"What would happen if a president ordered a nuclear strike, but the commanding general refused, believing it to be illegal? The truth is, no one knows."
" A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room."
TERRIFYING RHETORIC, TO SAY THE LEAST!
Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated."
So fucking reassuring.
This is one thing HRC got correct. Now that we do have him and his hands in control of those buttons the whole world is shaking in their boots and they don’t like it much either. The State Department is being gutted and the White House is a monkey-cage. I smell danger in the air. I was young during the Cuban thingy and this is nothing but insanity compared to that. Legal or illegal doesn’t matter when it is one person acting as jury, judge and exterminator
" I smell danger in the air."
And what makes it so dangerous is Trumps statements like: " they won’t see it coming" and: " what good are nukes if we do not use them"?
I am not an alarmist, but right now what is alarming is to me, we could be on the eve of a nuclear war. And I never wanted to be more wrong about anything in my whole life!
Trump may perhaps best be understood as a “sportsman” albeit, a disturbed one: He may actually be seeing all the chaos and danger he is creating as a sport that one devoid of any moral scruples would enjoy pursuing. We need to outsmart his ilk.
We also must hope that if the ball falls in the camp of the men and women who will actually pull the trigger that they will not. Open calls to them to refuse such orders can be started. Many ways to do this: Opinion pieces, letters to editors, flyers, demonstration–daily-- in front of media outlets and making this demand, occupying the offices of politicos, etc.
Congress just passed up an opportunity to show how concerned they are about this, and restore the power to declare war to Congress. Only 8 Senators supported Rand Paul’s bid to have authorization for war returned to the way it functioned before 9/11 distorted the rule of law.
It was attached to the Nat’l Defense Authorization Act, which also approved 700 billion in military spending. I guess they wanted to make sure the money got there, or it might have been available to use for health care for all and college tuition and infrastructure, and real national interest.
Earthquakes, hurricanes, pandemics, drought, floods, fire, pollution, conflict, Trump, are all nature’s ways to control overpopulation of species that are consuming and hoarding most resources, extinguishing diversity and destroying their habitat.
I too hope you are wrong but I think not. My gut tells me to hide, to secure my quarters and have my affairs in order. I hope I am delusional, that would be a blessing
Unfortunately, my gut tells me the same thing. And of course, I hope I am over reacting, but I do not think so as usually, in the past, my intuition has always been correct.
I would not take much comfort in what this General said.
But he seems to enjoy it. As did little Bush, this disturbed egotist seems to also reflect the crass nature of too many in the US.
Some interesting takes on him and the fascists :
This is why the Gillibrand-Gabbard ticket for 2020 makes the most sense. They both voted against increased spending for the military plus very little worry of a “Franken” incident popping up in their past. Picturing the Tangerine Turd or Bond Villain Pence handing the keys to the WH over to a woman standing in front of a sea of pink would be an added bonus.
What percentage of the things a general does for a president are legal?
Were it a scenario that could be run five times, I wonder how it would split.
VERY terrifying, Trump the idiot with a nuke button. First rule is don’t drool on the nuke button.
If the North Koreans nuked Pearl Harbor and Trump ordered retaliation or to prevent them from also attacking the mainland, that would be legal. Until now, our policy has been no first use. Until now, our official policy has been no first use. The problem is that Trump has rescinded that, so theoretically he could say let’s nuke them because they have some nukes and they might use them on Pearl Harbor if we don’t. That would be a preemptive (or preventive) attack and is a war crime. (Yes, our occupation of Iraq was a war crime. ) Theoretically, next week Trump could say “Let’s nuke them and teach them a lesson”. That’s a war crime. The problem is that Trump is so ill informed about the effect of a thermonuclear bomb that he could do that. That’s what the generals are worried about. What frightens me is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred so long ago that many young people and, in fact, Congresspersons may not know, either.
Does anyone know of any examples of US military officers refusing to carry out illegal orders?
Given the tight control the ruling US oligarchy has on the execution of events of consequence, do you really think they would allow the possibility of an an elected doofus president deciding on his own to launch a first-strike nuclear weapon?
That is, would they allow an idiot to destroy the planet?
Of course not.
In addition to the ambiguous publicized rules, there are quite probably UNPUBLISHED rules that prevent this from happening.
The ambiguous nature of the publicized rules is designed to frighten the enemy and the US population.
Like a dream come true!
None that I’m aware of.