Why Giving Away the Nuclear Launch Response Time Was a Fatal Mistake

Why Giving Away the Nuclear Launch Response Time Was a Fatal Mistake

Guest Editorial by Anon

I really can’t believe I have to write this but some people just don’t seem to understand why Hillary Clinton just made a critical error that shouldn’t just cost her the election, but also her freedom. She needs to be in jail, right this minute and needs to get interrogated by intelligence specialists to determine the reason why she did what she did. We assume it’s because she’s a senile psychopath who doesn’t care at all about our safety, but with a “mistake” of this magnitude, you just can’t be sure.

Hillary Clinton gave away one of the most closely guarded secrets during her final presidential debate with Donald Trump hosted by Chris Wallace. The time it takes from receiving the order from the leader of the western alliance to launch nuclear weapons, to actually launching these said weapons, is now known to be four minutes. Hoaxing sites such as Snopes will have you believe that she instead meant that it takes four minutes to decide to launch the weapons. That is clearly not what she stated here:

Snopes is clearly lying about what Hillary gave away.

Let’s get two thing clear. Firstly, unlike Clinton’s usual slimey demeanour, there is absolutely no sign that she is lying in anyway when she stated this. She honestly meant what she said, there is no way to interpret it in any other way, for example a PSYOP to make the enemy believe that it is in fact four minutes. So let us not speculate on the true message being sent. Secondly, there is no reason to believe that she is in fact misinformed about this. She has worked in the state department and was the first lady to Bill Clinton where she likely ran the show, in any case. Thus, while responsible generals like General Michael Flynn will neither confirm or deny this information, it’s not likely that it is incorrect.

So where does that leave us? In a very desperate situation.

Let’s go through this quickly so that the depth of her mistake can become clear to everyone. In game theory, the less your enemy knows about your plan and the more you know about their plan, the more likely you are to arrive at your win scenario. You can also confuse the enemy, giving them false information, resulting in either a relaxed (greedy) strategy or a tighter over-commitment based on what you want them to do. Thus, a solid strategy is to often give out hints, speculations and easily denied information that will confuse your enemy and allow you to change their strategy as it suits you.

However, if your strategy is completely known to the enemy and you only have their hints to work from, you are royally screwed. Not only do you lose the ability to change your enemy’s strategy, they will optimise their own and may even force you to change your strategy based on their own misinformation. It’s the poker equivalent of showing your hand before anyone has even put their chips on the table.

Now you may be thinking “one bit of information doesn’t give away the strategy”. There you are in fact, absolutely wrong. Nuclear war is, at it’s core, much simpler than any other form of warfare, and it’s for this reason that it is very dangerous. When you have reached a nuclear triad, modern nuclear warfare has four basic elements: response time, number of delivery vehicles or bombs in the first wave, target selection (counter force or counter value) and counter-measures (including anti-ballistic missile defences and underground bunkers).

It may seem silly that the most advanced strategic weapons are pre-loaded with only two plans (A and B), but when response times are so short, complex orders will only hinder the overall strategy. Tactical delivery units such as the B61–12 are exempt from this limitation.

We’ll go through these one by one to make everything clear, starting withtarget selection. The main adversaries of the west are China and Russia, so they can work backwards to figure out the most likely strategy in both their cases. For Russia, counter-force, the prioritisation of targeting their launch vehicles, is the most likely strategy as they have the greatest number and can deal the most damage in a first strike. For China, counter-value, the prioritisation of targeting their cities and civilian infrastructure, is far more likely in order to have them sustain strategic damage. Russia’s high density population centres are concentrated in its western regions and require no prioritisation.

Number of delivery vehicles is bound by treaty and both sides regularly monitor the other’s. It’s also very easy to infer from satellite data, including worst case scenarios of a full deck of nuclear cruise missiles on nearby destroyers. There’s little means to hide this information without making the weapons unusable in a first strike, i.e you can hide them, but they won’t be ready to fire in time.

Now about counter-measures. Unfortunately, Hillary gave that away tooand in any case, China and Russia have only been developing their advantage in this field the past decade. There’s little room for manoeuvring here. The US is behind and attempting to catch up in a catastrophic way.

What does that leave us with? Response time. That’s all there was, everything else has already been accounted for. Knowing the US response time, China can now change their active number of vehicles to account for the response time. They may change their procedures to match or exceed the US’s. In Russia’s case they may keep their automatic retaliation“doomsday machine” active all the time, effectively giving them an instance response time to any first strike.

More frighteningly, both countries may move to a first strike policy in order to make up for any potential lost time due to counter-measures. In the end, the number of delivery vehicles you can target your enemy with before they destroy your weapon caches, determines whether you win or lose. This is why response time is such a critical parameter in nuclear war and Hillary gave it away.

Lock her up and interrogate this psychopath.

Ethan Ralph

Founder, Owner, & Editor-in-Chief of TheRalphRetort.com. Political fiend, gamer, & anti-bullshit.

  • Flowey

    Why isn’t this bitch in jail? Is she actually trying to enact MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) just because she is about to lose an election? Someone shoot this bitch in the fucking head before she kills us all.

    • DisneyVillain

      I’m sure someone will hire a professional to take care of it.

    • d0x360

      Because this wasn’t a secret but she should be in jail for other things

  • Sta-au

    The response time isn’t common knowledge?

    • DV

      nope

      Edit…it is now. Thanks Hillary

      • d0x360

        Yea yes it is… It was on the history channel I’m trying to find the episode but it was there because I remember arguing about how that response time might be too quick if we are launching first.

        • Having publicly available approximations and speculations from journalists or academics is worlds apart from having a Special Access Protocol cleared head of state confirm the classified launch times for a fact.

          • d0x360

            It was stated as fact and it was the same number. The key guys said response time drills were about 4-6 min. That’s pretty official

  • Silence Dogood

    What a smug, overconfident, stupid and RECKLESS (hear that Comey?) bitch.

    • d0x360

      Yes unveiling info given out a few years back on the history channel…lock her up.

      Clinton is scum and should be in jail but not for this

  • d0x360

    Considering the Russians and Chinese already know our response times it’s not an issue. How do they know? It’s been on the damn history channel.

    Plus 4 min on 60+ year old equipment isnt bad and it’s probably faster than any other nation.

    The only way it could be faster is if once the president entered the codes they just fired but as is VERY common knowledge the commands go to 2 key holders who verify that information and then fire.

    Turn around time…4-6 min as told by the HISTORY CHANNEL in an episode on our military!!!!

    • An estimate on the history channel is not the same as confirmation from a high-security-clearance head of state. Military personnel being interviewed on this right now are refusing to confirm or deny the time she specified- that alone should tell you something.

    • SalsaMoose13

      Except on the History Channel, it was just SPECULATION. It was an estimate. It was never confirmed.

      “Intelligence experts, including the former Navy SEAL and a former senior intelligence official told Fox News that the mere fact the response time has been reported in academic documents does not authorize government officials who hold a security clearance, or had previous access to classified information, to discuss it publicly.

      “While the excuse has been given that there has been previous ‘talk’ in the media and in academia regarding the 4 minute response time, it was just that – talk – it was informed speculation or assumption – it was not confirmed or stated by any official U.S. government official or stated as policy,” Tony Shaffer, Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations at the London Center for Policy Research, told Fox News.”

      • Typically Deplorable

        True, even if classified info has been exposed, a person with a clearance is not supposed to talk about it. No confirm or deny, no speculating, nothing.

  • Maintenance Renegade

    Launch times or no the number of things that have come out and which continue to come out are starting to make me wonder how afraid she should probably be of a military coup if she happens to win regardless of whether the thing rigged or not.

    Sure the common jerkoff is kind of hosed in regards to dealing with a civilian government that’s corrupt from top to bottom no matter how completely he can prove it. However an organization comprised of hundreds of thousands of people the vast majority of which lean the opposite direction of that government politically and who are armed to the fucking teeth with every kind of war machine imaginable are held in check only by their oaths of service. Here’s the thing though, protecting the constitution comes before protecting the ruling government in that oath and is therefore what takes precedence in the scenario where the two become at odds.

    DISCLAIMER. I am not advocating or threatening anything. I am merely pointing out the historically provable peril an openly corrupt and ruined democracy generally faces from it’s own military forces.

  • poopface

    You should huff and puff and stomp around about it.

  • You know what was nice? Not being afraid of literal nuclear war with Russia. You know, that time before Hillary was running for president.

    That was a nice time.

    • Typically Deplorable

      I grew up in that time when we were afraid ever day, it’s not so bad, believe me.

  • Botiemaster

    I’m not sure it’s even worth discussing nuclear weapons. I don’t think two capable nuclear forces would ever dare use them against each other. You will know for a fact that the other will respond in kind. The only danger these kinds of weapons pose is being in the hands of radical islam who’s only difference between them and any and all other terrorists in existence is that the more ‘not muslim’ people they kill, the better. I wish I could say I am stretching the truth but I can’t. They would blow their nut juice all over each other if given the opportunity to use a nuclear weapon.

    I don’t care who you are in this world, get over yourself, and help ensure radical islam first and foremost is denied nuclear weapons. Then after that you can go back to your petty differences and daring the other guy to shoot first.

  • Typically Deplorable

    This beating the Russia war drum is just to try to turn a newly awakened nationalist population against the guy they’ve seen run his country by putting Russians first. Putin does what’s best for Russia, can’t have him giving the voters ideas about how politicians should act.

  • Screw Snopes. The Arkancide list is also a fake, according to them.