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

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, tifino said:

 

... well, he could go filipino-style, about combating local crime...

No, he couldn't.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

They would simply tell him the order is illegal and refuse to follow it.

And Trump will simply remove them from duty and replace with (newly promoted?) generals who will carry out his order.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Rancid said:

Personally I find it reassuring that the guy in charge of nukes isn't a yes man ready to bring life on earth to end at the whim of some corrupt politician. It's long been suggested there are elements in the US military not entirely happy with what has been going on, which may explain some of the purges that occurred, replacing the competent with the yes sirs.

 

 

"..which may explain some of the purges that occurred..."

 

Please do. Or is this another "hmmm..." post?

 

 

[metisdead]

A crude troll post has been reported and removed. 

[Penicillin]

 

Regardless of who sits in the President’s chair,  any General officer should know better than to publicize their nations nuclear protocol , procedures or what his or her  personal thoughts or actions may be in that event. 

Hyten will be out of a job in short order and damm rightfully so. First for breeching national security and secondly for being so stupid as to respond to such a politically loaded question.  

[Thaidream]

If Trump fires the General- there would be hell to pay from both Congress and the National Command. The General may resign but I hope he does not go quietly. He breached no national security or any protocol. If he resigns, it will be solely because Donald Trump is a narcissistic meglomaniac who must be removed for the sake of the country. 25th Amendment or Impeachment. He can go back to evicting old ladies from their homes.

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

If Trump fires the General- there would be hell to pay from both Congress and the National Command. The General may resign but I hope he does not go quietly. He breached no national security or any protocol. If he resigns, it will be solely because Donald Trump is a narcissistic meglomaniac who must be removed for the sake of the country. 25th Amendment or Impeachment. He can go back to evicting old ladies from their homes.

On 11 April 1951, U.S. President Harry S. Truman fired General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, arguably the most popular general of WWII.  MacArthur made public statements which contradicted the administration's policies. 

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, Rancid said:

Personally I find it reassuring that the guy in charge of nukes isn't a yes man ready to bring life on earth to end at the whim of some corrupt politician. It's long been suggested there are elements in the US military not entirely happy with what has been going on, which may explain some of the purges that occurred, replacing the competent with the yes sirs.

I don't think there's any brass near Trump who won't bow to Trump's will.  If Trump doesn't get his way with a spoken demand, ....he will follow up with shouting and name-calling.  Same like a schoolyard bully. 

 

Trump can get his way regardless of tin soldiers pretending to question his orders. 

 

When Trump decided to fire Comey, he had both Sessions and Rosenstein draft ridiculous letters.  Even tho Sessions had recused himself (which, in itself was reason for him to not be involved, but he inserted himself anyway).  Sessions is the lap dog of lap dogs.  Disgusting man.

 

But people who knew Rosenstein thought he might have a tiny modicum of decency.  He didn't.  He also played lap dog to Trump.  No coincidence that 2 days later, he realized  his stupidity, and tried to make up for it by appointing Mueller.   

 

 

4 hours ago, atyclb said:

I bet if trump joined the tv forum his die hard fans would disown him en mass.

He would confuse everyone, with dotard posts like 'covfefe.'

[boomerangutang]

7 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

If Trump fires the General- there would be hell to pay from both Congress and the National Command. The General may resign but I hope he does not go quietly. He breached no national security or any protocol. If he resigns, it will be solely because Donald Trump is a narcissistic meglomaniac who must be removed for the sake of the country. 25th Amendment or Impeachment. He can go back to evicting old ladies from their homes.

Trump will fire whomever he wants, for the flimsiest reason, or no reason.

He fired a federal attorney (Preet Bahara sp?) for a district of NYC related the Trump Towers.  He fired Comey for obvious reasons.  He's fired dozens of federal prosecutors who are in districts which deal with his real estate.  He fired all the long-time WH staff, claiming they were leaking (all had to go looking for new jobs).  Meanwhile, he keeps some of the most crooked law-breakers close at hand, including the Kushners, Cohen, Miller, etc.  A more decrepit bunch of people couldn't be found.  Putin smiles.

[boomerangutang]

The following video should be required watching for anyone remotely interested in the behind-the-scenes activity of the Russian-Trump connections.   Malcolm Nance is an American Hero, and should be given the Medal of Freedom.  The video is a bit dry and lacks pizzazz, but bear with it - the inside info (re; CIA and Russian agents, etc ) is priceless.

 

 

[amvet]

22 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump will fire whomever he wants, for the flimsiest reason, or no reason.

He fired a federal attorney (Preet Bahara sp?) for a district of NYC related the Trump Towers.  He fired Comey for obvious reasons.  He's fired dozens of federal prosecutors who are in districts which deal with his real estate.  He fired all the long-time WH staff, claiming they were leaking (all had to go looking for new jobs).  Meanwhile, he keeps some of the most crooked law-breakers close at hand, including the Kushners, Cohen, Miller, etc.  A more decrepit bunch of people couldn't be found.  Putin smiles.

I think Lincoln fired 8 Generals maybe more.  The President gets to do that if he wants.  He is their boss. 

[jerojero]

Glad somebody will stand up to wild dog Trump. People better realize he could kill the planet with use of nuclear weapons and is mentally unstable enough to try it (via nuclear warfare).

Sent from my SM-G950W using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[amvet]

18 minutes ago, jerojero said:

Glad somebody will stand up to wild dog Trump. People better realize he could kill the planet with use of nuclear weapons and is mentally unstable enough to try it (via nuclear warfare).

Sent from my SM-G950W using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You did know that another American President dropped two atomic bombs and everybody clapped?

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, amvet said:

I think Lincoln fired 8 Generals maybe more.  The President gets to do that if he wants.  He is their boss. 

I agree he prez can do what he wants in that regard.  Even a ding dong prez.   

Pol Pot and Stalin got to do what they wanted - doesn't mean they did right things.

[Foexie]

12 hours ago, rooster59 said:

I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do?

he is going to say: "you're fired" and looks for an idiot who wanna push the button together with him.

[Dumbastheycome]

"Resist"  an  "illegal"  nuclear  strike  order ????

Is  that a  definitive  assurative  declaration  that a   loosehead individual does  not  have  the  singular   capacity  to   initiate  a nuclear  chaos ? Or  not?

[amvet]

41 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I agree he prez can do what he wants in that regard.  Even a ding dong prez.   

Pol Pot and Stalin got to do what they wanted - doesn't mean they did right things.

Abraham Lincoln fired 8 Generals until he found one who was willing to kill millions (if we extrapolate population differences) of Americans.  Even with figures back then 50,000 killed in 3 days at Gettysburg when the country only had a population of 30 million must have struck the Generals as crazy.  Wouldn't you think the Generals said, "you politicians must be able to figure out another way to solve this issue without a Civil war.  Every other country in the world has accomplished these objectives without killing 620,000 young men. How stupid are you?"   When you look at all the crazy things American Presidents have done participating in a Civil war has to be number the one failure to be able to negotiate killing such a large percent of American men.  The same can be said of Europe and WWI

Edited November 19, 2017 by amvet

[mamypoko]

11 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The following video should be required watching for anyone remotely interested in the behind-the-scenes activity of the Russian-Trump connections.   Malcolm Nance is an American Hero, and should be given the Medal of Freedom.  The video is a bit dry and lacks pizzazz, but bear with it - the inside info (re; CIA and Russian agents, etc ) is priceless.

 

 

Monterey Malcolm, puts the Senior in Senior Chief!

[Thaidream]

Comparing Donald Trump to Presidents Lincoln and Truman is not logical. Both  Lincoln and Truman have gone down in History as great Presidents.  It was the south who seceeded from the Union and wanted to keep slavery which resulted in the American Civil War. It was divisive but Lincoln had no other choice but to fight.  It was the same for Truman- the Japanese were willing to fight on and an American invasion of Mainland Japan would have resulted in the deaths of a huge number of Americans- also, it was Japan who attacked the US- not the other way around.

While Trump has the authority to 'fire' a General- the actual term is to relieve them of command and thus they go into retirement. I listened to the actual statement of the General and he never said he would resist or refuse an order- he did say if he was given an illegal order- he would inform the President it was illegal and then they would figure out how to legally resolve the situation.

 

Donald Trump maybe President but he does not have the respect of the US military or the majority of Americans. Trump not only never served but he used a doctor on 5 occasions claiming he had bone spurs in his foot and was physically unable to serve. While millions of Americans were conscripted into the US military (myself included) and went to Vietnam and served honorably Trump beat the system and spent the war years riding in limousines. dining in plush restaurants and generally living the good life while other Americans perished overseas.

 

Not only does his arrogance show, he actually knows nothing about the military and its code of honor simply because Donald Trump has no honor and his only code is money.

 

[wayned]

10 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

but he used a doctor on 5 occasions claiming he had bone spurs in his foot

Just to clarify this, Trump got yearly educational deferments while he was going to school, as I did.  After he graduated, he received the medical deferment for the "bone spurs", but I think that it was only once.  It was a common thing to do if your family had money or the right connections.  I still  would classify him as a draft dodger!

[Srikcir]

9 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

"Resist"  an  "illegal"  nuclear  strike  order ????

Is  that a  definitive  assurative  declaration  that a   loosehead individual does  not  have  the  singular   capacity  to   initiate  a nuclear  chaos ? Or  not?

The initial story reported by CNN said the general would "push back" on the order, ie., present talking points to the President of why the order should not be given. Generals should provide advise and options to the President. The President's job is to listen then decide - not the generals.

 

"Push back" is defined as "resistance" or opposition in response to a policy or regulation especially by those affected. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pushback

Both are not defined as "refusal" which seems how the news media is now presenting the general's comments. I'm sure the General was aware of such nuances so as not to be heard  that he would disobey a Presidential order.

 

As a matter of conjunctive historical interest, it was a general that drafted President Truman's order to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons. The order made no mention of targeting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets. There was no limit as to the number of nuclear bombs to be used.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html

 

[CaptHaddock]

4 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The initial story reported by CNN said the general would "push back" on the order, ie., present talking points to the President of why the order should not be given. Generals should provide advise and options to the President. The President's job is to listen then decide - not the generals.

 

"Push back" is defined as "resistance" or opposition in response to a policy or regulation especially by those affected. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pushback

Both are not defined as "refusal" which seems how the news media is now presenting the general's comments. I'm sure the General was aware of such nuances so as not to be heard  that he would disobey a Presidential order.

 

As a matter of conjunctive historical interest, it was a general that drafted President Truman's order to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons. The order made no mention of targeting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets. There was no limit as to the number of nuclear bombs to be used.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html

 

In fact, no order to drop the Hiroshima bomb was ever issued by Truman.  The order referenced was signed by a general.  Of course, Truman was aware of the plan to drop the bomb, but the military was in control of the entire process and never asked Truman for an order.  There is good evidence that Truman was not even informed of the Nagasaki bomb in advance, was surprised by it, and immediately ordered a halt to any further atomic bombing, which was closing the barn doors after the horses had fled since the military had by then expended 100% of its nuclear inventory.

 

 

[Srikcir]

34 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Donald Trump maybe President but he does not have the respect of the US military or the majority of Americans.

That is really the one of the distinguishing factors between Trump and other presidents in a war crisis. For example, would we see the same conversation with Obama and generals? I don't think so.

 

The American people trusted both Truman and Lincoln to make decisions that are best for the nation - the American people as a whole. Trump shows his decisions are made only for his own ego and a minority that feeds that ego. American generals have cause to distrust Trump's competency as a commander-in-chief and the influence of nationalists (aka fascists) on his policies.

[CaptHaddock]

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

That is really the one of the distinguishing factors between Trump and other presidents in a war crisis. For example, would we see the same conversation with Obama and generals? I don't think so.

 

The American people trusted both Truman and Lincoln to make decisions that are best for the nation - the American people as a whole. Trump shows his decisions are made only for his own ego and a minority that feeds that ego. American generals have cause to distrust Trump's competency as a commander-in-chief and the influence of nationalists (aka fascists) on his policies.

We don't know what the generals think of Trump, because they don't say.  We can be sure that they were very pleased at the $54 billion increase in the military budget proposed by Trump.  My guess is that money matters to them more than Trump's manners.

[metisdead]

A post in which the quoted content had been altered has been removed:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.
 

[hawker9000]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 6:20 PM, otherstuff1957 said:

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

 

 

 

 

If so, good!

Nope.  He's saying he wouldn't carry out an illegal order, if the President should inadvisedly give one, which, notwithstanding the hysterics and antic ravings regularly heard hereabouts, isn't even a remote possibility.  "First strike" - and we're all talking about nuclear strike here - does not necessarily equal "illegal order".  Much less than meets the eye here; it's just the usual anti-Trump losers with their customary yammering.   Trump is no more likely to order nuclear first-use than any of his predecessors, but under certain extreme circumstances - mostly theoretical - might see the need and would NOT necessarily be violating ANY laws by doing so.  Presidents, certainly not beginning with Trump,  will exercise and have exercised emergency powers.   Lincoln, FDR, and Truman all exercised "emergency powers". Lincoln's use of them (suspension of habeas corpus, 1861) was actually struck down by the Supreme Court and Lincoln totally ignored the court.  Truman did not consult with Congress prior to using the atom bombs against Japan   If Trump should actually come to even believe that Gen Hyten would refuse an order pursuant to his exercise of emergency powers (or was ever so misguided as to actually do so), I'm sure he'll merely relieve him on the spot, as would any president (as Truman did with MacArthur).

 

 

[mrwebb8825]

On 11/19/2017 at 2:39 PM, amvet said:

If he was publicly accused of sexual misconduct by three women to include rape, groping without consent; and exposing himself and sexual harassment and having an affair with a young intern in the Oval office and lying about those things under oath I'd turn on him.

you're thinking of Bill Clinton.

[mrwebb8825]

Just to put an end to this discussion, General John Hyten has no say so anyway.

"POTUS has a card, commonly called the "biscuit," with the nuclear launch codes on it. He also has a briefcase, nicknamed the "football," carried by a military aide who is never more than about 15 seconds away from the President, with the equipment and the information needed to launch a nuclear strike. The National Command Authority (NCA), POTUS with the consideration of the SecDef who must agree, can do the first step."

He is not part of the NCA.

https://www.quora.com/Step-by-step-what-is-the-process-required-for-the-United-States-to-launch-a-nuclear-weapon

"Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

 

Then NORAD - Then the ships and submarines commands.

[CaptHaddock]

26 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Just to put an end to this discussion, General John Hyten has no say so anyway.

"POTUS has a card, commonly called the "biscuit," with the nuclear launch codes on it. He also has a briefcase, nicknamed the "football," carried by a military aide who is never more than about 15 seconds away from the President, with the equipment and the information needed to launch a nuclear strike. The National Command Authority (NCA), POTUS with the consideration of the SecDef who must agree, can do the first step."

He is not part of the NCA.

https://www.quora.com/Step-by-step-what-is-the-process-required-for-the-United-States-to-launch-a-nuclear-weapon

"Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

 

Then NORAD - Then the ships and submarines commands.

It was believed in the past that sub commanders must have had authority to launch nuclear missiles since radio communication with submerged subs was either unreliable or impossible, depending on who you spoke to. 

 

Whether current radio technology permits underwater communication is an interesting question.

[55Jay]

I would be more concerned about the sycophant Generals surrounding KJU.  What's the SOP for KJU to launch nukes?  Any checks and balances?  Any key Generals who might have the sack to stand up to KJU in the critical moment?   Would that General merely be relieved and pushed into retirement?  Or perhaps shot in the head in a very public way, to remind the others what happens to those who dissent?

Edited November 20, 2017 by 55Jay