Did Bill Clinton Lose Nuclear Launch Code?

[steveox]

I am a little surprised that someone who purports to have an understanding of foreign policy issues would think the only manner in which the codes (and the man with the briefcase) would be needed is if someone "launched an ICBM with nukes at us."

Just like he let the Chinese spy get away with Nuclear secrets.He prob ley gave him the launch codes too.

 

[PLC1]

Let he who has never lost his wallet or car keys cast the first stone.

The case of the missing launch codes highlights the role that human error can play in the maintenance and use of weapons that could kill millions of people in one mistake.

I wonder just how much control the remnants of the Soviet Union have over that arsenal? How easy would it be to launch an ICBM by mistake? How difficult would it be for Al Qaeda or the Taliban to gain control of a nuclear device?

And, if an American president can lose the launch codes, who might find them? How difficult would it be for someone to launch a missile or two either by mistake or as an act of insanity?

There is a lot more to the question of security of nuclear missiles than a president putting the code on the pocket of his other pants.

But, of course, Clinton was a Democrat, so partisans on the other side will make this yet another absurd "our party is better than yours, ya, ya" sort of an issue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Let he who has never lost his wallet or car keys cast the first stone.

The case of the missing launch codes highlights the role that human error can play in the maintenance and use of weapons that could kill millions of people in one mistake.

I wonder just how much control the remnants of the Soviet Union have over that arsenal? How easy would it be to launch an ICBM by mistake? How difficult would it be for Al Qaeda or the Taliban to gain control of a nuclear device?

And, if an American president can lose the launch codes, who might find them? How difficult would it be for someone to launch a missile or two either by mistake or as an act of insanity?

There is a lot more to the question of security of nuclear missiles than a president putting the code on the pocket of his other pants.

But, of course, Clinton was a Democrat, so partisans on the other side will make this yet another absurd "our party is better than yours, ya, ya" sort of an issue.

no without that card we have no security. so all any nation had to do for 40 years was, hire a pick pocket! or of course just take out the president before launch...then of course we know we would just stand there and take it, cuz well the card was in the limo that got blown up or what have you...

 

[BigRob]

give me a example of a likely event where the President must launch the nukes, and it does not end with earth being drastically changed ( I did not say ended...though possible of course, but the results for the environment would be staggering and would change the world even with a mid level exchange.

You said, "is pretty much the end of the world in any sense how we know it." Certainly the use of nuclear weapons will have a dramatic impact on the world, however the use of a few low yield tactical weapons would not cause problems that cannot be contained in my opinion.

Further, you don't have to have a scenario persay where the President must launch nukes to make the "football" a necessity. For example, as I alluded to, our nuclear deterrent will lose all credibility if the person responsible for ordering a nuclear response can be cut off from that capability.

even small scale nuclear attack, more then likely spirals out of control, or at least has the very high risk to do so. Drop one on Iran to stop there nukes ( outside of the hypocrisy of a first strike with nukes to say you should not have nukes, its dangerous) the Iran response is of course attacks on Israel from Lebanon, and the Arab states while they may have been happy to see Iran without the nuke, can't take the internal pressure that would mount to help Lebanon attack the Zionist state and puppet of the US who just nuked and killed many Muslims .

Personally, I think if we did use one on Iran (which there is zero chance we will do, but in theory) the rest of the Middle East (maybe except Syria) would talk in outrage about it, but quietly offer their support.

do I see a possible attack on Iran, maybe...but not a nuclear one.

This is getting away from the issue, but with the current President, I think there is about a 0% chance of an American attack on Iran.

Also to be a Deterrent, someone also has to be willing and able to fire the first shot...even with no nukes, name one nation that would think it would survive that first shot against the US, and not have our conventional forces level the nation.

Battlefield nuclear weapons could decimate our conventional army. For example, a nuclear warhead detonated in space would seriously limit our satellite and military communications capability. Imagine a nuclear Iraq that would have been able to use tactical nuclear weapons against our forces in the massed in the desert prior to the 1991 invasion. That would have been devastating.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You said, "is pretty much the end of the world in any sense how we know it." Certainly the use of nuclear weapons will have a dramatic impact on the world, however the use of a few low yield tactical weapons would not cause problems that cannot be contained in my opinion.

Further, you don't have to have a scenario persay where the President must launch nukes to make the "football" a necessity. For example, as I alluded to, our nuclear deterrent will lose all credibility if the person responsible for ordering a nuclear response can be cut off from that capability.



Personally, I think if we did use one on Iran (which there is zero chance we will do, but in theory) the rest of the Middle East (maybe except Syria) would talk in outrage about it, but quietly offer their support.



This is getting away from the issue, but with the current President, I think there is about a 0% chance of an American attack on Iran.



Battlefield nuclear weapons could decimate our conventional army. For example, a nuclear warhead detonated in space would seriously limit our satellite and military communications capability. Imagine a nuclear Iraq that would have been able to use tactical nuclear weapons against our forces in the massed in the desert prior to the 1991 invasion. That would have been devastating.

ok so if Iraq had a Nuke in 91...but of course it did not...so its not much of a real likey situation is it? Are we going to be massing troops against Russia? China? India and or Pakistan? not likey as well...ones who actually could use a nuke....

If the US did nuke Iran, you do not think Iran would Send Hezbollah in on a scale not seen in some time after Israel....and you think the Arab world would just sit and watch? that's about as likely as it was for Arab states to not fund groups in Afghanistan and Iraq who we where fighting...Even if Arab leaders wanted to stay out, there public would hardly let them...Men like BIn Ladin would have a feeding ground in SA to fight..in Lebanon, and against the Saudi Government who showed it was with the Great Evil US, and Against the holy land and Muslims..
They would act...Israel would push back hard on all sides, pushing things far past simple tit for tat attacks...and when pushed to the brink, Israel would consider nukes as well...

also like I said, if the key factor of our security was as easy to stop as , take out a card the president carries, and our whole system fails...well its a pretty weak system don't you think? If Air Force one was taken out, do we then have zero Nuclear deterrent? Billions in Natinal Security , taken out by someone stealing destroying the card in some way, or the football itself...I think thats a far bigger issue then then if Bill lost the card ( something we have no proof even happened of course)

 

[steveox]

Thanks for the code man.