First Strike (Part 1)

The US bomber force is destroyed on the ground and the Minuteman missiles in their silos in this highly realistic dramatization filmed with the unprecedented cooperation of the US Air Force. The people shown are the actual men and women of the US Air Force and Navy who would have been targeted.

This is a short version of the scenaio used in the 1979 documentary film, FIRST STRIKE, which examined how the Soviet SS-18 missile force together with submarine launched missiles might be used to destroy our strategic forces in a surprise, preemptive attack.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• First
• Strike
• nuclear
• missile
• Soviet
• surprise
• attack
• United
• States
• bomber
• ICBM
• strategic
• vulnerability

[HooshIsASoup]

@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.

[ShiggityBlam]

@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.

[FylthyBeest]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@FylthyBeest What exactly are those procedures?

[FylthyBeest]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.