Can US generals say 'no' to Trump if he orders a nuclear strike?

[Toppy]

So what about Obama?

I think they're again forgetting that Hillary didn't win while Bush was president.

[ati87]

I think they're again forgetting that Hillary didn't win while Bush was president.

Forgetting a bit more then that though.

Obama got some pretty bad shit from Bush but you had the deplorable right-wing demanding obama fix the stuff they broke in 8 years within a month or so.

[Kujako]

You know what is funny about the "whataboutism"? The left literally used this every single day with Obama - "Oh really, well what about Bush". Hell, Obama used Bush as the reason why he was such a failure for at least the first 4 years.

Regardless, don't poke them too much, Dexy. They have to believe in something. Their world imploded on November 8th, 2016 and they still have not recovered.

Bush was actually president... you do understand that, right? Remembering the past is not the same as saying that the present is great because the alternative earth where Hillary won would have been worse.

[rogueMatthias]

That's a SERIOUSLY bullshit article.

Even discussing Trump carrying out an illegal nuclear strike as if it's any actual reality is the worst kind of fear-mongering and political propoganda.

Their follow up article will probably be "Who would be able to legally stop Trump if he decided to send all black people to death camps"

[Kujako]

That's a SERIOUSLY bullshit article.

Even discussing Trump carrying out an illegal nuclear strike as if it's any actual reality is the worst kind of fear-mongering and political propoganda.

Their follow up article will probably be "Who would be able to legally stop Trump if he decided to send all black people to death camps"

A) Trump keeps saying he'll do it.
B) The Generals have come out and stated that they wouldn't follow a first strike order.
C) Congress is looking into removing first strike command ability from POTUS.

These are things that are happening. Reporting on them is reporting the news, not fear mongering. Though the tone of the article in question may be.

[Ripster42]

A) Trump keeps saying he'll do it.
B) The Generals have come out and stated that they wouldn't follow a first strike order.
C) Congress is looking into removing first strike command ability from POTUS.

These are things that are happening. Reporting on them is reporting the news, not fear mongering. Though the tone of the article in question may be.

Well, it is fear mongering. It's just that trump is the one doing it as he keeps talking about attacking NK with "fire and fury."

[BuckSparkles]

Topics like this make me think if it was WW2 left wing folks would be like "Do we really need to nuke the nazi's and japan? Can't we just talk with them. Surely they are logical and can be appeased."

[Kujako]

Topics like this make me think if it was WW2 left wing folks would be like "Do we really need to nuke the nazi's and japan? Can't we just talk with them. Surely they are logical and can be appeased."

Right... WW2, when we nuked Japan as a pre war first strike. You sure about that?

[BuckSparkles]

Right... WW2, when we nuked Japan as a pre war first strike. You sure about that?

Hey I am just saying NK could nuke the US and we would still have people be like "but do we need to nuke them back?"

[Thekri]

That's a SERIOUSLY bullshit article.

Even discussing Trump carrying out an illegal nuclear strike as if it's any actual reality is the worst kind of fear-mongering and political propoganda.

Their follow up article will probably be "Who would be able to legally stop Trump if he decided to send all black people to death camps"

I know it is bad policy to agree with Trumpkins... But yeah, I totally agree with you here. This actually is nothing but fearmongering. They asked the general if he would carry out an illegal order. The word illegal was in the question. A general saying he wouldn't do something illegal isn't news, nor is it in anyway a comment about Trump, until the media made it that way.

A general is not going to shit-talk the president on Camera, at least not without getting fired. That is what happened to MacArthur, and more recently McChrystal. I have a lot of respect for McChrystal, and very little for Obama's foreign policy, but firing him was still the right move, we can't afford to have a partisan military.

[Lenonis]

Hey I am just saying NK could nuke the US and we would still have people be like "but do we need to nuke them back?"

Yup, and we should. Because we're talking about a nuclear strike which would affect the entire region. A weak minded knee jerk reaction of "just nuke them back" should be the last option on the table. And I'm willing to bet the actual people in the military would put forward a portfolio of options from tactical strikes (non nuclear) to full on just carpet bombing the place to a nuclear strike back.

Perhaps you mean to try to claim people would be like "but do we need to attack them back?" in which case you would be right but only for a tiny handful of pacifists.

I would like to point out the surge in support of Bush after 9/11 and the initial support for the Iraq war. People band together when the US is attacked.

[Mormolyce]

That's a SERIOUSLY bullshit article.

Even discussing Trump carrying out an illegal nuclear strike as if it's any actual reality is the worst kind of fear-mongering and political propoganda.

Their follow up article will probably be "Who would be able to legally stop Trump if he decided to send all black people to death camps"

Under normal circumstances it would be.

But in this case, you have only Trump to blame for it.

[Lenonis]

There you go: Two post below yours.

I'm honestly curious -- if there were other options on the table to get the job done do you think a nuclear strike back is still the best option? Even if it means harming the neighboring countries and killing their citizens?

[cubby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42065714



Much more in the link

The short answer is yes, they can say no, but they would be removed from duty for failing to follow an order from their commander and another person would take their place, etc.

The long answer is, well, long. And complicated. And uncertain. What you might be looking for is that the President, in ordering a nuclear strike, falls under a two-man rule, wherein the Secretary of Defense must authorize the order, although he cannot veto it. That link isn't the best, especially the sources for it, so let me find better stuff.

[Yvaelle]

The short answer is yes, they can say no, but they would be removed from duty for failing to follow an order from their commander and another person would take their place, etc.

The long answer is, well, long. And complicated. And uncertain. What you might be looking for is that the President, in ordering a nuclear strike, falls under a two-man rule, wherein the Secretary of Defense must authorize the order, although he cannot veto it. That link isn't the best, especially the sources for it, so let me find better stuff.

Just to expand on this, there is actually another system in place.

First regarding the two-man system with the SecDef, what the 'authorization but not veto' bit means is that as part of his job requirements he is expected to authorize the presidents order to verify that the POTUS did indeed order the strike. Failure to authorize is grounds for removal from the role of SecDef - so Robert Gates (current) could refuse to authorize, but then Trump could fire him. Firing him isn't quite instant though, and the next SecDef would potentially be willing to refuse to authorize as well - so it doesn't immediately enable the POTUS to fire.

The other system is DEFCON. In order to fire a nuclear missile, the US would need to be at DEFCON 1. The US has never been to DEFCON 1 before, and only the air force has ever been to DEFCON 2 (not the rest of the US, during the cuban missile crisis). Currently we are DEFCON 5 (lowest). In order to get to DEFCON 1, we would need to justify DEFCON 4 (meetings & paperwork), then justify DEFCON 3 (again), then justify DEFCON 2, then justify DEFCON 1.

It's not an instantaneous process, and you can't leapfrog to DEFCON 1 even during imminent attack (though the meetings would probably become a monologue of the general going through the motions as fast as possible without protest). Generally speaking, this process would take days, would inform the public, would require a bit of internal debate from the leadership at each stage, etc. But the point is Trump can't wake up in the night, take a shit, get in a 3AM twitter war with Barbara Streisand, then call for the air force to nuke California in retaliation.

[caervek]

Trump has a nuclear briefcase with a single red button

In Trumps case I can believe it would need to be that simple, but how exactly is he supposed to select the target?

[Ripster42]

Hey I am just saying NK could nuke the US and we would still have people be like "but do we need to nuke them back?"

The only one pushing this strawman is you. So grats on arguing a point no one gives a shit about, that isn't happening.

[Hobb]

Topics like this make me think if it was WW2 left wing folks would be like "Do we really need to nuke the nazi's and japan? Can't we just talk with them. Surely they are logical and can be appeased."

Obviously you don't know your history. The democrats were in charge of both Congress and the Presidency during WW2 and saw the US through to victory.

The democrats were also in charge during WW1 and saw us through to victory in that one as well.

[BuckSparkles]

Obviously you don't know your history. The democrats were in charge of both Congress and the Presidency during WW2 and saw the US through to victory.

The democrats were also in charge during WW1 and saw us through to victory in that one as well.

To imply old school democrats (who have actual semblance to being patriots) are the same as the hyper-globalist PC democrats is foolish. I was saying if WW2 was today what would happen.

[Marcellus1986]

It wouldn't be a gen-OT thread if you didn't have Ransath and people like Bucksparkles coming in to toss in their uninformed, mildly retarded opinions.