Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Strategic weapons Message-ID: <12983@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 10 Jan 90 03:28:59 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Clifford Johnson" > }Only the Air Force has Strategic weapons. > > One third of the strategic triad, and quite enough to incinerate > the world quite nicely, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the air > force. Have you ever heard of a ballistic missle submarine?!?!? Both right and both wrong, I think. Over half the U.S. nuclear arsenal is on submarines ... BUT those submarines may be commanded by CINCSAC (now General Chain). He is of course an air force officer, and he also is in charge of the targeting of those missiles (as chairman of the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff). De facto, the air force won out over the navy in 1960 for overall control of U.S. strategic weapons. On the other hand, the navy refused to accept such weapons with a Permissive Action Link. That is, the navy retains physical launch capability, without requiring external codes to be transmitted to them. This would enable them to retaliate if CINCASC was snuffed in a surprise attack. But for first strike and launch on warning, CINCSAC is the boss. Naturally there is a fuss when a nuclear submarine officer on such a ship misbehaves, as happened last week, when one such officer took pot shots into the water. A single submarine could destroy every major city in the U.S.S.R. To: MILITARY@ATT.ATT.COM