Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing

[prwraith]

Is there anything that says we can't bomb the shit out of every square inch of north korea, seeing as we're still at war with them?

[Skroe]

Is there anything that says we can't bomb the shit out of every square inch of north korea, seeing as we're still at war with them?

South Korea has to approve any military action the US takes under US-SK agreement.

No SK approval, no nothing.

The US would also likely seek Japanese approval as well, but unlike South Korea, it's not required.

[alexw]

Yes, I'm sure about that. If the last 3 months have showed people anything about the USA government workings, it's that the POTUS' power isn't absolute.

With regards to launching a nuclear strike the power of POTUS is absolute. It can't be any other way. The reason for that is because if Russia or China (or anyone else) launched ICBM's at Washington DC and/or at any other center of control, the time between confirming their launch and when that strike would hit would be ~15 minutes. Hence there would be no time to deliberate or debate in congress or have legislative checks and balances be worked through on the launch process. So if Trump unilaterally decides to launch nukes you better hope his close advisors convince him otherwise because that's about the only people who could stop him.

[bladeXcrasher]

With regards to launching a nuclear strike the power of POTUS is absolute. It can't be any other way. The reason for that is because if Russia or China (or anyone else) launched ICBM's at Washington DC and/or at any other center of control, the time between confirming their launch and when that strike would hit would be ~15 minutes. Hence there would be no time to deliberate or debate in congress or have legislative checks and balances be worked through on the launch process. So if Trump unilaterally decides to launch nukes you better hope his close advisors convince him otherwise because that's about the only people who could stop him.

USA stance is to have been attacked, meaning and explosion needs to occur, before a retaliation strike.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't know much about the Presidency do you? The last 3 months showed us that when he launches strikes without asking permission he's applauded. If NK nuked other countries you can be assured he'd hit that button so fast it'd make your head spin. And he has the authority to do so.

You talking about the tomahawk strikes in Syria, the ones that had been planned since the last president was in office? (don't take this as agreement with the strikes btw)

[Muzjhath]

Listen, i know your narrative well and i know how you tend to throw all the blame to others. You excel on that and you do it well.

However, someone has to think what would happen if NATO didn't push eastwards? There are F-35s in Esthonia for God's Shake.

Russia has to respond at some point, just be afraid what their reaction will be.

Because it's not like Russia ever acted badly towards it's western neighbors before any of that. Or that there is a more NATO presence in the eastern partners now than 15 years ago because of how Russia's acted over the past two decades. I remember the -hope- that was had in most of Europe when Putin took over. A man who could forge a new legacy for the nation. (Which he hasn't, he's just striving for the old age of gone glory).
It's not like Russian propaganda around Estonian policy and projects have cased internal strife due to the fact that they can broadcast Russian state sponsored television and control a message there (as well as radio).
When Estonia joined NATO Russia had already started to act as a belligerent in certain aspects of their SoI. They wanted out of that SoI as they had stopped trusting Russia.
Having stuff like this happen at their embassy, along with ethnic Russians rioting in Tallinn doesn't exactly remove fears about Russian intentions.

[paralleluniverse]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-no...-idUSKBN17Q1LR

The situation is this: Trump is aggressively making threats to provoke war with North Korea for no legitimate reason.

[lonely zergling]

Cant wait to see how historians try to blame WW3 on the germans again.

[Gorsameth]

As long as china doesnt get military involved i dont really care

NK is a gnat that buzzes and annoys and can easily be squished!

China is not the problem. The fact that Seoul is in range of conventional artillery and a city of 10 million gets flattened the moment the first bang goes off, is.

[urasim]

Cant wait to see how historians try to blame WW3 on the germans again.

Are you a time traveler? How can historians blame WW3 on Germans AGAIN when there hasn't been a WW3?

I know what you're saying, but you could have worded it better. Also, do you think that it wasn't justified to blame Germany on the other world wars?

[Dug]

Are you a time traveler? How can historians blame WW3 on Germans AGAIN when there hasn't been a WW3?

I know what you're saying, but you could have worded it better. Also, do you think that it wasn't justified to blame Germany on the other world wars?

"People in 1939 were too easily throwing around the word 'nazi'. Keep using it like that and it loses all meaning!"

[lonely zergling]

Are you a time traveler? How can historians blame WW3 on Germans AGAIN when there hasn't been a WW3?

I know what you're saying, but you could have worded it better. Also, do you think that it wasn't justified to blame Germany on the other world wars?

Could have worded it better you are right. WW1 wasnt Germanys fault but we still get blamed for it. WW2 was no doubt the fault of Germany though.

[Gamer8585]

The Senate will be informed that North Korea was destroyed in a tragic mining accident.

[breadisfunny]

So now the US can finally end this war that lasted longer than any other war in US history, which is a good thing!

I also like the tactic of "lets wait 65 years until their weapons are so outdated we cant possibly lose!"
No doubt Trump will take credit for that too

actually at this point the korean conflict is 71 years old. if your going by the end of the korean war it's 63 years old.

[breadisfunny]

Could have worded it better you are right. WW1 wasnt Germanys fault but we still get blamed for it. WW2 was no doubt the fault of Germany though.

ww1 was partly germany's fault as they DID support hungary-austria when they invaded serbia. they basically egged them on when they KNEW what would happen. it also didn't help that they were the ones who did unrestricted submarine warfare which at the time was viewed as sort of below the belt for neutral nations in violating their rights. most of the blame should have gone to austria hungary for invading serbia and russia and france.(as they didn't try very hard to stop the whole thing. ESPECIALLY FRANCE.) britian if i remember correctly only reluctantly went to war because of france.america tried to stay out of it until early 1917 when germany dragged them into it. although these nations britian france should get some of the blame for setting up some of the events that led to ww2 by basically goading germany into a situation where they felt the need to be on the offensive to become a nation again by treating them essentially like a inferior race.

[urasim]

"People in 1939 were too easily throwing around the word 'nazi'. Keep using it like that and it loses all meaning!"

I don't know why you quoted me with this. Care to explain yourself?

Could have worded it better you are right. WW1 wasnt Germanys fault but we still get blamed for it. WW2 was no doubt the fault of Germany though.

True, but they weren't entirely blameless, right?

[Dug]

I don't know why you quoted me with this. Care to explain yourself?

Not really

[alexw]

USA stance is to have been attacked, meaning and explosion needs to occur, before a retaliation strike.

It doesn't matter what the stance is. You can have a stance of x,y,z but as long as the power is in someone elses hands that stance in meaningless, and in terms of the president being able to launch ICBM's, that's exactly what that stance is. Only one person can determine whether ICBM's will be launched, and his desires on this issue cannot be over-ruled, and that person is the president. All he has to do is say I want to launch at x,y,z and they will launch. The Sec of Defense does have to confirm that its the president authorizing the launch but all he can do if he doesn't want to confirm is resign, and then it simply falls to his second in command and so on down the line until they launch meaning that it isn't a block at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38651616

Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear non-proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Washington, says that ultimately, the sole authority to launch a strike rests with the president.

"There are no checks and balances on the president's authority to launch a nuclear strike," he says. "But between the time he authorises one and the time it's carried out there are other people involved."

The idea of a rogue president taking such a monumental decision on his own is unrealistic. He gives the order and the secretary of defence is constitutionally obliged to carry it out.

The secretary of defence could, in theory, refuse to obey the order if he had reason to doubt the president's sanity, but this would constitute mutiny and the president can then fire him and assign the task to the deputy secretary of defence.

[lonely zergling]

True, but they weren't entirely blameless, right?

No one is entirely blameless in WW1. Its just weird that germany gets the main fault when it just hold up its contract. In the end the "winners" got what they deserved by setting up WW2 with blaming ww1 on germany alone.

[caervek]

All he has to do is say I want to launch at x,y,z and they will launch.

No that's not true it's just media hype, the chain of command system has failsafes in place to avoid the risk of a president losing his mind. I.E the SoD would refuse to relay the order to launch (his codes or in his absence the codes of his assistant are required to launch) and then inform the Cabinet/Congress to report that the president had gone mad, the cabinet can declare the President unfit.

[cuafpr]

No that's not true it's just media hype, the chain of command system has failsafes in place to avoid the risk of a president losing his mind. I.E the SoD would refuse to relay the order to launch (his codes or in his absence the codes of his assistant are required to launch) and then inform the Cabinet/Congress to report that the president had gone mad, the cabinet can declare the President unfit.

not sure what experience you have... but its not exactly checks and balance thing. Yes the order could be refused but in the end if the president orders a launch that's that, it takes someone disobeying the order to delay it. There are things around disobeying unlawful orders so that would be the only ground to stand on, while congress did their thing.

source: former nuke officer