Nuke commanders say they can refuse illegal order

[Hmac]

I hope this thread isn’t borne of the the media-promoted stereotype fear that Trump is a crazy man who will launch nukes at North Korea just because Kim Jong-un insulted him. “Finger on the nuclear button”? Do we really think that nuclear war is going to work that way? I’m sure that there are already multiple North Korea battle plans for the multiple possible contingencies. I'm sure this kind of thing has been discussed at length with the President and that he is acutely aware of the practical limits of the fabled "President's finger on the nuclear button".

But seriously, let's get back to reality. The US isn’t going to preemptively launch nukes at anyone. We would be the pariahs of the world, South Korea would really take it in the shorts, and most importantly, we would have made China an actual enemy. Retaliation for a nuclear strike on America? Even if they pop a nuke on US soil, I don’t see ICBMs headed their way. The Cold War concept of MAD isn't any part of the North Korea scenario. I could see it being a limited strike though...certainly there would be a dramatic response. Bombers. Cruise missiles. Maybe tactical nukes. Talk about threading the needle...right between South Korea and China. North Korea is about the same size as Ohio. How many megatons of explosive power do we need to accomplish the actual goal...actually make the dramatic point that such a situation would demand?

[BrigandTwoFour]

I, frankly, think this is a little noise over nothing, and I'm pretty damn familiar with the NC2 infrastructure and chain of command. This is little more than a statement being taken out of context and used to spin a different narrative.

[pinzgauer]

I hope this thread isn’t borne of the the media-promoted stereotype fear that Trump is a crazy man who will launch nukes at North Korea just because Kim Jong-un insulted him. “Finger on the nuclear button”? Do we really think that nuclear war is going to work that way? I’m sure that there are already multiple North Korea battle plans for the multiple possible contingencies.

That's exactly what it is... And even the guy answering the question pointed that out in his tone, if not explicitly.

To me this is just fearmongering, promoting the narrative that Trump is an out of control whacko.

I'm very confident the only way this or any other administration would ever launch an attack is if it was to preempt an attack on S Korea or similar. And even then it would most likely be non-nuclear.

Trump may be annoying, but he is not stupid. And he listens to his advisors on this type of thing.

[ABNAK]

I hope this thread isn’t borne of the the media-promoted stereotype fear that Trump is a crazy man who will launch nukes at North Korea just because Kim Jong-un insulted him. “Finger on the nuclear button”? Do we really think that nuclear war is going to work that way? I’m sure that there are already multiple North Korea battle plans for the multiple possible contingencies. I'm sure this kind of thing has been discussed at length with the President and that he is acutely aware of the practical limits of the fabled "President's finger on the nuclear button".

But seriously, let's get back to reality. The US isn’t going to preemptively launch nukes at anyone. We would be the pariahs of the world, South Korea would really take it in the shorts, and most importantly, we would have made China an actual enemy. Retaliation for a nuclear strike on America? Even if they pop a nuke on US soil, I don’t see ICBMs headed their way. The Cold War concept of MAD isn't any part of the North Korea scenario. I could see it being a limited strike though...certainly there would be a dramatic response. Bombers. Cruise missiles. Maybe tactical nukes. Talk about threading the needle...right between South Korea and China. North Korea is about the same size as Ohio. How many megatons of explosive power do we need to accomplish the actual goal...actually make the dramatic point that such a situation would demand?

A nuke would HAVE to be replied in kind. No, a swarm of ICBM's with thousands of warheads wouldn't be necessary, but nuking them to some degree would have to happen. Pop a few here and there, but screw conventional responses if they cross that line.

This thread itself isn't borne of Trump-phobia, but I believe the article was.

I will say this though: I do not think the Norks will use a nuke first either. I cannot help but believe that they too have a grip on reality and realize what that would bring upon them. That said, if enough of a vibe was put out that we'd never nuke them no matter what they threw at us (you know, that bullshit "Moral High Road" crap) then I do think that could possibly embolden them.

[ABNAK]

That's exactly what it is... And even the guy answering the question pointed that out in his tone, if not explicitly.

To me this is just fearmongering, promoting the narrative that Trump is an out of control whacko.

I'm very confident the only way this or any other administration would ever launch an attack is if it was to preempt an attack on S Korea or similar. And even then it would most likely be non-nuclear.

Trump may be annoying, but he is not stupid. And he listens to his advisors on this type of thing.

While I have a hardline attitude on responding to a nuke with a nuke, I am very much against STARTING anything. I don't believe Trump will; as you said he's not stupid. He may need the Norks to think he's a little cray-cray, but he isn't.

[Hmac]

A nuke would HAVE to be replied in kind.

I have to disagree completely. It would have to be a bold response, but it wouldn't have to be nuclear. The world is aware of US capability. In many ways, a devastating non-nuclear response would get the point across far more effectively while accomplishing the same goal.

[ABNAK]

I have to disagree completely. It would have to be a bold response, but it wouldn't have to be nuclear. The world is aware of US capability. In many ways, a devastating non-nuclear response would get the point across far more effectively while accomplishing the same goal.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Remember Shock and Awe? That was an all-out conventional effort that in the end didn't do jack shit. It still took a ground invasion to take out Saddam. No, the proper response to a nuke is a nuke. There is no weapon as destructive as a nuke. THAT would get the point across.

Even if I voted for the man I would seek the removal from office of any POTUS who did NOT reply in kind. I don't think Trump is that guy, but I could've pictured Obama pussing out.

To send the message that you can nuke the U.S. and all you have to worry about is hunkering down in a deep bunker somewhere while a few hundred conventional cruise missles and bombers work you over for a week or two is a big mistake. Now when your society, military, and infrastructure are incinerated, THAT gets the point across that perhaps you (or anyone else for that matter) never wants to go there again.

[Averageman]

As per the article;
The top officer at U.S. Strategic Command said Saturday an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that order is determined to be illegal.

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of Strategic Command, told a panel at the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday that he and Trump have had conversations about such a scenario and that he would tell Trump he couldn't carry out an illegal strike.

"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?'" Hyten said.

So Hyten couldn't figure out where this was going when the question was asked?
At what point in the questioning did his mouth over ride his lack of sense?
At some point, when Hyten took this job he should have considered what he would do when faced with these kinds of questions. The Standard, "I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to discuss National Security policy at this time." I'm going to say, 'Mr President, that's illegal?'" Hyten said.
But WTF, everyone and everything is political now and everyone wants to be a rock star. Perhaps Hyten should go sit and home in the luxury of his LayZboy recliner and reconsider all of this in retirement?

[ABNAK]

As per the article;
The top officer at U.S. Strategic Command said Saturday an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused if that order is determined to be illegal.

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of Strategic Command, told a panel at the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday that he and Trump have had conversations about such a scenario and that he would tell Trump he couldn't carry out an illegal strike.

"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?'" Hyten said.

So Hyten couldn't figure out where this was going when the question was asked?
At what point in the questioning did his mouth over ride his lack of sense?
At some point, when Hyten took this job he should have considered what he would do when faced with these kinds of questions. The Standard, "I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to discuss National Security policy at this time." I'm going to say, 'Mr President, that's illegal?'" Hyten said.
But WTF, everyone and everything is political now and everyone wants to be a rock star. Perhaps Hyten should go sit and home in the luxury of his LayZboy recliner and reconsider all of this in retirement?

I think your suggestion of saying "We don't discuss national command and control issues publicly" is spot on. He either took the bait or is one of a myriad of PC, left-leaning general officers who rose during Obama's regime.

[HKGuns]

Did you really expect him to say he'd follow an illegal order? This is a tempest in a teapot.