View Full Version : Nuke commanders say they can refuse illegal order
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/18/us-general-says-nuclear-launch-order-can-be-refused.html
Okay, so let's say NK launches a nuke at us, whether it hits or not. Even if our ABM stuff knocks it down it still was an attempt. Analogy: if you're out and about and a shithead takes a swing at you, but you block it, do you wait for another or figure "It's on" and return the blow?
POTUS orders a retaliatory strike. The Nuke Gods say "No, but we can give you alternatives."
I have a fundamental problem with this, as what exactly constitues an "illegal" order? I can see if it was a pre-emptive move, as I don't think that would ever be justified. However, a return in kind is certainly justified but I get the impression that our top brass has become politically correct (witness Bergdahl and Manning). You HAVE to have the legitimate threat of being incinerated to deter using nukes in the first place.
The problem with N Korea is logistics. The US could make N Korea uninhabitable for the next 4000 years with the press of a button. The problem is that N Korea will retaliate against S Korea if the US does anything. We are in between a rock and a hard place. If the US uses any kind of force and N Korea launches chemical weapons into Seoul, the whole world will be outraged against the US and there could possibly UN sanctions against the US. I know its not best to sit and do nothing, but that's the position we are in, not take another step unless "Rocket Man" swings. Sanctions have not worked with N Korea, its only hurt the people, meanwhile the military industrial machine continues to build weapons. I think Trump was hoping China would involve themselves in hopes to bring forth a peaceful resolution and the fact that China is about to invest 250 billion into the US, I have a feeling they will start playing ball with N Korea.
Like I said, I personally don't believe a pre-emptive strike is ever going to be warranted, conventional or nuclear.
That said, if it is sent our way first then lay waste in kind, i.e. conventional = conventional, nuke = nuke.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/18/us-general-says-nuclear-launch-order-can-be-refused.html
POTUS orders a retaliatory strike. The Nuke Gods say "No, but we can give you alternatives."
I have a fundamental problem with this, as what exactly constitues an "illegal" order? I can see if it was a pre-emptive move, as I don't think that would ever be justified. However, a return in kind is certainly justified but I get the impression that our top brass has become politically correct (witness Bergdahl and Manning). You HAVE to have the legitimate threat of being incinerated to deter using nukes in the first place.
I agree and I have the same attitude. But the left thinks everything Trump does is "illegal". Obviously, the POTUS cant just say "nuke so and so", there has to be reason and a procedure for any type of nuclear weapon use. The US or a member of NATO will have to be nuked first before that constitutes as a "justifiable cause" for nuclear retaliation. Obama made us feel sorry for Japan for nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima but failed to point out that the sneak attack on Pear Harbor could have prevented a war in the pacific. Its the world we live in. The top brass as you say "politically correct" are just desk generals. These aren't the same type of mentality as Patton, MacArthur or Schwarzkopf. These are generals who want to win wars with economic sanctions, letters to UN and awareness.
Averageman
11-18-17, 21:41
Simply cashier Hyten out on Monday.
There you go, problem solved.
And this is new in what way? If your CO orders you to rape villagers while out on patrol you have a duty to disobey it as that would be an illegal order. Whether an illegal order is coming from a nugget or the CiC is irrelevant.
Averageman
11-18-17, 22:11
And this is new in what way? If your CO orders you to rape villagers while out on patrol you have a duty to disobey it as that would be an illegal order. Whether an illegal order is coming from a nugget or the CiC is irrelevant.
What constitutes an illegal order when the POTUS gives the call to launch?
Do we set back and debate this or do we launch?
The are a lot of guys sitting in Submarines that aren't exactly getting a live feed from CNN and who have the luxury of a private huddle before doing their duty.
this is simply another way to undermine Trump.
What constitutes an illegal order when the POTUS gives the call to launch?
Do we set back and debate this or do we launch?
The are a lot of guys sitting in Submarines that aren't exactly getting a live feed from CNN and who have the luxury of a private huddle before doing their duty.
this is simply another way to undermine Trump.
Do we set back and debate this or de we launch? I think these days, we would ask permission from congress, NATO and UN.
About submarines- that's what I don't get, those guys have the authority to launch don't they? isn't it a 2 man launch operation? They don't get to chose there targets but get to pick from 3 I think.
And finally, yes, this is a way to undermine Trump. Obama put a lot of liberals in the DOD and staffed pentagon with "whistleblowers"
HardToHandle
11-19-17, 00:22
What constitutes an illegal order when the POTUS gives the call to launch?
Do we set back and debate this or do we launch?
The are a lot of guys sitting in Submarines that aren't exactly getting a live feed from CNN and who have the luxury of a private huddle before doing their duty.
this is simply another way to undermine Trump.
I read the book Raven Rock earlier this year. The book gets into the challenges that Richard Nixon faced in getting the SIOP nuclear strike plan to be more graduated and customizable. I mention this because the DOD chain command actively subverted the Presidential power to order a nuclear strike, based on Nixon's drinking prior to his resignation.
This is not the first time the President has seen concerns raised nor should it be the last. Nuclear weapons are a big deal and having reasonable checks and balances is in all of our interest.
When we talk about the NORKs, we are not nuking them, we are also irradiating South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. We likely would see some CONUS radiation here as well as ruining the tourist trade in Taiwan and the Phillippines. I will guess those countries, two of whom have the top three nuclear stockpiles, might have vote in the scenario too. Discretion is the better part of valor.
I read the book Raven Rock earlier this year. The book gets into the challenges that Richard Nixon faced in getting the SIOP nuclear strike plan to be more graduated and customizable. I mention this because the DOD chain command actively subverted the Presidential power to order a nuclear strike, based on Nixon's drinking prior to his resignation.
This is not the first time the President has seen concerns raised nor should it be the last. Nuclear weapons are a big deal and having reasonable checks and balances is in all of our interest.
When we talk about the NORKs, we are not nuking them, we are also irradiating South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. We likely would see some CONUS radiation here as well as ruining the tourist trade in Taiwan and the Phillippines. I will guess those countries, two of whom have the top three nuclear stockpiles, might have vote in the scenario too. Discretion is the better part of valor.
Not if one comes our way; we would have no choice but to respond in kind. Sure, there would be some mamby-pamby non-nuclear "options" offered by our politically correct pussified brass, 'cause we're "better than that" and we can absorb a nuclear hit. Bullshit! If a nuke is sent towards us----whether we shoot it down or not----they get canned sunshine in return. At that point the damned ChiComs should've thought about reigning them in well before things got out of hand.
Please tell me you weren't suggesting that NK is off-limits to being nuked under any circumstance, even if they light one off at us, right?
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
11-19-17, 08:43
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
11-19-17, 10:37
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?
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.
Did you really expect him to say he'd follow an illegal order? This is a tempest in a teapot.
A nuke would HAVE to be replied in kind.
No it would not.
In fact, it would be even more bad-ass to NOT respond with a Nuke, but with overwhelming conventional force.
No it would not.
In fact, it would be even more bad-ass to NOT respond with a Nuke, but with overwhelming conventional force.
There is no overwhelming conventional force that matches a nuke. None. Again I'll refer to Shock and Awe and the fact that it was an all-out conventional effort. In the end it didn't accomplish a damn thing. Their military and leadership was left intact, their infrastructure was largely unaffected ('cause hey, we can't knock out water supply or anything so brutish now can we), and it took an invasion and L-O-N-G war with occupation to "solve" those issues. Oh, and it's still a trainwreck. Of course Saddam didn't nuke us so we wouldn't have been justified in doing so.
I am surprised to see several folks suggest that we should sit back and just suck it up if the Norks popped a nuke on us. 'Cause that's exactly what a conventional response would essentially be. Has the taming of our population gotten that far?
I just don't understand the Moral High Road approach when we're [theoretically] talking about nuclear weapons being used on us first. Retaliation, payback, and future deterrance would be paramount. Try telling some guy who had his entire family incinerated in Kali or Washington state that "We're gonna send some conventional B2's/B-52's/cruise missiles in and boy they'll regret it!"
Bad guy shoots you in the gut with a gun. You set your gun down and throw a rock back at him. WTF???? :blink:
Averageman
11-19-17, 11:28
I just don't understand the Moral High Road approach when we're [theoretically] talking about nuclear weapons being used on us first. Retaliation, payback, and future deterrance would be paramount. Try telling some guy who had his entire family incinerated in Kali or Washington state that "We're gonna send some conventional B2's/B-52's/cruise missiles in and boy they'll regret it!"
The only reason Mutually Assured Destruction worked was that it was Mutually Assured that we would respond accordingly.
Taking one for the whole team only seems like an idea until you understand the implications of what the short and long term effects will be. We're not going to walk away with this without hundreds of thousands of casualties and likely millions of citizens who will have their lives cut short or sustain life changing health consequences.
The idea that we would not respond with overwhelming force would totally set the worlds political situation upside down.
This is what makes the General's loose lips a very dangerous situation.
The only reason Mutually Assured Destruction worked was that it was Mutually Assured that we would respond accordingly.
Taking one for the whole team only seems like an idea until you understand the implications of what the short and long term effects will be. We're not going to walk away with this without hundreds of thousands of casualties and likely millions of citizens who will have their lives cut short or sustain life changing health consequences.
The idea that we would not respond with overwhelming force would totally set the worlds political situation upside down.
This is what makes the General's loose lips a very dangerous situation.
That's pretty much my point. To let the world see that some rogue state could nuke us and get away with it without being turned into glass is a very bad message to send. Nukes have always been the Pandora's box that everyone has avoided opening. The idea that it can be let slide in some circumstances is not sound policy.
Again, the general either was an idiot for taking the bait or has a politically-oriented agenda.
There is no overwhelming conventional force that matches a nuke. None. Again I'll refer to Shock and Awe and the fact that it was an all-out conventional effort. In the end it didn't accomplish a damn thing. Their military and leadership was left intact, their infrastructure was largely unaffected ('cause hey, we can't knock out water supply or anything so brutish now can we), and it took an invasion and L-O-N-G war with occupation to "solve" those issues. Oh, and it's still a trainwreck. Of course Saddam didn't nuke us so we wouldn't have been justified in doing so.
I am surprised to see several folks suggest that we should sit back and just suck it up if the Norks popped a nuke on us. 'Cause that's exactly what a conventional response would essentially be. Has the taming of our population gotten that far?
I just don't understand the Moral High Road approach when we're [theoretically] talking about nuclear weapons being used on us first. Retaliation, payback, and future deterrance would be paramount. Try telling some guy who had his entire family incinerated in Kali or Washington state that "We're gonna send some conventional B2's/B-52's/cruise missiles in and boy they'll regret it!"
Bad guy shoots you in the gut with a gun. You set your gun down and throw a rock back at him. WTF???? :blink:
1) Uh, nobody is saying "we should sit back and just suck it up if the Norks popped a nuke on us". There would be a devastating response, but it does not have to be nuclear. A lot would depend on the damage, take out a major city, yeah he is getting a few back. POS falls into sea, or mountains, few killed, different return fire.
2) Shock & Awe was a joke. The sad truth is our country does not have the technical ability to wage an overwhelming conventional response, and we certainly have not had the stomach to do it either. The left has gutted our military, and ironically nukes are now the only way we can end a war quickly.
The only reason Mutually Assured Destruction worked was that it was Mutually Assured that we would respond accordingly.
The MAD doctrine was based on an all-out first strike.
NORK does not have the ability to do that. And we had plans in place if the USSR made a less than all-out first strike, they did not all require a MAD response. It is actually a very complicated war game to solve.
Averageman
11-19-17, 11:47
Perhaps you are not taking in to account the response time required for conventional response?
I can see a delay causing another successful launch, then another, then even perhaps a third party joining in.
The neat thing about the location we enjoy here in America is that we are very difficult to invade. The supply chain is insurmountable to conventional invasion.
We therefore are left with MAD. Not responding immediately would assure those who would wish us harm is; "We may not be able to rule the whole world, but with the United States glowing under a radioactive cloud, we likely have won the rest of it."
It used to be The Art of War.
Now it's the Art of The Script and Edit.
Perhaps you are not taking in to account the response time required for conventional response?
First response will almost guaranteed to be non-nuclear. Its primary goal would be to destroy any ability to launch again, or from other locations. This would be done most likely from sea-based systems, which I would presume, are off-shore as I type, an would happen in minutes. They would get there long before any CONUS based nuclear launch (ICBMs, B52s, etc).
It used to be The Art of War.
Now it's the Art of The Script and Edit.
We seem to be in the Telegram business, more interested in sending messages, than solving problems.
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.
Since 9:00AM January 20, 2017, the left and the entire left media has promoted an anti-Trump view. The liberal and especially the liberal media loves to stir the pot. I felt that Trumps earlier "fake news" insults were too far stretched- though I didn't disagree with him, I felt that in some way, he was over exaggerating. Turns out, Trump was completely 100% accurate with his assumption. The media, including MSNBC, CNN, CSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show with Steven Colbert, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Real Time with Bill Maher, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Late Night with Seth Meyers, Conan with Conan Obrien, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Late Late show with James Corden, The President Show on Comedy Central, Chelsea with Chelsea Handler and The Opposition with Jordan Klepper has become nothing more than an anti-trump propaganda workhorse for the left. They spin everything to go against trump. They insult him, his children, his wife all in the name of "political protest". Its garbage. The media has gone full defensive mode since Trumps inauguration. Its an embarrassment to the US. 100% of every news story is blown out of proportion in an attempt to make trump seem like you said, "a crazy man". Its not "comedy" anymore. Its personal.
Averageman
11-19-17, 12:09
Since 9:00AM January 20, 2017, the left and the entire left media has promoted an anti-Trump view. The liberal and especially the liberal media loves to stir the pot. I felt that Trumps earlier "fake news" insults were too far stretched- though I didn't disagree with him, I felt that in some way, he was over exaggerating. Turns out, Trump was completely 100% accurate with his assumption. The media, including MSNBC, CNN, CSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show with Steven Colbert, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Real Time with Bill Maher, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Late Night with Seth Meyers, Conan with Conan Obrien, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Late Late show with James Corden, The President Show on Comedy Central, Chelsea with Chelsea Handler and The Opposition with Jordan Klepper has become nothing more than an anti-trump propaganda workhorse for the left. They spin everything to go against trump. They insult him, his children, his wife all in the name of "political protest". Its garbage. The media has gone full defensive mode since Trumps inauguration. Its an embarrassment to the US. 100% of every news story is blown out of proportion in an attempt to make trump seem like you said, "a crazy man".
I applaud you!
Since 9:00AM January 20, 2017, the left and the entire left media has promoted an anti-Trump view. The liberal and especially the liberal media loves to stir the pot. I felt that Trumps earlier "fake news" insults were too far stretched- though I didn't disagree with him, I felt that in some way, he was over exaggerating. Turns out, Trump was completely 100% accurate with his assumption. The media, including MSNBC, CNN, CSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show with Steven Colbert, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Real Time with Bill Maher, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Late Night with Seth Meyers, Conan with Conan Obrien, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Late Late show with James Corden, The President Show on Comedy Central, Chelsea with Chelsea Handler and The Opposition with Jordan Klepper has become nothing more than an anti-trump propaganda workhorse for the left. They spin everything to go against trump. They insult him, his children, his wife all in the name of "political protest". Its garbage. The media has gone full defensive mode since Trumps inauguration. Its an embarrassment to the US. 100% of every news story is blown out of proportion in an attempt to make trump seem like you said, "a crazy man".
I agree with every word of that.
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?Go try to find a transcript of this interaction. Virtually impossible. What he said before is more important. The Press is very selectively quoting this to make it sound like the brass believe Trump would issue an illegal order.
"I think some people think we’re stupid. We’re not stupid people. We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?
I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do. 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, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated."
Completely different context and positioning then what you see in 90% of the articles. He was dismissing the very idea that Trump could/would do an illegal attack or similar.
This is the new norm: carefully parse and selectively quote Trump for the maximum disruptive effect. And most people will never know.
It's no accident you won't be able to find the full transcript or even the full response to the question on any popular media sites.
They are perpetuating the crazy man in the White House narrative.
Since 9:00AM January 20, 2017, the left and the entire left media has promoted an anti-Trump view. The liberal and especially the liberal media loves to stir the pot. I felt that Trumps earlier "fake news" insults were too far stretched- though I didn't disagree with him, I felt that in some way, he was over exaggerating. Turns out, Trump was completely 100% accurate with his assumption. The media, including MSNBC, CNN, CSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, The Late Show with Steven Colbert, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Real Time with Bill Maher, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Late Night with Seth Meyers, Conan with Conan Obrien, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Late Late show with James Corden, The President Show on Comedy Central, Chelsea with Chelsea Handler and The Opposition with Jordan Klepper has become nothing more than an anti-trump propaganda workhorse for the left. They spin everything to go against trump. They insult him, his children, his wife all in the name of "political protest". Its garbage. The media has gone full defensive mode since Trumps inauguration. Its an embarrassment to the US. 100% of every news story is blown out of proportion in an attempt to make trump seem like you said, "a crazy man". Its not "comedy" anymore. Its personal.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!
1) Uh, nobody is saying "we should sit back and just suck it up if the Norks popped a nuke on us". There would be a devastating response, but it does not have to be nuclear. A lot would depend on the damage, take out a major city, yeah he is getting a few back. POS falls into sea, or mountains, few killed, different return fire.
2) Shock & Awe was a joke. The sad truth is our country does not have the technical ability to wage an overwhelming conventional response, and we certainly have not had the stomach to do it either. The left has gutted our military, and ironically nukes are now the only way we can end a war quickly.
Think about this for a minute: we conventionally bombed the living daylights out of North Vietnam, Germany, and Japan, and did so for sustained periods of time (like years). The only difference in something coming "airmail" was that last country, when we ramped up to never-before-done Level 10+ Whoop-ass. Japan was the only example of difference in results between conventional and nuclear weaponry. One was mostly ineffective, even though we killed considerably more of them than Little Boy or Fat Man combined did. The other ended the war. I'm only advocating a tit-for-tat, *mostly* proportional response to the Norks sending a nuke our way. As I replied to Hmac, we wouldn't need thousands of MiRV'd warheads screaming out of CONUS missle silos. A few well-placed sunshine bursts from assets we no doubt already have in place would be sufficient, subs being the most obvious vehicle for delivery. They have to get back what they send out to get the point.
Now we shoot one down? IMO he still gets one (but just ONE). Like I mentioned earlier, if someone takes a swing at you and you block it, do you wait and TRY to block the next one (which he might land this time) or do you go ahead and take it to him?
Yes, Shock and Awe was a joke. But it was also an all-out conventional effort. As I recall we threw everything and the kitchen sink at them. Hell, I watched the whole thing on TV as I was off work for 6 weeks with my first shoulder surgery. It was essentially a massive prep for a ground invasion I know, but a LOT of shit went flying into Babylon and with pretty damn good precision to boot. Nonetheless, it still left the leadership alive and functioning, the military intact, and infrastructure in place. My point being that it was really all we could do because nukes were not warranted. If one was sent our way it WOULD be warranted and that leadership/military/infrastructure would be seriously damaged or destroyed.
One was mostly ineffective, even though we killed considerably more of them than Little Boy or Fat Man combined did. The other ended the war.
Apples to Oranges as none of those nations had Nuke Ability. Never mind, we "First Striked", something we are not prepared to do in NORK. Now if you are advocating for a First Strike in NORK, or Iran, ..... :-)
I'm only advocating a tit-for-tat, *mostly* proportional response to the Norks sending a nuke our way.
IMO, "tit-for-tat" will not work with him. He will gladly trade a few of his cities for NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, etc. A proportional response is a mistake. We need an overwhelming response that eliminates any possibility of a future attack. He destroys Honolulu, you destroy PyongYang. Then he launches again, and LA is gone, maybe SF. Killing a few million more NORK civilians does what for us? Nothing. Since we are not likely to send 50+ nukes, conventional targeting is the best response to achieve that objective.
They have to get back what they send out to get the point.
I have never understood the "we have to send a message" method of war fighting. You do not nuke a city so they "get the point". I doubt rocketman would "get the point". He does not care if a city gets wiped out. Or 10 cities. The only purpose of a response is to eliminate future attacks.
It is an interesting discussion. I am sure the Pentagon is as mixed as the internet. It is unfortunate our forces are so depleted we do not have much capability to fight. Of course as I alluded, we also do not have much will for an ugly fight either. So even with full forces, we do not have the stomach to do it.
LMT Shooter
11-19-17, 14:37
Think about this for a minute: we conventionally bombed the living daylights out of North Vietnam, Germany, and Japan, and did so for sustained periods of time (like years). The only difference in something coming "airmail" was that last country, when we ramped up to never-before-done Level 10+ Whoop-ass. Japan was the only example of difference in results between conventional and nuclear weaponry. One was mostly ineffective, even though we killed considerably more of them than Little Boy or Fat Man combined did. The other ended the war. I'm only advocating a tit-for-tat, *mostly* proportional response to the Norks sending a nuke our way. As I replied to Hmac, we wouldn't need thousands of MiRV'd warheads screaming out of CONUS missle silos. A few well-placed sunshine bursts from assets we no doubt already have in place would be sufficient, subs being the most obvious vehicle for delivery. They have to get back what they send out to get the point.
Now we shoot one down? IMO he still gets one (but just ONE). Like I mentioned earlier, if someone takes a swing at you and you block it, do you wait and TRY to block the next one (which he might land this time) or do you go ahead and take it to him?
Yes, Shock and Awe was a joke. But it was also an all-out conventional effort. As I recall we threw everything and the kitchen sink at them. Hell, I watched the whole thing on TV as I was off work for 6 weeks with my first shoulder surgery. It was essentially a massive prep for a ground invasion I know, but a LOT of shit went flying into Babylon and with pretty damn good precision to boot. Nonetheless, it still left the leadership alive and functioning, the military intact, and infrastructure in place. My point being that it was really all we could do because nukes were not warranted. If one was sent our way it WOULD be warranted and that leadership/military/infrastructure would be seriously damaged or destroyed.
Bingo!
Japan had 2 atomic bombs dropped on them, because their leaders could not comprehend that the reports of the level of destruction at Hiroshima were true. They needed another to be convinced that they were screwed & had no choice, other than total annihilation. Modern developments have increased the precision & power of conventional weapons, yet conventional weapons still do not approach the power of Fat Man or Little Boy.
Just as it would be highly unlikely that a nuclear response would be appropriate for a non-nuclear attack, a non-nuclear response to a nuclear attack would also be inappropriate.
General should have passed on loaded question.
I dont care who voted for whom.
If we get hit, someone else better get their ass skinned too.
Bingo!
Modern developments have increased the precision & power of conventional weapons, yet conventional weapons still do not approach the power of Fat Man or Little Boy.
True, Fat Man and Little Boy are a tad bid obsolete and so 1940's. I prefer for a more "Castle Bravo" style of approach. A GPS guided Bunker Busting W53 9 Megaton thermonuclear warhead when dealing with Iran or N Korea. Why leave the place in ruins when we can leave the place uninhabitable for 4000 years?
Apples to Oranges as none of those nations had Nuke Ability. Never mind, we "First Striked", something we are not prepared to do in NORK. Now if you are advocating for a First Strike in NORK, or Iran, ..... :-)
IMO, "tit-for-tat" will not work with him. He will gladly trade a few of his cities for NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, etc. A proportional response is a mistake. We need an overwhelming response that eliminates any possibility of a future attack. He destroys Honolulu, you destroy PyongYang. Then he launches again, and LA is gone, maybe SF. Killing a few million more NORK civilians does what for us? Nothing. Since we are not likely to send 50+ nukes, conventional targeting is the best response to achieve that objective.
I have never understood the "we have to send a message" method of war fighting. You do not nuke a city so they "get the point". I doubt rocketman would "get the point". He does not care if a city gets wiped out. Or 10 cities. The only purpose of a response is to eliminate future attacks.
It is an interesting discussion. I am sure the Pentagon is as mixed as the internet. It is unfortunate our forces are so depleted we do not have much capability to fight. Of course as I alluded, we also do not have much will for an ugly fight either. So even with full forces, we do not have the stomach to do it.
And you think that the answer is a conventional response to a nuclear attack? Seriously?
Bingo!
Japan had 2 atomic bombs dropped on them, because their leaders could not comprehend that the reports of the level of destruction at Hiroshima were true. They needed another to be convinced that they were screwed & had no choice, other than total annihilation. Modern developments have increased the precision & power of conventional weapons, yet conventional weapons still do not approach the power of Fat Man or Little Boy.
Just as it would be highly unlikely that a nuclear response would be appropriate for a non-nuclear attack, a non-nuclear response to a nuclear attack would also be inappropriate.
Exactly!
And you think that the answer is a conventional response to a nuclear attack? Seriously?
No, I do not think “A nuke would HAVE to be replied in kind.”
Emphasis yours
The rest of the population that doesn't know how our military works is probably thinking Crimson Tide because if it's a movie, it must be true.
LMT Shooter
11-19-17, 19:13
No, I do not think “A nuke would HAVE to be replied in kind.”
Emphasis yours
I'm not sure that I get your point.
No, I do not think “A nuke would HAVE to be replied in kind.”
Emphasis yours
Well I do, and I'm sure I'm not anywhere near alone with that thought in a nation of 330 million people.
I'm not sure that I get your point.
As POTUS I would be focused on preventing any more attacks by wiping out his launch capability than engaging in tit for tat.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/18/us-general-says-nuclear-launch-order-can-be-refused.html
Okay, so let's say NK launches a nuke at us, whether it hits or not. Even if our ABM stuff knocks it down it still was an attempt. Analogy: if you're out and about and a shithead takes a swing at you, but you block it, do you wait for another or figure "It's on" and return the blow?
POTUS orders a retaliatory strike. The Nuke Gods say "No, but we can give you alternatives."
I have a fundamental problem with this, as what exactly constitues an "illegal" order? I can see if it was a pre-emptive move, as I don't think that would ever be justified. However, a return in kind is certainly justified but I get the impression that our top brass has become politically correct (witness Bergdahl and Manning). You HAVE to have the legitimate threat of being incinerated to deter using nukes in the first place.
Nuking Alabama because of their accent would be illegal. Nuking North Korea for any reason would not. The commanders aren’t stupid, and they know they have an obligation to obey orders even if they don’t like them. However, something blatantly illegal has zero chance of popping up as a launch reason. This entire news story was a nonevent promoted to look like the military doesn’t like Trump.
LMT Shooter
11-19-17, 20:03
I agree that taking out an enemies ability to repeat a nuclear attack would be needed, but I also think that a nuclear strike would do this. If we do not do a "tit for tat" then we run the risk of sending the message that we won't be willing to respond at an equal or greater level, thus encouraging others to nuke us again, or leaving an enemy around to continue as a thorn in our side.
IMO, anytime we do not respond with a greater level of force, we are doing this. Our post WW2 history shows this to be true in N. Korea, Afghanistan, and many other places.
I agree that taking out an enemies ability to repeat a nuclear attack would be needed, but I also think that a nuclear strike would do this.
If launchers are not all located in same area, a single tit for tat nuke will not stop another launch.
If we do not do a "tit for tat" then we run the risk of sending the message ...
What is it with this fascination to send messages in war? I do not get it.
This not Western Union, we are not here to send messages. We need an overwhelming response that eliminates any possible secondary strike from anywhere on planet, though I do not think he has launch capability outside NK.
A single tit for tat nuke will be devastating for the X mile radius where it is detonated, but will have little effect elsewhere.
On the other hand a full tomahawk launch along with bombing raids will most likely destroy all launch capability.
Aren’t there, like, three carrier strike groups in the region right now? That’s a lot of Tomahawks. And, aren’t there a few Tomahawks or similar offensive weapons in South Korea somewhere?
As to commanders balking at “illegal orders”...who is doing the defining of “illegal”?
JCOS: “launch nukes”
Strategic commander: “sorry, can’t...it’s illegal”
JCOS: “you’re relieved....put your deputy on the phone”
Averageman
11-19-17, 22:00
If I remember correctly, weren't the guys in the nuke silos armed with pistols in case something made someone go a bit sideways?
I'm glad I never had that responsibility, but during your time on watch, would you even know what's going on outside?
We've come close, but haven't had to use"The Big One" for over 70 years, if given the order I would have to proceed.
LMT Shooter
11-19-17, 22:05
What is it with this fascination to send messages in war? I do not get it.
I think that we all send messages with almost everything we do, or say, not only as individuals but also as part of a group. It isn't always done well, nor intentionally, but we all do it every day. Nations do this as well. Others see your actions, or hear your words, and they see meaning in them. They use this to better know who and what you are, and what to expect from you in the future. This is a basic part of human nature, and it applies to nations as well.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-19-17, 22:30
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.
Yes it would, especially with Trump in place, but even with Clinton. Why? You want to be the president that lost a city to a nuke and while you were dropping iron bombs, you lost another city.......
That doesn’t even factor in the issue of other nuclear states thinking that they get a free-bee.
This all gets back to China. China has tried to keep baby in a dirty diaper for decades and if they don’t change it soon, the shit will hit them the most. If nothing else, US nukes in South Korea, a Japan that takes defense seriously and goes nuclear. China thinks that they can make the town crazy guy our problem when he lives in their front yard.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-19-17, 22:34
I think that we all send messages with almost everything we do, or say, not only as individuals but also as part of a group. It isn't always done well, nor intentionally, but we all do it every day. Nations do this as well. Others see your actions, or hear your words, and they see meaning in them. They use this to better know who and what you are, and what to expect from you in the future. This is a basic part of human nature, and it applies to nations as well.
We have told the world that if you are a bad guy and piss in our Wheaties, we will come for you- unless you have nuclear weapons. We also have to send a message that if you use a nuke on us, we will end your very existence and everyone that you have ever seen, talked to, or known. If we don’t send that message, or if we don’t back that message up, we just increase the value of getting nuclear weapons and make nuclear war even more likely.
I am pretty much the last guy who wants to see a nuclear event of any type. "The Day After" still gives me nightmares. But any response to a nuke attack in the US will be closely watched by other near-peers and 'semi-rogue' nations who may want to engage in saber-rattling. I don't think a full-out nuclear annihilation of NK would be called for, but some well-placed tactical nukes could be helpful. The message isn't to NK because they wouldn't get the message, but the message would be for everyone else.
This not Western Union, we are not here to send messages. We need an overwhelming response that eliminates any possible secondary strike from anywhere on planet, though I do not think he has launch capability outside NK.
A single tit for tat nuke will be devastating for the X mile radius where it is detonated, but will have little effect elsewhere.
So we get hit, the President says "I want to eliminate any possible secondary strike, give me all options", no targets will be easier or more assuredly destroyed with nukes?
A nuclear response doesn't have to be H-bomb a city.
So we get hit, the President says "I want to eliminate any possible secondary strike, give me all options", no targets will be easier or more assuredly destroyed with nukes?
A nuclear response doesn't have to be H-bomb a city.
I though we had established that we exchange at least city for city, or else everyone else in the world will be nuking us too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-20-17, 10:15
The real crux of the issue is this idea that the normal rules and laws don't apply for Trump. There have been law articles written that point out that is really dangerous to set precedents based on Trump and using basically illegal ways to try to hem him in.
So we get hit, the President says "I want to eliminate any possible secondary strike, give me all options", no targets will be easier or more assuredly destroyed with nukes?
A nuclear response doesn't have to be H-bomb a city.
Agreed. But that was not the scenario presented that I was referring g to.
Aren’t there, like, three carrier strike groups in the region right now? That’s a lot of Tomahawks. And, aren’t there a few Tomahawks or similar offensive weapons in South Korea somewhere?
Yeah...I think there is at least 2 carrier strike groups as well as a joint task force in that region! Not to mention 24 hour satellite surveillance and possibly stealth aerial reconnaissance.
The real crux of the issue is this idea that the normal rules and laws don't apply for Trump. There have been law articles written that point out that is really dangerous to set precedents based on Trump and using basically illegal ways to try to hem him in.
I don't understand what you are saying - that the normal rules and laws don't apply to President Trump? Or that the rules and laws do apply and some would like us to feel they don't?
Aren’t there, like, three carrier strike groups in the region right now? That’s a lot of Tomahawks. And, aren’t there a few Tomahawks or similar offensive weapons in South Korea somewhere?
I would hope that for the last year we have been quietly building a supply of Tomahawks so that we have a couple of service wide reloads available. In other words, getting on war footing with stand-off weapons.
FromMyColdDeadHand
11-20-17, 11:42
I don't understand what you are saying - that the normal rules and laws don't apply to President Trump? Or that the rules and laws do apply and some would like us to feel they don't?
That people are taking new interpretations of rules and laws that they wouldn't take with other presidents in an effort stymie him at every turn. The Aripaio pardon being one where people have tried to make arguments that Trump doesn't have the authority. The VISA legal fights would be another. In some ways it could help us be restricting the executive from forcing things through Obama did. But my suspiscion is that these viewpoints will only apply to Trump. That is pretty much banana republic territory. They throw in the rationale that is because Trump is 'Crazy', which is also a dangerous game to play. Just more echo chamber elitism.
Preface that I’m just another stupid civilian so my information and opinion should be viewed as such.
But if I were an evil dictator such as Kim...
I’d have bio/chem artillery trained on Seoul, the DMZ, and any other US mil in range. I’d also have them set up to strike unless notified by high command every X minutes. When tensions are high, as they are now, that time would be drastically shortened (perhaps single digit minutes) in case of a strike that takes out high command. If I had a small number of nukes, I’d want them on a similar protocol near Seoul and the DMZ.
From what I remember from earlier this year, intelligence indicated that NK had 30k artillery guns trained on those targets already. It also said that NK had positioned their guns too close to SK to be destroyed by nukes and not have fallout enter SK.
I also remember the issue of conventional strikes being possibly unable to eliminate a sufficient number of those 30k artillery emplacements quickly enough for them to not get off at least a few volleys of bio/chem shells into population centers in and around Seoul (10 million people).
It seems to me that perhaps our best conventional military option would be a false flag type of thing where we “intercept a transmission” that “authorizes an imminent nuclear strike” or something similar. It would take a huge expenditure of cooperation and simultaneous military force from every branch but what if we strike all of their artillery from land sea and air simultaneously at a given time? Would we be able to put enough bullets, bombs, artillery, missiles on target at once to eliminate their military within minutes? This wouldn’t allow time for a counterattack possibly.
I though we had established that we exchange at least city for city, or else everyone else in the world will be nuking us too.
You may be saying that tongue-in-cheek, but there is more of an element of truth to it than you think.
A "proportional response" would entail targets. They hit a city of ours, we make Pyongyang glow. They hit our military positions along the DMZ, we hit a military target of theirs. We use similar weapons. They probably don't have a Tsar Bomba so we wouldn't need our highest yield hydrogen warheards. But yeah, an eye for an eye.
Averageman
11-20-17, 12:57
That people are taking new interpretations of rules and laws that they wouldn't take with other presidents in an effort stymie him at every turn. The Aripaio pardon being one where people have tried to make arguments that Trump doesn't have the authority. The VISA legal fights would be another. In some ways it could help us be restricting the executive from forcing things through Obama did. But my suspiscion is that these viewpoints will only apply to Trump. That is pretty much banana republic territory. They throw in the rationale that is because Trump is 'Crazy', which is also a dangerous game to play. Just more echo chamber elitism.
I'm remembering how JFK was enshrined for the way he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think if you look at this it is a modern version of just that. The possibility of a launch from an audacious tiny country being protected by a larger more powerful allies.
I'm a bit of a history buff, but during the " Seven days in May" I really don't believe anyone on the right was openly opposing Kennedy and none of his Generals was pointing out the possibility of not obeying POTUS Kennedy's orders to retaliate if the Cuban/Russians launched.
So when you ask, if Trump is being treated differently, well there you go...
I'm remembering how JFK was enshrined for the way he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I think if you look at this it is a modern version of just that. The possibility of a launch from an audacious tiny country being protected by a larger more powerful allies.
I'm a bit of a history buff, but during the " Seven days in May" I really don't believe anyone on the right was openly opposing Kennedy and none of his Generals was pointing out the possibility of not obeying POTUS Kennedy's orders to retaliate if the Cuban/Russians launched.
So when you ask, if Trump is being treated differently, well there you go...
Kennedy's generals were the opposite: they wanted to invade, or attack Cuba. Not all, of course, but some. Lemay was far more hawkish than Kennedy just as Trump is far more hawkish than his generals. The difference being, the media loved Kennedy and the military leadership understood their place.
But a lot of Republicans were calling for Kennedy's head on a platter for not going far enough. It is right, though, and laughable that Trump would get any of the benefit of the doubt from the media and the left that every single other president got from the media and their opposition party.
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.
I feel I must disagree as well. Even if NK fired a tactical nuke at say, Guam, we would NEED to respond with a nuke of our own. Even if it was a single warhead delivered on Pyongyang via internal stores of a B2, that would do more than ANY conventional response ever would. It also wouldn't irradiate the entire region beyond livable levels.
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?[/B]
This. Very much this. I believe Gen. Hyten has displayed incredibly poor decision making skills for a button masher. :(
If launchers are not all located in same area, a single tit for tat nuke will not stop another launch.
What is it with this fascination to send messages in war? I do not get it.
This not Western Union, we are not here to send messages. We need an overwhelming response that eliminates any possible secondary strike from anywhere on planet, though I do not think he has launch capability outside NK.
A single tit for tat nuke will be devastating for the X mile radius where it is detonated, but will have little effect elsewhere.
On the other hand a full tomahawk launch along with bombing raids will most likely destroy all launch capability.
I think you're wistfully overstating our ability to locate all the PLS's, not to mention the ability of Tomahawks to effectively neutralize a hardened PLS. It would be an exceedingly risky tactic to hope you got them all, while leaving the command structure intact who preemptively launched one.
Now if you said do all that while simultaneously launching a nuke from a SSBN or B2, I might agree with you. It doesn't matter when or how, but anyone who launches a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States, must be eliminated ASAFP. No ifs ands or buts.
That people are taking new interpretations of rules and laws that they wouldn't take with other presidents in an effort stymie him at every turn. The Aripaio pardon being one where people have tried to make arguments that Trump doesn't have the authority. The VISA legal fights would be another. In some ways it could help us be restricting the executive from forcing things through Obama did. But my suspiscion is that these viewpoints will only apply to Trump. That is pretty much banana republic territory. They throw in the rationale that is because Trump is 'Crazy', which is also a dangerous game to play. Just more echo chamber elitism.
Thanks for the reply, sorry I didn't understand. I tend to agree. I did not like President Obama's extensive use of executive orders to bypass the legislative branch, so I'm going to feel that way when any President uses them for that purpose.
Other folks, on both sides, are more situational. Sheriff Joe's pardon is an example of that. I personally don't care for the guy much beyond his jail policies, but I don't care one wit that President Trump pardoned him. As you mention, the same folks that are complaining about President Trump not having authority, were shouting 'Yea!' when President Obama commuted Manning's sentence. and vice -versa. Some consistency across the board on both sides would be nice.
I think you're wistfully overstating our ability to locate all the PLS's, not to mention the ability of Tomahawks to effectively neutralize a hardened PLS. It would be an exceedingly risky tactic to hope you got them all, while leaving the command structure intact who preemptively launched one.
Maybe not, but we gotta try. Firing a single tit-for-tat Nuke at a city sure wont get many of them.
Now if you said do all that while simultaneously launching a nuke from a SSBN or B2, I might agree with you. It doesn't matter when or how, but anyone who launches a preemptive nuclear strike against the United States, must be eliminated ASAFP. No ifs ands or buts.
Well, a single tit-for-tat Nuke at a city sure wont eliminate him. As I said before, I am sure he would be willing to trade 5-10 of his cities for 5-10 of ours.
Well, a single tit-for-tat Nuke at a city sure wont eliminate him. As I said before, I am sure he would be willing to trade 5-10 of his cities for 5-10 of ours.
It sure wouldn't be tit-for-tat. If he nuked one of our cities, it would be the last thing he would ever nuke. I do not think a small-yield tactical nuke is overkill on our part; nor would be the awesome and terrible conventional munitions deployed at the same time.
IF he nuked one of our cities, Guam, whatever, and we had a limited and measured response, it may or may not play well to many world actors, but there are some it would be seen as passive and weak, and it is those folks I would be concerned about gaining a nuclear arsenal.
Averageman
11-21-17, 09:05
I'm guessing that if an immediate and overwhelming response was not nuclear a lot of lesser bad players on the world stage would join in wherever and however they could.
IE, San Francisco sucks up a nuke and US Embassies in Paris, Rome and Berlin are bombed. Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan fight human wave attacks, etc.
I am sure he would be willing to trade 5-10 of his cities for 5-10 of ours.
Well one good thing: we could ensure that NK no longer has a starvation problem! Why, we did it for humanitarian reasons! :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.