Talk:Single Integrated Operational Plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

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)

[edit] The President's Authority

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."

[edit] SIOP-62

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)

[edit] OPLAN-8044

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—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.101.4.34 (talk • contribs).

That almost sounds like classified information....Titanmiller 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/i/n/Talk%7ESingle_Integrated_Operational_Plan_7920.html"

Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles