Jump to content

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


rooster59

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, amvet said:

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

Truman is as different from Trump, in character, as Jimmy Carter and Mussolini.

 

I don't completely agree with the US dropping 2 A-bombs on Japan in the manner they did.   Hindsight is 20-20, but I would have advised it differently.  For starters, the US only had 2 A-bombs at that time (though it indicated to the Japs that it had many more).   I think the US should have picked a remote Japanese island and bombed it.  It would have shown the devastation possible.  At that time, the US ruled the Japanese skies, and the Japs knew it.  They knew the US could bomb anywhere at any time - even Tokyo and the Emperor's compounds.   

 

If not a remote island, then perhaps purely military or military-manufacturing target(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

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.

It  does.  And  has  done  so  for  quite a considerable  time  via   very  long   wave  radio  signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

It  does.  And  has  done  so  for  quite a considerable  time  via   very  long   wave  radio  signal.

Years ago I read an article about radio communications with subs that said that ELF communications require a very long antenna, at the time 1.5 miles of copper, towed behind the sub.  Just now I see Wikipedia reports that a sub can receive ELF, but cannot house its own transmitter, so that communication is incoming only.  Sounds problematical to me.  I wonder if the sub commanders still have nuke launch authority.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines#Extremely_low_frequency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

Years ago I read an article about radio communications with subs that said that ELF communications require a very long antenna, at the time 1.5 miles of copper, towed behind the sub.  Just now I see Wikipedia reports that a sub can receive ELF, but cannot house its own transmitter, so that communication is incoming only.  Sounds problematical to me.  I wonder if the sub commanders still have nuke launch authority.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines#Extremely_low_frequency

Incoming  coded  signal  to  launch  is   enough   for   any   meglomaniac's  satisfaction !  No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The truth is  that  "we"  collectively  try  to  avoid  any  description. And  the  "you"  that  people  presume  to  know is  not  even present.  lol :smile:

I don't presume to completely understand your note.  However, I've had a notion that a person who uses the pronoun 'we' is either a Siamese twin, or the Queen of England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/11/2017 at 2:12 PM, pgrahmm said:

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.....

The power to strike with nuclear force should be taken away from one single person and be debated before congress before a 75% vote agrees that a strike is imminent, i.e. the US is under fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

The power to strike with nuclear force should be taken away from one single person and be debated before congress before a 75% vote agrees that a strike is imminent, i.e. the US is under fire

You DO understand that there is a 6 minute window to retaliate before the 2nd wave comes, right? :coffee1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

The power to strike with nuclear force should be taken away from one single person and be debated before congress before a 75% vote agrees that a strike is imminent, i.e. the US is under fire

Yes, give it to a 535-member congress that only meets during weekdays during normal business hours - only when in session. But a great target for leadership decapitation!

And if the congressional majority is not the same party as the POTUS, "Don't call us. we'll call you."

And if there is a congressional split between/among parties, "Don't call us. we'll call you."

 

All the while an imminent ICBM strike might be as short as 7 minutes from offshore submarines and about 40 minutes from mainland North Korea to Washington D.C. "Duck & Cover" won't help.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Yes, give it to a 535-member congress that only meets during weekdays during normal business hours - only when in session. But a great target for leadership decapitation!

And if the congressional majority is not the same party as the POTUS, "Don't call us. we'll call you."

And if there is a congressional split between/among parties, "Don't call us. we'll call you."

 

All the while an imminent ICBM strike might be as short as 7 minutes from offshore submarines and about 40 minutes from mainland North Korea to Washington D.C. "Duck & Cover" won't help.

 

 

Image result for picture of a nuclear explosion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...