mattsieluv You're correct that K I Sawyer was identified by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) 1993 during President Clinton's administration. But Wurtsmith was identified by BRAC 91 during President George H W Bush's administration. I also agree with you that closures were inevitable. And, regardless of who or what party was in charge of the administration at those times.
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest I did read that later about Wurtsmith. Bush had already made some cutbacks, then Clinton sped it up. The main base featured here, March, was another victim. Reduced to an Air Reserve Base in 1996. Beale though still remains an active base, and the PAVE PAWS there is still in operation.
mattsieluv 3 months ago
I have always found the Soviet bomber to be something of a joke. The old film that shows the "Bison" lumbering through the air -- it's almost funny to think of one of those with a pack of F16s swarming around it (they would almost have to stall to slow down enough to shoot it :-) No doubt the USSR had an unbelievably destructive attack OPTION, and they were wise enough to NEVER even think about it; if you attack the USA with nuclear weapons you only get 1 mistake -- and it will be your last!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
It's a ghastly shame that (some) of our best aircrews in this scenario were wiped on the ground by such a concentration of Soviet boomers.........Lets all hope that we never allow "boomer bastions" near our shores or this movie becomes REALITY.
rattinox 3 months ago
Out of curiosity, isn't a single surviving nuclear submarine (SSBN) enough to wreck all the major cities of a country, assuming it used Trident MIRVS? Today, a single one can hit half the planet with 24 SLBMs containing more than 240 warheads, but the technology probably wasn't quite as good back then.
CobaltX07 3 months ago
@CobaltX07 If you think about it, even just one single warhead can devastate a large country if hit in the right place
Storm7289 3 months ago
@Storm7289 That is true, a nuke in the right spot, particularly a country's central financial sector, can cripple it. If detonated high enough, it can also be used as an EMP.
CobaltX07 3 months ago
@CobaltX07 very true, a nuclear device would not even have to cause any physcial damage to inflict tremendous loss. imagine what an emp would do to a mega city. some of that emp damage is also irreversible
Storm7289 3 months ago
Skynet was behind everything...
PsychotronicWar 3 months ago
Ancient history by now...
BTW: no way in hell would most of the SSBNs be lost... and knocking out almost 1,000 US ICBMs would have required a blizzard of Soviet ICBMs... given the incoming threat would POTUS have waited to counter launch? Maybe... but again, more than enough counterforce existed in the SSBNs.
And any US stand down after that attack would be as likely as the US suing for peace with Imperial Japan 10 minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor... no way in hell!
PaulFarace 3 months ago 2
@PaulFarace Not as dated as you may think. What you estimate it may have taken to disable most of the SSBNs and 1,000 ICBMs is arguable. One must consider that this documentary posed a "bolt-out-of-the-blue" scenario. One must also consider factors such as fratricide and phenomena such as electro-magnetic pulse and spacecraft charging. "Would POTUS have waited . . . ?" Carter may have. It's during his administration when this documentary was made. Would Carter have stood down? Who knows?
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@PaulFarace I agree :-) I was disturbed by this when I first saw it (actually was going out of my mind pounding my fist like Kruschev banged his shoe) but someone I consider now to be a good friend of mine (posts here often) explained the real point being made here and assured me that my current knowledge of what we have had in place before, during, and most importantly after this is absolutely solid. The professionalism that shines so brightly from these fine men in First Strike is AWESOME too!
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@PaulFarace FylthyBeest5 -- to say that he "knows his stuff" would be something of a monumental understatement :-) BTW..I have wondered what President Carter would have done during many sleepless nights. I BELIEVE (hope) that he would have reacted slowly but eventually would have ordered a counterstrike. But I just don't know :-( I don't like to speak disrespectfully of ANY President incl. the ones I felt were weak, but President Carter worried me even at my young age during his term.
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon You flatter me. I don't deserve it but, I do appreciate the thoughts. I was fortunate enough to have flown with others on a command and control platform that allowed us an insight not afforded those we served. That good fortune taught me much. Who but President Carter would truly know how he would have reacted? But, we heard many times, that President Carter's intent was never to launch under warning. Reportedly, he would retaliate only when the US was struck. (1 of ?)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon (2 of ?) A crucial problem with the President taking the "first laydown" of nuclear weapons, if what we heard was truly his intent, is that proper reaction time would be negated. If we suffered a nuclear laydown with associated electro-magnetic pulse effects, effects that no science has been able to substantially analyze, would the US be able to respond, particularly in that time period? He may not have had sufficient "decision time remaining" to execute. (2 of ?)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon (3 of ?) Would disregard of decsion time remaining (DTR) eliminate any possibility of responding? Would responding under warning only and without having suffered a nuclear strike run the risk of wrongy retaliating because of faulty warning? Who knows? Was President Carter misguided or a genius? Maybe both. Maybe neither. Chris, some may respond to this post claiming that EMP would definitely prevent an appropriate response. (3 of ?)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon (4 of ?) Some may claim that command control communications systems at that time were adequately protected. Who knows? Some will claim that they do know. Here's a fact. The only above ground atomic/nuclear blasts conducted over populated areas were over two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. Though there are reports of a resulting phenomena later named EMP, no one at that time anticipated such a phenomenon nor did they have the science to study it. (4 of ?)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon (5 of ?) Does one trust the many warning systems and launch based on systems warnings and the human interpretations or does one wait for verification that millions of Americans were incinerated? I personally would react to the former and not take the chance on the latter. But, I am not the President. Nor would I want that particular responsibility. Do I believe President Carter was intelligent? Absolutely. Do I believe he was a good leader? Absolutely not. (5 of ?)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon (6 of ?) Chris, I appreciate greatly your admiration for those with whom I had the pleasure to serve. I respect your appreciation for all our warriors including our "cold" warriors. I ask you to take the time to research fallen cold warriors such as the very courageous 28 men who gave their lives the night of January 15, 1961, when their early warning platform, Texas Tower 4, collapsed into a cold, stormy Atlantic Ocean. As a meteoroglist, this may interest you. (6 of ?)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@ChristopherSaindon (7 of 7) Chris, as a cold war scholar, you will find the story of the Texas Towers fascinating. And sad. Also, look into those very brave civilian cold warriors who served with AT&T's historic Long Lines Division and manned the many communications centers that supported the long lines including the Transcontinental Hardened Cable (TCHC). And, research the Cable Ship Long Lines. Fascinating. Many cold warriors gave their lives in reconnaissance. All heroic. (7 of 7)
FylthyBeest 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest I will begin reading about these different events immediately sir. And I thank you for providing SO many opportunities for my knowledge and love of this subject to grow and expand. I am extremely disappointed in, on yet another level, President Carter's "tiers of weakness" that seem to grow higher and higher as I age. (Continued)
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest I have heard about, and read about, his policy that basically made the obliteration of America's military sites, cities, and (her most important and irreplaceable component) citizens -- and I must confess that I had always held out a small amount of hope that this -- in my opinion ABOMINATION of a "policy" was meant to convey a "disarming tone" more than anything else. (Continued)
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago
@FylthyBeest You have verified what I always feared: that President Carter (again affording him still my requisite level of understood respect for the office he held) was not only an extremely disappointing Leader in almost all respects, but was indeed so weak (against even the most modest benchmarks that can be applied) with respect to a response to a first strike attempt by the USSR that it put this greatest country on God's earth in extreme danger; unacceptable and unforgivable. (Continued)
ChristopherSaindon 3 months ago