My apologies for the long, long reply.
First off, I honestly appreciate criticism - I am truly grateful when someone points out an error on my part. Almost at the end of this I'll present a possibility that might work towards your point, followed by another point supporting my contention.
As with nuclear reactors, bringing a nuclear weapons system offline is probably as easy as pushing a button (or sending a signal that mimics that button). On the other hand, in most cases, bringing nuclear weapons system *online* without being physically present would entail much the same sort of problems I listed for nuclear reactors.
When it comes to nuclear bombs, they are designed with several failsafe mechanisms and procedures, almost all of which are physical in nature. The nuclear core is not inserted into the bomb until it is about to be used (if only for an exercise). In any case, there's no way a nuclear bomb could be "put online" without physical presence and effort.
Nuclear missiles present an even more difficult problem. I can assure you that the nuclear ballistic missiles on submarines require a certain alignment of valves to enable the high-pressure air that ejects the missile before its rocket engines ignite. Furthermore - and this applies to the cruise missiles on the SSGN's as well - there has to be enough air pressure inside the missile tube to allow the tube's hatch to open against the water pressure.
In any case, those SSBN's and SSGN's must be at a shallow depth in order to launch, and they are rarely at such depths unless entering or leaving port.
That leaves us with land-based ICBM's. Knowing that they are designed to launch within minutes, I can't speak to what physical safeguards they have other than the main hatch itself and - obviously - the "two-key" system (which the SSBN's and SSGN's also have).
There's another possibility that would support your point: the targeting systems. These are certainly almost wholly electronics-based. That would certainly fit the bill.
Lastly, there's my own bias. The reason why I looked first and foremost at nuclear reactors was my own experience in the Navy onboard nuclear-powered vessels.
But I must point out that the vast majority of the (publicly-known) encounters with UFOs has been with Navy pilots and - more recently - Navy ships, including the filming of a UFO that went into the water at high speed. It left no debris from wreckage and there's no reported sonar track.
On top of that, we have more SSN's - attack subs - than SSBN's. SSN's and SSGN's do not carry nuclear-tipped warheads...and there's good non-political reason for that. Nuclear warheads are a *huge* pain in the ass to transport on and off ship - the last time I saw it done was on the Ranger in San Diego in the early 1980's.
Why is that important? Because on the West Coast, our SSBN's do not cruise close to our coastline. All the SSBN's on the West Coast are stationed at Naval Base Kitsap, about fifteen straight-line miles from where I sit typing this. The encounter where the USS Omaha filmed a UFO going into the water was off the coast of California near San Diego.
There would have been no SSBN's in the area...but one of the five SSN's based at Point Loma (in San Diego) might have been.
And each of those SSN's has no nuclear warheads, but do have nuclear reactors.
That being said, you're right that I could be wrong. I should have been more careful concerning what Elizondo actually said. And I sincerely appreciate the constructive criticism.
What I can do is to add an addendum to the article with your criticism (and - with your permission - your name to give you credit), to which I would add a link with this reply. What do you think?
