Jump to content

U.S. nuclear general says would resist 'illegal' Trump strike order


Recommended Posts

Posted

U.S. nuclear general says would resist 'illegal' Trump strike order

 

640x640 (11).jpg

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Air Force General John Hyten, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testifies in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 4, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. nuclear commander said on Saturday that he would resist President Donald Trump if he ordered an "illegal" launch of nuclear weapons.

 

Air Force General John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada that he had given a lot of thought to what he would say if he received such an order.

 

"I think some people think we're stupid," Hyten said in response to a question about such a scenario. "We're not stupid people. We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?"

 

Hyten, who is responsible for overseeing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, explained the process that would follow such a command.

 

As head of STRATCOM "I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," he said in his remarks, retransmitted in a video posted on the forum's Facebook page.

 

"And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated."

 

Hyten said running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order was standard practise, and added: "If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life."

 

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hyten's remarks.

 

They came after questions by U.S. senators, including Democrats and Trump's fellow Republicans, about Trump's authority to wage war, use nuclear weapons and enter into or end international agreements, amid concern that tensions over North Korea's nuclear and missile programs could lead to hostilities.

 

Trump has traded insults and threats with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un and threatened in his maiden United Nations address to "totally destroy" the country of 26 million people if it threatened the United States.

 

Some senators want legislation to alter the nuclear authority of the U.S. president and a Senate committee on Tuesday held the first congressional hearing in more than four decades on the president's authority to launch a nuclear strike.

 

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-19
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
11 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

That 'general' needs to be fired. 

It is because of men like that General we are still here and not lying dead in a radioactive crater.

Posted

It's a sad state of affairs when the Military has to threaten to overrule the civilian gov't, but I am now led to believe there are times when it may be necessary.   This is one of them.   

 

Posted

All the General really said was a discussion of options & scenarios would have to be brought forward.....

This happens routinely & does not mean either man is walking away from the respnsibilities or consequences.....

Posted

Lol @ the desperation of the Trump haters.


"General says he'd not jump off a cliff if Trump asked"

It's a loaded question. There is no reason to believe it'd happen in the first place.



Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

Posted
41 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

That 'general' needs to be fired. 

It's been said, for 20 months, that Trump can do anything (Trump himself said; "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and I wouldn't lose any fans") and his die-hard fans will still stand behind him.  Boon Mee's post backs that up.  

 

Trump can sexually assault over a dozen women, brag about it, and his fans have no problems with that.

 

It gets one to wonder; what could Trump do which would turn off his die-hard fans?  Rape Ivanka on the WH lawn?  Nuke Scandinavia?   

Posted
2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

It's been said, for 20 months, that Trump can do anything (Trump himself said; "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and I wouldn't lose any fans") and his die-hard fans will still stand behind him.  Boon Mee's post backs that up.  

 

Trump can sexually assault over a dozen women, brag about it, and his fans have no problems with that.

 

It gets one to wonder; what could Trump do which would turn off his die-hard fans?  Rape Ivanka on the WH lawn?  Nuke Scandinavia?   

Mel Brookes once quipped in one of his funny movies, "It's good to be a king" in this case, for Trump, It's good to be the president.....

Posted

I'll sleep better knowing someone will at least ask Trump if there are any alternate courses of action beside nuclear war.

I believe at the present time a nuclear strike on North Korea would be a war crime.

Posted

 

He was not caught out or wrong footed, he was talking SOP :

 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

Lol @ the desperation of the Trump haters.


"General says he'd not jump off a cliff if Trump asked"

It's a loaded question. There is no reason to believe it'd happen in the first place.



Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk
 

Yeah, laugh it up, it's all the fault of the 'Trump haters'. Apparently you haven't noticed that your precious President, the doofus in charge, has been lying through his teeth ever since he's been in office. I'm glad there still seems to be at least one sane person in the the chain of command, because the thought of tangerine 45 having his paws on the red button makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted
35 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Mel Brookes once quipped in one of his funny movies, "It's good to

be a king" in this case, for Trump, It's good to be the president.....

So does that make it OK what Trump is doing?

Posted
1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

It gets one to wonder; what could Trump do which would turn off his die-hard fans?  Rape Ivanka on the WH lawn?  Nuke Scandinavia? 

He could take his wig off

bamm, ...90% of his fans defect to Hillary, 10% (that's Boon Mee) stay

Posted
Yeah, laugh it up, it's all the fault of the 'Trump haters'. Apparently you haven't noticed that your precious President, the doofus in charge, has been lying through his teeth ever since he's been in office. I'm glad there still seems to be at least one sane person in the the chain of command, because the thought of tangerine 45 having his paws on the red button makes me sick to my stomach.
Sorry - but do you have a comment on the actual topic at hand?

Grab some tissues, foaming at the mouth will ruin your keyboard.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

Posted
 
He was not caught out or wrong footed, he was talking SOP :
 
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
 
 
 
 
 
Spot on!

Doesn't stop the media whipping retards into a frenzy over it, though...

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

Posted
It's been said, for 20 months, that Trump can do anything (Trump himself said; "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and I wouldn't lose any fans") and his die-hard fans will still stand behind him.  Boon Mee's post backs that up.  
 
Trump can sexually assault over a dozen women, brag about it, and his fans have no problems with that.
 
It gets one to wonder; what could Trump do which would turn off his die-hard fans?  Rape Ivanka on the WH lawn?  Nuke Scandinavia?   
Fake post - "It's been said for 20 months"...

Reality - it was said once...

Still, dont let the truth get in the way of a good rant...

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

Posted

"I think some people think we're stupid," Hyten said in response to a question about such a scenario. "

No, we think the president is stupid. And we have the facts to back that up.

Sad state of affairs when one of the greatest threats to USA is the guy in the white house. "Unpresidented"

 

Posted

If Trump is as good at remembering the passcodes as I am with passwords, then the world will be very, very safe from a preemptive nuclear strike.   

Posted
3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

That 'general' needs to be fired. 

Why? For resisting an illegal order? It's been a while, but I remember being taught, over and over that it was our duty to resist an illegal order. They made this very clear. I remember this was coupled with the lesson about 'awe of rank'. The higher the authority, the more important it is to scrutinize the order. Captain, Admiral, President...etc.

Posted
3 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

So... is he saying that the president does not have first strike capability? 

 

 

 

 

If so, good!

 

Fine, if that is always the case no matter who the President is.

 

Even more dangerous if the General is really saying he'll only obey a President whose political views he agrees with.

 

Raises the question who is really in command.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...