Trump and Trident
I really really hate to defend Donald Trump, but there is something I don’t get about this story
“Trump Said to Have Revealed Nuclear Submarine Secrets to Australian Businessman.” Actually more than one thing, I don’t understand why it isn’t the number one story filling page A1 above the fold like the Anthony Weiner’s laptop has a backup of Huma Abedine’s e-mail story (which it turns out involved no US secrets revealed or endangered IIRC). This is clearly a much bigger deal — undoubtably a felony as the law bans sharing nuclear secrets (they are not just classified according to an executive order which Trump could overule back when he was President).
It is clearly a huge story. However, I don’t think one aspect is quite as huge as is widely asserted “During his talk with Mr. Pratt, Mr. Trump revealed at least two pieces of critical information about the U.S. submarines’ tactical capacities, according to the people familiar with the matter. Those included how many nuclear warheads the vessels carried” huh. I thought I knew that (I guessed 240 — I guessed wrong, but I know that now). Much more importantly, Trump also revealed the really secret “how close they could get to their Russian counterparts without being detected.” The man belongs in prison.
OK so my (out of date and wrong) calculation was 10 warheads per missile times 24 missiles per submarine. In fact, the number of deployed warheads has been reduced as required by the START II treaty (my nuclear weapons info dates back to the 80s — I lost interest during the non cold war period which now seems to have ended).
Oddly I find this in the Google preview but not when I click the link
There are 14 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (I also just learned that 4 Ohio class nuclear submarines are cruise missile submarines not ballistic missile submarines — I had a lot to learn this morning).
Each can indeed carry 24 missiles
“Trident II missiles are carried by 14 US Ohio and 4 British Vanguard-class submarines, with 24 missiles on each Ohio class and 16 missiles on each Vanguard class (the number of missiles on Ohio-class submarines will be reduced to 20 each starting in 2023,”
It seems to me that 5 minutes of Googling gave me the allegedly super ultra top secret information revealed by Trump.
I guess the last thing is how many warheads can they carry. It is (24)(14) = 336 warheads
“In US service Trident II can be loaded with up to eight Mk-5 RVs with 475-kt W88 warheads, up to fourteen Mk-4A RVs with 90-kt W76-1 warheads, and up to fourteen Mk-4A RVs with 5–7-kt W76-2 warheads. In practice, each missile on average carries four warheads due to the warhead limitations placed by the New START treaty.”
So what secret did Trump reveal (aside from the critical “how close they could get to their Russian counterparts without being detected.”)?
Yeah, I doubt this information was news to Russia or China. But the US has long had a problem with overclassification.
Do you really expect an answer on this?
Purely rhetorical I hope.
Yes the main issues are
1) Trump revealed critically important secret information on (how close … detected) and not that some of the other classified information he revealed is also revealed by secret agent Google.
2) this story is on page A3 and not all of page A1 above the fold like the story on how maybe some new H Clinton e-mails *might* have been found and they *might* not be as secure as they should be
Tangent on e-mailgate diatribe. Recall the issue was that Clinton used her personal server which, as far as is known, was never hacked and not state.gov which was certainly hacked, but her personal server is not officially considered secured (even though it seems to be about the only unhacked device used by anyone involved in the US State Department). Recall that this was one of the main issues reported in 2016 and that Nate Silver claims to have proof that it determined the outcome. Recall that Comey violated Justice Department procedures when publicly criticizing Clinton. Remember that the obviously 10000 times bigger latest Trump scandal is treated as minor news. Remember that the MSM does not recognize the Clinton e-mail coverage as a disgraceful failure as they recognize their Iraq WMD coverage was.
Finally remember that Robert Waldmann has to stop living in 2016 and deal with 2023 (I will some day, but today is not that day).
I think confirming the information is the big deal. Whatever I read in Google/Wikipedia is subject to the whims of whoever edits the material and may be misleading, wrong, or planted by the Navy for all I know. However, a former US President telling me something is such and such is confirmation I would think most spies would sell their contacts for.
The stories have not disclosed the level of classification of the information concerning how close our subs can get to Russian vessels without detection. I would guess it to be top secret but maybe not. The Australian Prime Minister (I believe) was quoted as saying the Australian government had that information as part of working with the U.S. Navy.
I should have added that it’s probably classified within the Australian system as well and not generally bandied about with wealthy Australians.
How do you know the details of what Trump revealed?
Do you really want those details splashed on the front page?
Have you ever had a classified clearance and been given the “talk”?
I only know what was in the news story. I had a classified clearance many years ago in the service. Never had “the talk”.
As noted in the article, that which Trump revealed has been splashed about by the Australian billionaire. Note that I still don’t know how close US submarines can get to Russian submarines without getting detected (the topic was revealed — the actual number was not revealed).
I object to the details being on page A3 not page A1. I will take your “front page” literally and conclude that you think it is not so big a problem to print topc secret (SCIF noforn) information on page A3, because we can count on SVR agents just skimming A1.
To be actually semi serious, I did discuss placement on the “front page” vs on other pages (I knew only the placement on the web version and learned the dead tree A3 fact later). I am fairly sure you do not mean “front page” literally and that you also object to top secret information printed on page A3.
But you did type “front page” and so I feel free to ask you what you think is so very special about the “front page” and use quotation marks to indicate that I am quoting your literal words “front page” which you chose to type. Why did you typle “front page” when you typed “front page” if you don’t consider placement on the “front page” to be critically important ?
Now note that you don’t have to read this comment to the end and try not to imagine what it is like to live with me and my semi-autistic choices to take things very literally sometimes when I can make a nuissance of myself by doing so.
I have never had (or sought) any security clearance at all and have not been given “the ‘talk'”.
I have had, both. There is usually an admonition about how time could be spent in Leavenworth if the rules are not obeyed. There’s usually statements about ‘need to know’, which has to do with with ‘disseminating classified info’ even if you are cleared.