This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UK participation - I'm all for mentioning us humble Brits but when we've only got around 67 trident D5 missiles and only 400 (or is it 200 hundred, numbers available on FAS< CDI, global security, etc) warheads how on earth can we hit 500+ targets (we could have in the past when we had more warheads and the We-177 was dropped from tornadoes but that ended with the strategic defence review of 1998 160.5.247.213 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the President, alone, cannot authorize _any_ nuclear attack, be it tactical or strategic. This goes beyond the statement in the article that reads "the President by himself cannot order a strategic nuclear strike on any country."
Note that "order" and "authorise" are two different things. For example, as far as I know, the Prime Minister here in the UK can *authorise* the use of nuclear weapons, but cannot order them to be used - whether or not they are used, and how they are used, is up to the military, once so authorised. 94.175.244.252 ( talk) 07:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot has been published about the inflexibility of the early SIOP, and the shift in 1963 was ordered as a result of McNamara finding the plan both inflexible and barbaric. It paid no attention to the Sino-Soviet split and called for the obliteration of China, Eastern Europe and Albania as a result of Soviet actions. Pentagon generals referred to it as "wargasm" and I believe it was LeMay who said it would leave the Soviet Union a "smoking radiating ruin" in 2 hours. Should this information be included in the history section?-- csloat 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Revision 05 went into effect on October 1 2004, and has been unofficially quoted in some defence and military circles as having a particular emphasis on "deterrence through pre-emption" but also "deterrence through massive disproportionate response" - to be exact, it supposedly foresees an actual “response ratio” to a Chinese nuclear strike - literally a 10:1 ratio for strikes; China hits Okinawa and the US hits ten Chinese bases in retaliation. Now given that the point of deterrence is that the other side knows about it, has there been any reference to this in the none-English press that anyone can find? It does not seem to publicly confirmable—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.4.34 ( talk • contribs)
Is it still correct to use 'SIOP'? Shouldn't 'OPLAN' be used instead? Gentleman wiki ( talk) 07:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The existing article refers to a US policy of no first use in two places:
' in SIOP-63... the 'no first use' policy became implicit.'
'Under Reagan, through NSDD-13, ... first-strike was still explicitly removed'
My own understanding is that the United States has always explicitly refused to pledge no first use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the original doctrine of 'massive retaliation' was envisioned as being invoked in case the Soviets were to launch a conventional attack on Western Europe. Robert McNamara gave a speech in 1962 pledging no first attacks against cities (i.e. US nuclear strikes would be counterforce as long as the opponent did not attack US cities?), and after leaving office McNamara became an advocate of no-first-use. However I am unable to locate any indications of an operational policy that the US would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Therefore, I propose editing the article to remove or clarify any references to a US no-first-use policy.
Gaffer Gamgee 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Has any SIOP ever been released? If so, why does the article lack direct citations? If they're not, why would these documents continue to be classified after almost 50 years, without even a heavily redacted version available? - Rolypolyman ( talk) 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any need for this section? It's generic technical material of dubious quality that has nothing specifically to do with the SIOP. I'm going to remove unless someone has a good counterargument. Maury ( talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don’t add “facts” to this article without citing sources for them, and definitely don't add things which contradict the sources already cited. Richard75 ( talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The redirect Forced out of US Air Force for asking about sane president has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 29 § Forced out of US Air Force for asking about sane president until a consensus is reached. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UK participation - I'm all for mentioning us humble Brits but when we've only got around 67 trident D5 missiles and only 400 (or is it 200 hundred, numbers available on FAS< CDI, global security, etc) warheads how on earth can we hit 500+ targets (we could have in the past when we had more warheads and the We-177 was dropped from tornadoes but that ended with the strategic defence review of 1998 160.5.247.213 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that the President, alone, cannot authorize _any_ nuclear attack, be it tactical or strategic. This goes beyond the statement in the article that reads "the President by himself cannot order a strategic nuclear strike on any country."
Note that "order" and "authorise" are two different things. For example, as far as I know, the Prime Minister here in the UK can *authorise* the use of nuclear weapons, but cannot order them to be used - whether or not they are used, and how they are used, is up to the military, once so authorised. 94.175.244.252 ( talk) 07:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot has been published about the inflexibility of the early SIOP, and the shift in 1963 was ordered as a result of McNamara finding the plan both inflexible and barbaric. It paid no attention to the Sino-Soviet split and called for the obliteration of China, Eastern Europe and Albania as a result of Soviet actions. Pentagon generals referred to it as "wargasm" and I believe it was LeMay who said it would leave the Soviet Union a "smoking radiating ruin" in 2 hours. Should this information be included in the history section?-- csloat 23:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Revision 05 went into effect on October 1 2004, and has been unofficially quoted in some defence and military circles as having a particular emphasis on "deterrence through pre-emption" but also "deterrence through massive disproportionate response" - to be exact, it supposedly foresees an actual “response ratio” to a Chinese nuclear strike - literally a 10:1 ratio for strikes; China hits Okinawa and the US hits ten Chinese bases in retaliation. Now given that the point of deterrence is that the other side knows about it, has there been any reference to this in the none-English press that anyone can find? It does not seem to publicly confirmable—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.4.34 ( talk • contribs)
Is it still correct to use 'SIOP'? Shouldn't 'OPLAN' be used instead? Gentleman wiki ( talk) 07:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The existing article refers to a US policy of no first use in two places:
' in SIOP-63... the 'no first use' policy became implicit.'
'Under Reagan, through NSDD-13, ... first-strike was still explicitly removed'
My own understanding is that the United States has always explicitly refused to pledge no first use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the original doctrine of 'massive retaliation' was envisioned as being invoked in case the Soviets were to launch a conventional attack on Western Europe. Robert McNamara gave a speech in 1962 pledging no first attacks against cities (i.e. US nuclear strikes would be counterforce as long as the opponent did not attack US cities?), and after leaving office McNamara became an advocate of no-first-use. However I am unable to locate any indications of an operational policy that the US would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Therefore, I propose editing the article to remove or clarify any references to a US no-first-use policy.
Gaffer Gamgee 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Has any SIOP ever been released? If so, why does the article lack direct citations? If they're not, why would these documents continue to be classified after almost 50 years, without even a heavily redacted version available? - Rolypolyman ( talk) 20:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any need for this section? It's generic technical material of dubious quality that has nothing specifically to do with the SIOP. I'm going to remove unless someone has a good counterargument. Maury ( talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please don’t add “facts” to this article without citing sources for them, and definitely don't add things which contradict the sources already cited. Richard75 ( talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The redirect Forced out of US Air Force for asking about sane president has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 29 § Forced out of US Air Force for asking about sane president until a consensus is reached. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)