Talk:Nuclear football/Archive 1

Archive 1

disambiguation

I started a discussion at Talk:Football#Nuclear_Football on whether a disambiguation statement is warranted on the Football page since this briefcase is more commonly referred to as the Football rather than the Nuclear Football. Just thought that those of you who follow this topic might be interested if you have any comments concerning this matter. --Umofomia 07:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

why a football

And why is it called a football? EAi 17:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's because it's the most popular name devised for it -- it officially doesn't have one.

And why the hell is the fate of the nation's nuclear arsenal entrusted to a suitcase?!?!?!? Ghost Freeman 18:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Duane from ABC Liquors can pick up the satcom and say, "Yeah, dude. Code x5793. Glass parking lot! Whoaahh!!" simply because he found the football. Relax. Ayeroxor 20:59, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Be Careful

A few sentences were clearly copy and pasted from [1], especially the part on the beginnings of "the Football". Bayerischermann 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

The first place I can think of that I'd ever heard the use of the term 'football' ascribed to the presidential nuclear death satchel would be in the movie Seven Days in May. Having never read the book, I cannot say if the book used the term as well.

It is featured briefly at the begging of the NCIS pilot episode yankee white. It is also featured prominantly in the novel Area 7 by Matthew Reilly. MxAesir 13:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual Mistake in the Article

Why would President George H. W. Bush losing the briefcase be most recently? Bill Clinton was President after Bush, so I can't see how the article could possibly be accurate as is. Maybe the original author confused George H. W. Bush (41st President) with George W. Bush (current, 43rd President). However, I don't really have any sources to confirm this, just intuition. Duckdid 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User "Old Right"

At least twice, user Old Right (you really should check out his history) has vandalized this page, adding or removing information with the intent to lean the article towards a POV. If you see any of his activity in the article history, or any other articles for this matter, please review it.

reply to the above paragraph: I'm not "Old Right", but lmao you can't say wikipedia is "anyone can edit wikipedia" and then turn around and say "but this person is banned". You shouldn't try to give wikipedia credibility; credibility is why we pay for Encyclopedias and Newspapers! lmao I pay for The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the London Telegraph or the Economist because I find them more credible than Joe Six Pack Blogger! There is a lot of anti-american/communist opinion expressed and implied in supposedly "neutral" wikipedia articles. For example the tv license article implies that somehow the government at one time attempted to have a tv license -- which would be a PATENT violation of the 4th amendment -- but decided not to because the quality of commercial TV had been demonstrated. Complete nonsense! The first radio stations in the USA were completely unregulated and completely private enterprises. The american equivilent of OFCOM was not created for another 30 years. Whereas in England, it was apparently illegal to broadcast unless you were the BBC. It was a totally different process, and Americans in any case would certainly NEVER stand for TV licenses. We proved that in 1776. You might as well have Pencil Licenses, and a British Writing Corporation, to "preserve the quality of works created with pencils". The British Writing Corporation, of course, would have the authority to charge money for the right to own pencils, and to inspect your home to determine if you have any unlicensed pencils. (see www.centreforcitizenship.org.uk if you think no brits agree with me on that) My point here is, to suggest that this guy Old Right should be banned from wikipedia in an attempt to create "credibility" is complete nonsense. Either ANYBODY can edit an article, or they can't. If they can't, that seems to defeat the purpose of having a wikipedia. Again, if I want something edited, with reliable information, I will go to Encyclopedia Britannica. If I want unedited information on esoteric subjects like Star Trek and Lord of the Rings, I will use Wikipedia. But Wikipedia will never be credible to the extent that Encyclopedia Britannica is, because the University of Chicago, the world renown university which currently owns Britannica, is fundamentally more credible than the people who post to wikipedia, including myself. --Brian, former usn submariner

To unsigned complainer, can we see YOUR history please? I looked for Old Right in the page history and his last edit was an addition of extra information on who has "dropped the ball" before. He may have partisan opinions but, in that case at least, I think he acted on those opinions to REDUCE the bias in the article. I'm not American and its clear to me as a neutral outsider that someone has edited this article with the intention of portraying Bill Clinton as more of a clown than his IQ would suggest. Howboutpete 20:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixon

Is there any truth in the story that the football, along with the president's copy of the launch codes, was not present on Nixon's last flight in Air Force One prior to his resignation to eliminate the possibility of him staging a nuclear coup? I've herd this a couple of times but haven't found anything to back it up. Me lkjhgfdsa 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fictional references

The article's getting a bit swamped with all the fictional references - perhaps it could be trimmed down to a few lines to indicate that it's a widely used ploty theme? What are other peoples thoughts on this? --RedHillian (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the pop culture references should stay as-is. At least until I or someone else has the heart to do a full fledged article on that Chain of Command movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.160.69 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. If you want to trim down things in the article to stuff that is from fiction or based on speculation more power to you. 68.50.168.239 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents section

It says right in the section that the contents of the Football are highly classified. However, the section then goes on to make assumptions about what it contains. That sounds like patent speculation to me. 98.16.177.138 (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an authoritative source?

In the Highlights section, the following sentence appears: "During their presidencies, Jimmy Carter always carried the launch codes in his jacket, while Ronald Reagan preferred to keep the launch codes in his wallet." The source cited for this statement is: http://members.aol.com/thebodie/football.html The author appears to be a man named Martin Bodek. I found his home page at: http://www.martinbodek.com/ His article "Secrets of the Nuclear Football" cited here is described as having been published in something called "The Scoogie Spin", though the web site is defunct and I can't figure out what kind of publication this is. So this leaves me trying to assess Bodek himself as an authoritative source. Reading his web site, I see nothing that indicates that he is directly connected to President Carter or President Reagan, the White House staff, US military command, or any other primary sources. There is no chain of evidence that leads to any other source, primary or otherwise. In my editorial judgment, this citation is not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. Can anyone find a better reference? If not, I am inclined to remove this sentence and reference, because for all we know this information is completely made up. CosineKitty (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did a little more reading about WP policies regarding acceptable sources of information. So, while I understand my talking about "primary" sources is faulty (should have been "neutral third party with a reputation for fact checking", etc.) I still think there is something fishy about this source. CosineKitty (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian president has a football too

USSR premiers and Russian presidents also have "footballs". This should be also reflected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.92.2 (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a website or something that has more info on the USSR's (now Russia's) football, knock yourself out. I'm certainly interested.76.177.160.69 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research, weasel words, no citations = pure speculation

This article is full of speculation, original research and weasel words. It also lacks citations for important facts. I tagged it up fairly heavily because the wiki policy violations are so eggregious. Here are just a few of the issues with the "Contents section":

• Are the contents of the nuclear football classified? If they are, then how can you write about its contents without wildly speculating? Furthermore, why doesn't someone verify that the contents are or are not classified instead of assuming that they are? In the Wikipedia world, assumptions are evil!
• "Contrary to popular belief, the Football does not contain the daily revisions of the nuclear launch codes..." Is that popular belief? If so, it's news to me. Who's the one making the determination that this is popular belief? It sounds like original research writing to me.
• "Some accounts assert that the case contains equipment and protocols for activating..." "Some accounts"? Who are the "some"? These are weasel words, plain and simple. The author has likely made up these "accounts" out of thin air to facilitate his/her writing. In reality, these "accounts" likely don't exist. And, if they do, the author likely has no idea as to whom they may be attributed. If this weren't the case, then the author would speficy to what s/he is referring when writing "some accounts." This kind of slick writing is also evil in the Wiki World!
• "This is a logical assumption since, by the Federal Communication Commission's own official description, the EAS is..." "A logical assumption"?! Logic does not replace a valid source. In any event, what one finds logical, others may find crazy. Your logical assumption is meaningless here. It's just original research.
• "The case itself is a metallic, possibly bullet-resistant, modified Zero Halliburton..." "Possibly bullet-resistant"? Are we guessing that here? What a ridiculous thing to write. The football could possibly double as a coffee maker too. Possiblies don't belong in the article. Verify the info before putting it in the article. Merely adding the word "possibly" doesn't make it OK.
• "A small antenna, presumably for the SATCOM radio, protruding..." Who exactly is "presuming" that the antenna has this function? "Presumably," it could be for a number of things. The problem here is the same as in the last point. The author has made a guess, that's all. And guesses are anathema to Wikipedia! So verify the info before putting it in the article as patent speculation.
• "Another common misconception is that the Football is handcuffed to its carrier." Who says this is a common misconception? Again, this is original research. The only one with this misconception is the person who wrote that sentence. Verify it or delete it.

These problems are only in one section. I haven't even gone through the other ones.

And I didn't mentioned all of the un-cited facts. The entire description of the contents of the nuclear football is uncited. And, since the author claims that this information is "highly classified," how can we trust that s/he really knows its contents and isn't simply speculating? For this reason, these facts require citations. We can't just trust that the author did't make up the whole "Contents" section based on watching a few movies. Frankly, that may very well be the case. If the article were sourced, on the other hand, there would be no question as to the veracity of the information.

Between the lack of sourcing and the rampant, speculative original research, this article is in very poor shape. And the style of writing is unacceptable, given the weasel words run amuck. Someone who's invested in this entry should fix it up before an admin comes across it and takes bolder action. ask123 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly appreciate your take-charge attitude on the matter, but you may have gone a little overboard. A template or two and a few tags could have done the job where the page is now nearly unreadable. Seven cleanup templates and a tag (or two!) after nearly every statement? I realize that this page needs serious help, but in the meantime, it looks like a train wreck now. I'm not sure how (if at all) any facts can be verified on something so classified, so I agree with you there, but... take it easy on the layout next time! :) Syncopate (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Facts

The section currently named highlights should be changed to Interesting facts? Wasgood1 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 2

Should this be mentioned in popular culture? It seems that wasn't actually the Nuclear Football, but instead something similar. Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Top

Why is this at the top, before the article begins:

See also: Nuclear briefcase
See also: Dissapointment
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvn (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sort of makes sense. I'm altering it and putting it back. The second was definitely put there by a troll. Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dead reference~link

The link to reference 6 (about Bush) is dead. FredrikMeyer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli football

Is there anything known about an Israeli equivalent of the "nuclear football"?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 13:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kaboom!

Has this thing ever been used? Or are we not allowed to know? Vitriol 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it was designed while Kennedy was in office, and the only time nuclear weapons have ever been used (besides tests) was in 1945... I'm guessing not. Of course it could have other non-nuclear functions, we don't know. -216.138.38.86 18:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there something on here about how George W. Bush after 9/11 used the Football to review posssible evacuation plans? Also, if it was ever actually used to launch nukes, I don't think something like that would be kept secret for long.75.81.204.244 (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The news would hit us like a bomb ;)--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 13:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Hands

Saying the nuclear football "cannot fall into the wrong hands" seems inappropriate, or at the very least inappropriately worded, for a wikipedia article. Memextropy (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image.

How do we know that's "the football" and not a regular briefcase? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

-I agree, the article mentions a strap around the wrist of teh officer (the picture doesn't show it) and that the officer is always armed (ths officer isn't armed). Maybe more research is needed in these areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.16.237.230 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The officer is armed on his left side. You could not have the fun on your right side if you are holding the football. Also in this article http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuclear-football-pics.htm it is mentioned that the football is not attached to the arm.

I am just trying to work out why the article says it is a Zero Halliburton case when both the earlier link and the main photo to his profile show it is not. 61.68.52.170 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.52.170 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.Prezbo (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Dropkick

I believe "Dropkick" referred to as how the briefcase came to be known as the "football" was the faux operation referred to by George C. Scott's character, General Buck Turgidson in Stanley Kubrick's film classic "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.64.50 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reagan's Assignation Attempt

In the article Reagan assassination attempt it discusses how "Military officers, including the one who carried the nuclear football, unsuccessfully tried to prevent FBI agents from confiscating the suit, Reagan's wallet, and other possessions as evidence; the Gold Codes card was in the wallet, and the FBI did not return it until two days later." One of these articles is has min-information, though it may be due to the lack of a source in this article. Does anyone have any further insight? Should we change the article to read similarly to the Reagan assassination attempt section regarding the football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaxyruin (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Images of the football

I don't know if these images are allowed to be used, but they are pictures of something in the Smithsonian(which is allowed for public use). http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuclear-football-pics.htm It's just a leather satchel. It shows the leather strap to connect it to the carriers wrist. This is probably what the un-sourced things from the article are based on. It is also possible that some of the information came from this show http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Technology/programme_2236.php Hope someone can at least find some citeable sources from those links! Also, the question of it ever being used to launch nukes... it was developed in the cold war, so obviously there are no reported cases of it being used to launch nukes. Mad Gouki 21:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that if someone asked the smithsonian[2] reeeeal nice like, they might be willing to give us one :) SQL^{Query me!} 10:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that pictures of the real thing would be totally classified, but why is it so? Even if terrorists or whatever found out what the football really looked like, they wouldn't be able to fight through a ton of marines and secret service agents to get to it. And even then they would need the launch codes, and probably the presidents fingerprint. Lame, totally lame. --Simpsons fan 66 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the worry is that someone will steal it to try to prevent or delay a nuclear attack? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What is in the football?

The quotation from Gulley says the football contains 4 things, and lists them - they are all printed material of some sort. Then the section "Operation" says "Next, using whatever communications technology the satchel has ...", with, unfortunately, "citation needed". Is there any more information about this 5th thing in the satchel? I imagine it's not just a cell phone. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

two footballs?

This article states the President is accompanied with the Football, however the Designated survivor article states that:"The designee is provided presidential-level security and transport for the duration of the event. An aide carries the nuclear football with them. However, they are not given a briefing on what to do in the event that the other successors to the presidency are killed". So, does that mean that there are two footballs? Or is the football not with the President during these events? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are many. The Designated survivor who would have then become President in the event that the others in the line of Succession that fall before him or her are dead or out of contact. His or Her identity would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense or one of his successors.

It is logical to assume or at least think that during the Cold War and possible now that everyone in the Line of Succession had there own Football in case that they found there self in the time sensitive situation (30 min for and ICBM to hit or Six min if SLBM) and had to chose and issue a retaliatory strike.Simmons123456 (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What I don't understand...

Since all this is so incredibly classified, how can we reliably know any of what is in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.142.56 (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you are alive, why don't you die?Cantab1985 (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

British PM has a football also?

Guys, here's a question for you, elsewhere in wikipedia it says that the Queen of England is the Commander in Chief of the british military. Putting aside the fact that we Patriots of the United States find it astonishing to see The People of any modern first world nation willing to sacrifice their sovreign power to a monarch ("Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" says the Declaration), how does the launching of nuclear weapons work in Britain? I assume the PM is the one who would give the order, not the Queen? Does Blair have a "nuclear football"? --Brian, former US Navy submariner 71.116.106.31 00:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You aren't a former US Navy submariner or you won't be asking this questionCantab1985 (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe launch authority rests with the PM, though I don't have anything offhand to say so. ("War Plan UK" probably would, but it's a few hundred miles away...) Shimgray | talk | 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now this is a very interesting question, especially having in mind a curious concept in the 'unwritten' constitution of the UK, that of the Crown and royal prerogative - through which ministers including the Prime Minister derive their executive authority. The Prime Minister, acting in his capacity as a crown officer, can ask for a nuclear strike. However the Prime Minister, unlike the President of the US, is not a commissioned officer in HM Forces and therefore cannot order any serving member of the armed forces to do anything and require them to obey. Instead, s\he will ask the Chief of the Defence Staff (who is a commisioned officer) to order the launch. This, in theory, provides a safeguard against a particularly despotic Prime Minister "going rogue" and ordering a nuclear strike on their own. In practice, however, it is unlikely this distinction would be observed - especially in a crisis situation likely to require nuclear retaliation. Further complications arise due to submarine based Trident weapons and the envelopes on-board. This whole topic is explored in much more detail in the book "The Secret State - Britain and the Cold War" by Professor Peter Hennessy. - Divinedegenerate 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Another idiotic post.Cantab1985 (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Brian - I find the way you worded your question highly offensive. 81.77.204.208 03:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree there. In case you haven't noticed, no-one cares about US patriots in Britain. Vitriol 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a friendly jab.--BlackTerror 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is also linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Rocket_Incident, this article doesn't mention any "nuclear briefcases" other than the US one though. --81.227.83.65 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. PM orders CoDS to launch nuclear strike and he directs communication to our SSBNs and the 'bombers' come to missile depth and do their duty. In case of a surprise strike, our SSBNs do not pick up the daily radio broadcasts they expect to they come to missile depth. And the CO opens the letter of last resort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.124.61 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of CoDS at all. Fail.Cantab1985 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Gold Codes

There is a duplication of information on each page. Brianga (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand why? They are related but as much as a cockpit and a fighter jet. There is so much material about both alone (and not just duplication) that I think separate articles are very much deserved. The terms are also commonly used separately, with nuclear football being somewhat of a colloquial term. Nuclear codes or gold codes as our article terms them are the most commonly referred term and the concept is very much deserving of its own article. If anything nuclear football should be merged there, however I don't think it should be done. Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of Defense does not have to comply with the Commander in Chief's order

This is stated in the article, but not entirely true. There are, in theory ways a president's cabinet could stop the order:

1: The Secretary of Defense could refuse to comply with the order. He would be fired, and charged with treason 2: His deputy would then be given the order. The deputy could then also refuse to comply with the order. 3: If the deputy Secretary of Defense refused to comply with the order as well, it would go to a vote within the cabinet. The cabinet could then vote against the military strike, which in essence, is a vote of no confidence in the commander-in-chief's sanity.

So, the crucial figure is the secretary of defense, and his deputy. Which is why they're always very experienced military figures. They can actually refuse the order, and set off a series of events that could get the president removed/impeached

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cjmooney9: Not exactly. Disregarding the original research, |Executive Order 13394 states that there is actually a long hierarchy of other people that succeed the Secretary of Defense in cases like this. Also, as an aside of some original research, I would presume that if the SecDef position is vacant in the National Command Authority (presume EVERYONE dies in the succession), the President could just use the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 to declare someone as acting SecDef, which could hypothetically even be himself, thereby ensuring with certainty his orders will be made in a lawful manner. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

History

Stick to history, not some social media picture.

JessPavarocks (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This is historic, partially because it is a social media photograph of the aide carrying the nuclear football, but mostly because this is the first time (to the best of my knowledge) any of the aides have posed for a photograph while on duty, ever. Even the military has admitted that the situation was a strange one. And it reflects on the Trump presidency, given the social milieu which enabled some rich guy to have the photo taken, security bubble and all. All told, certainly notable enough for inclusion. kencf0618 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Weight

45 pounds (20 kg) seems very heavy, even if it is reinforced (with lead?). That's the maximum weight for a suitcase on some airlines. I wouldn't like to have to carry that around one-handed for long, especially while jogging with the President. Can anyone shed more light on this? PhilUK (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 71.94.174.24 (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The documents Bill describes can't weigh that much; any modern communications gear would only weigh at most a few more pounds. Maybe the bag contains Kevlar and plating that could be used to protect the comms and the carrier. knoodelhed (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear

What is it called when a satchel is stuffed with an actual small nuclear bomb, as a non-survivable deterrent defense weapon, and not stuffed with launch codes? -Inowen (nlfte) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Fictionally, "nuclear briefcase" has been popular, which Wikipedia terms a "suitcase nuke", although no real evidence for their existence has ever been shown.

Militarily, small tactical weapons were termed "Atomic Demolition Munitions" in the US, and there were a few different models: SADM, MADM, TADM. They could be lifted (but not usefully carried) by one person and were intended to be emplaced by a small team. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well there would be no way to prove that suitcase nukes exist. One would have to blow up first, and even then there would be official denials and censorship of reporting. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting notes

Hi, it appears that the "football" also contains sensors that detect if the GPS/GNSS systems go down or get seriously out of sync as this would be likely in the event of a first strike involving nuclear weapons detonated in space. It also senses radio timing signals, so that in the event of some or all going down at once this is recorded and presented on internal screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it called a football?

The above discussion from almost 16 years ago was never really resolved, and the answer isn't in the article. Does anybody know why it's called a football? HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No recall mechanism for launched ICBM's

The video claims that there is no recall mechanisms for a launched ICBM without any sources. This seems to indicate that there are, indeed, ways to terminate a launched Minuteman III (the only type of land-based ICBM in the USA's arsenal): link

Egefeyzi (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The article you link describes a test. My guess would be that destruct facilities are only present for tests or, perhaps, are present on all missiles but are only enabled for test launches. That's only a guess though. I would also guess that destruct options are purposefully not available for operational launches because of concern over their being spoofed. Putting any of that in the article would need compliance with WP:BURDEN, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Biden football

Various sources reported that 36 Congressmembers called on Biden to give up his access to the nuclear football back in February 2021. Shouldn't that be covered in the article? Pkeets (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion? If nobody appears to respond, I'll put it in. Pkeets (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)