Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!sunic!uupsi!nyser!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Strategic Weapons Message-ID: <13097@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 12 Jan 90 04:47:38 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 23 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "Clifford Johnson" dfkling@cs.washington.edu (Dean F. Kling) writes: > Missile submarines are not commanded by CINCSAC; but are under the >operational control of CINCPAC and CINCLANT: the unified (joint force) >commanders in the Atlantic and Pacific regions (both Navy officers). But these may be under CINCSAC's orders. Thus, the air force's judge advocate general wrote, with especial regard for the submarine force, (OpJAGAF no.42, 1981): "CINCSAC could, in our opinion, be legally authorized to command all strategic nuclear forces of the United States." I am not of the opinion that this opinion was academic. > Strategic targeting for all forces is coordinated by JSTPS, >(a joint command with several naval officers on the staff); but the But this joint group is chaired by CINCSAC. The fact that this gave the air force de facto control is not seriously disputed. They fought hard for this top hand in 1960. To: MILITARY@ATT.ATT.COM