52

In the the final Trump-Clinton presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said:

But here's the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that's why 10 people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and, in an unprecedented way, said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Some people, such as commenters on this Reddit forum are concerned that that information is classified, and should not have been publicized.

Is that information classified by the US military?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Curious
  • 947
  • 1
  • 8
  • 18

2 Answers2

76

No, this is not classified information.

There have been plenty of descriptions of the timeline to launch US nuclear weapons, most much more detailed than anything Secretary Clinton said, and none of the people publishing them have been prosecuted. Also the articles giving those details are still easily available, and have been for years, indicating that the US military does not see any problem with them being published.

Here are some examples:

EDIT: While it is technically possible for information to be both classified and widely known to the public (for example the location of a US aircraft carrier may be technically classified, even when it is in port and visible to anyone for miles around) revealing such information is not a crime if it could be obtained from non-classified sources, and does no harm to US interests, making the question pretty much moot.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 9
    Upvoted, but I just want to point out that this argument does have a weakness. It is possible for something to be classified and publicly available without all parties who have access to the information being prosecuted. – called2voyage Oct 20 '16 at 16:29
  • @MohammadSakibArifin As such, there is nothing stating anywhere that I am aware of that giving out incorrect information could be equated with giving out _classified_ information, so I'm not sure if your argument against this answer is simply semantics or not. – Jeff Lambert Oct 20 '16 at 18:06
  • 9
    If a bunch of people sitting around speculating about what the number might be, there is a very good chance one of them may get close to the "correct" value. With this logic, such a person is revealing classified information. That's clearly idiotic. – barbecue Oct 20 '16 at 18:33
  • 17
    You are showing that this information is not secret, but not that it's not classified. They are very different things. – Sklivvz Oct 20 '16 at 18:33
  • 13
    The real problem is the assumption that it's actually information and not just some number. Politicians provide exact numbers that are completely meaningless all the time, why are we assuming this one specific case is the exception? – barbecue Oct 20 '16 at 18:36
  • @Sklivvz Can you explain that, please? – DJClayworth Oct 20 '16 at 19:46
  • 1
    Information can be classified as "secret" or "top secret" by the government. This does not have the same meaning as the things being actual secrets. It only pertains as to how these things should be disclosed or confirmed. See definitions 2 and 7 here: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/secret – Sklivvz Oct 20 '16 at 19:58
  • 1
    That's a bit nitpicky. It could technically be true, but it would be impossible to prosecute someone for sharing information that is already widely known, and the damage done to the US by mentioning such information would be essentially zero. – DJClayworth Oct 20 '16 at 20:04
  • 3
    @DJClayworth the damage would be officially confirming. Think of Israel's nukes. Everyone knows they have them, but their existence is classified. It's not nitpicking :-) – Sklivvz Oct 20 '16 at 20:25
  • 1
    @Sklivvz There are 5 levels of classification: Unclassified, Unclassified (For Official Use Only), Classified, Secret, and Top Secret. – David Starkey Oct 20 '16 at 20:44
  • 6
    @DavidStarkey technically, there are 5 *unclassified (for official use only)* levels of classification :-) – Sklivvz Oct 20 '16 at 20:53
  • 2
    Hillary Clinton, not being a member of the US government, cannot officially confirm anything. – DJClayworth Oct 20 '16 at 21:06
  • 2
    @DJClayworth As others have said, your reasoning does not support your conclusion. Another example - Snowden's leaks. Some were widely published. If you republish it will not do any further damage or get you into any trouble. But this doesn't mean the NSA has formally declassified all those docs. – Iain Oct 21 '16 at 03:55
  • 1
    @Sklivvz Reasonably sure that if something becomes publicly available, it can no longer be considered classified under the US security clearance scheme. Since it was still classified when first published, those who did so can be prosecuted, but no one can be prosecuted for discussing, distributing, etc. etc. the material after it has been publicized. – KRyan Oct 21 '16 at 05:03
  • 2
    Indeed, it might not even be information. Clinton said this, but does anyone (outside the nuclear command chain) know that it is actually true, rather than political hyperbole? Note also that unless you have access to a really good medium, it would be hard to find 10 people - that is, current & former US Presidents - with that responsibility who could express an opinion on Trump, since there are only five living ones. – jamesqf Oct 21 '16 at 05:41
  • 2
    @Iain, ...but the public-knowledge availability of that information *does* mean that persons not subject to UCMJ can handle it without concern for prosecution, classified or not. See [the CRS report, Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Information](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf) -- written re: the legality of republishing actual opposed leaks, whereas response time has been uncontrovercially subject to public discussion for decades. – Charles Duffy Oct 21 '16 at 16:00
  • 4
    Good edit @DJClayworth, can you just add a reference to support "revealing such information is not a crime if it could be obtained from non-classified sources"? In my opinion that's pivotal to your answer :-D – Sklivvz Oct 21 '16 at 18:58
  • 1
    The edit is also completely and utterly incorrect. There is public speculation covering virtually every aspect of what are presumably US classified facts. Some of that speculation is no doubt correct. Yet someone with a clearance who confirms that speculation has committed a potentially serious crime. – President James K. Polk Oct 21 '16 at 23:56
  • @JamesKPolk Count 7 comments up above yours. – DJClayworth Oct 22 '16 at 03:17
  • 1
    That comment is also incorrect. Of course the law doesn't assume you forget every classified fact you know the moment you leave government service. That is why upon *exiting* government you acknowledge a lifetime commitment to have the government review *prior to publication* your comments on any potentially classified subjects. – President James K. Polk Oct 22 '16 at 11:20
  • 1
    @KRyan You are incorrect: We got a briefing after the Snowden leaks that those documents were still classified and that we could still be court marshaled for downloading/viewing/handling/distributing them. They remain classified. That being said, for all we know she read one of the articles referenced by the OP and was just regurgitating that answer. And don't forget the double-edged sword: to call her out on leaking classified information would require _confirming_ that it is, in fact, classified information... so that's probably not going to happen. – TemporalWolf Oct 23 '16 at 10:54
  • The sources you cited don't confirm that "this is not classified information." To confirm that, you need to provide concrete evidence such as state department report or leaked information that it was declassified by a leak before Hilary said it. What she said could be a leak of classified information or a lie (maybe to deceive adversaries). We don't know whether she was lying or not and therefore your answer is incorrect. Thanks. – Sakib Arifin Oct 27 '16 at 09:57
  • 1
    @DJClayworth I have removed my upvote. Your edit is simply wrong. – called2voyage Oct 31 '16 at 14:22
18

No.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

The author bases his estimate on information gleaned from a 30-year old book, so it's not exactly new information.

Bloomberg also reported on this back in September.

About five minutes may elapse from the president’s decision until intercontinental ballistic missiles blast out of their silos, and about fifteen minutes until submarine missiles shoot out of their tubes. Once fired, the missiles and their warheads cannot be called back.

Not exactly four minutes, but I think that would be quibbling.

JasonR
  • 9,247
  • 5
  • 51
  • 65
user36339
  • 215
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
    What's wrong with this answer? Is it too speculative? – Andrew Grimm Oct 20 '16 at 08:45
  • 1
    To mention some things: 1) **No citations, just a link and a conclusion**. [Your answer is in another castle](http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/225370/your-answer-is-in-another-castle-when-is-an-answer-not-an-answer) 2) 'The author', is that from that article or is it the OP? 3) Link could quote the title. –  Oct 20 '16 at 12:04
  • 6
    (-1) ''The author bases his estimate on information gleaned from a 30-year old book" What did he estimate? What is the name of the book? Isn't 30 years old info a bit too old? "About five minutes may elapse from the president’s decision until intercontinental ballistic missiles blast out of their silos," That's just a random assumption. It doesn't confirm the exact response time. – Sakib Arifin Oct 20 '16 at 13:14
  • 2
    Also: the references provided are not really reputable in terms of law at all. – Sklivvz Oct 20 '16 at 13:46
  • Did my edit help? – JasonR Oct 20 '16 at 15:20
  • 1
    30 years old may still be recent enough given the age of a lot of the hardware and systems in use. – mckenzm Oct 21 '16 at 03:43
  • It's important to note that the Bloomberg piece was one of multiple pieces given to Fox News by the campaign to justify the debate comment. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/20/clintons-debate-reference-to-nuclear-response-time-raises-eyebrows.html – Adam Smith Oct 21 '16 at 20:50