OK, read the Wikipedia entry where it mentions Bush I stood it down along with ready-alert bombers, but did another system arise to give the communications redundancy required in intelligent nuclear war-fighting capability?
An aside...how would you (and I address not only Chico, but the rest of the assembled Forum; chime in, boys) assess the reliability of information on Wikipedia? An article that anyone can go in and edit and reshape give me some pause. There's nothing to prevent a government official or entity from editing the content to suit their purpose, whether it be disinformation or revelation and education, and not to sound like a paranoid fruitcake but I find it difficult to believe that some of the information out there in Wikipedia, in the (very) public domain and accessible to anyone with a computer, friend or foe, is necessarily accurate.
Personally, I am more inclined to use a book or magazine article (or a PDF or an online vesion thereof) which is more likely to have been professionally investigated, vetted, and edited for historical and technical accuracy and reliability than a wide-spectrum and very user-friendly (but also very user-mallable) resource like Wikipedia. A good starting point and go-to page, but one whose catchphrase should be "Trust, but verify", to quote the great Ronald Reagan.
Your thoughts and impressions, gentlemen?
|