https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uld-resist-illegal-trump-nuclear-strike-order
This makes me feel a little better. I was under the impression that an order is an order but that's not the case. Good to know.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US general says he would resist 'illegal' Trump nuclear strike order
- Thread starter _Karooo
- Start date
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...uld-resist-illegal-trump-nuclear-strike-order
This makes me feel a little better. I was under the impression that an order is an order but that's not the case. Good to know.
Damn right. When's the last time we were ever so afraid of our own Commander in Chief engaging a nuclear strike?
It's amazing how so many people, be it generals or even other Republicans that realize letting Trump being able to have control of nukes is a very bad idea. The fact they have put in steps to limit his ability to use them says a lot.
Did it need to be said, though? An unlawful order is an unlawful order no matter who's giving it.
Considering how much sabre rattling Trump has been doing with North Korea? Yes.
Can Trump just fire this guy the way he seems to be able to replace people in so many other departments? Until Trump I had no idea so many positions were completely at the President's discretion and it's a bit scary no matter who is elected.
Only if it's 'illegal'. He'd still launch the nukes if the order came down with the correct cover sheets attached.
Uniform code of military justice allows for subordinates to refuse orders that are unlawful.
I disagree. If the question was about military action, that would be different. I doubt any of his advisors would suggest nuclear strike as a first option: let alone an illegal, preemptive, nuclear attack against NK.
Who says it has to be a first strike? What if he gets his wish and drags the US into a conventional war with NK, only for it to quickly degenerate into something resembling another Vietnam? You think Trump is gonna take that L? No chance in hell. He'll sooner see Pyongyang turned to gravel.
I don't think President Trump knows that.
Just because it is legal doesn't make it right. I do not believe Trump is capable of making such a call. If a legal order was given, but he knew it to be a terrible order, would the general still go with it?
How is unlawfulness here determined? Doesn't the president have the authority to fire a nuclear missle?
The President has authority, but the Law of Armed Conflict comes into play. There are four principles that must be factored in with combat decisions: distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and unnecessary suffering. An order to fire a nuclear weapon out of the blue would be scrutinized by any commanding officer and summarily ignored unless at LEAST proportionality and necessity were met, especially since it's impossible for the other two to apply with nukes.
Interesting, didn't know that, thanks!
I was coming from what I had heard on NPR a few days ago, where one of the reporters essentially described ignoring a nuclear launch order as requiring what would amount to mutiny by the armed forces.
Your link is broken, I think. I just see purple italicized underlined text.
Unless there's a joke here I'm missing.
lol
"If the President does it, it's not illegal," to quote the man who waged a secret war in Cambodia. Well, that was different. Iran-Contra. Well, that was different.
Give me a break.
"If the President does it, it's not illegal," to quote the man who waged a secret war in Cambodia. Well, that was different. Iran-Contra. Well, that was different.
Give me a break.
Resistance to using nuclear arms from rank and file/officers has happened before. No reason to believe it wouldn't happen again if the circumstances were suspect.
I mean, in this case, the paperwork is rather hefty if you're trying to do a preemptive first strike. One of three things has to happen: authorization through a United Nations Security Council resolution; a determination of legitimate self-defense (including collective self-defense with allies or partners), which can be in response to the imminent threat of an attack; and use of force in an otherwise lawful manner with the consent of the state we're shooting at.
#1 or #3 aren't happening. As for #2, the imminent part is highly contested. It would almost have to be a watertight case before it would get legal approval.
Additionally, StratCom is good people. In that article, former Commander Kehler said the exact same as the current StratCom Commander. I would think that Trump would have to dig pretty hard to find a general willing to do that for him. Not to mention all the subordinates he would have to fire to find someone to turn the keys.
A really interesting read is the decision made by Stanislav Petrov, a Russian nuke Commander who used some sense and good judgment, chose not to fire, saving the entire world decades ago. The consequences of firing nukes is so well understood that no military commander, regardless of nation, wants to be the one that begins the annihilation of civilization through mutually assured destruction.
There is no illegal order from the president in this case. That's why statements like these are non statements and the fat orange piece of shit psychopath in charge is legitimately terrifying
Legality means nothing. Every institutional war crime in history had a legal justification.
Morality is the only thing that matters.
Morality is the only thing that matters.
Yep. If we ever lose our status as a world superpower, historians will cite comments like this as what would have proven to be a long series of warning flags over an extended period of time in our history.
I know this might seem like a "No duh" statement, but it really isn't. It needed to be said, and it's comforting that he put it out there so bluntly to remind everyone that a fool can't destroy the world on a whim.
Yeah, this is straight up false for the reasons I stated above, and more. The President could order that all of Congress be rounded up and shot, and such an order would not be carried out.
So what is in the Nuclear Football?
I thought that was the one and only go switch?
The nuclear football contains arrest warrants against the President for trying to use nukes.
Launch codes, a way to communicate to commanders at any location when not at a command center, and guidance/procedures. That's pretty much it. The nuclear football isn't even necessary if the President is already in a command center. It's just providing mobile functionality like a laptop would. Execution of orders still goes through the chain of command.
If Trump calls a Nuclear strike it will be from the Mar-a-lago while eating ice cream lol.
Do you think fuckface remembers or knows how to order people to get in there? or if they are letting this puppet near there?
Meicyn just covered it a bit above, but what I was getting at is that those are the legal barriers preventing a Commander of StratCom from allowing a preemptive first strike. They wouldn't want to do it because it'd be a severe violation of international law and norms.
That's not to say that Trump couldn't eventually find someone to do it, but he'd probably have to fire quite a few people, which most people would agree is a broad abuse of power.
It seems that Trump's presidency is leading to an important and needed reduction in power for the presidency. Even if these checks were there always, the keys to the nukes stuff was the story all the way back to JFK.
I think for too long people touted the most important man/woman in the universe, leader of the free world bs. The power should rest with a multitude of elected officials, and they shouldn't give it away due to some presidential mysticism. It is a power of Congress to declare war.
A series of useless presidents paved the way. With Trump we can just embrace the fact that we are electing whoever we want to drink a beer with, or keep the news cycle fresh as fuck.
I think for too long people touted the most important man/woman in the universe, leader of the free world bs. The power should rest with a multitude of elected officials, and they shouldn't give it away due to some presidential mysticism. It is a power of Congress to declare war.
A series of useless presidents paved the way. With Trump we can just embrace the fact that we are electing whoever we want to drink a beer with, or keep the news cycle fresh as fuck.
OP
OP
Any pre-emptive strike could be an illegal order. I mean Bush 2 gave a bunch of them re: interrogations and they were followed too, but no one's gonna touch this stuff.
I think he would certainly be within his rights to refuse such an order, but i could see the argument for people who feel differently (in a purely legalistic sense, anyway. Nuclear first strikes are abhorrent).
Because we have blessedly never had a nuclear war the legality of a first strike (under the laws of war could potentially be a war crime) means that we haven't gathered consensus on whether a nuclear first strike order would be a lawful order, which officers are bound to obey without question, or an unlawful one which they are obligated to refuse lest they be brought to justice for it afterwards.
Because we have blessedly never had a nuclear war the legality of a first strike (under the laws of war could potentially be a war crime) means that we haven't gathered consensus on whether a nuclear first strike order would be a lawful order, which officers are bound to obey without question, or an unlawful one which they are obligated to refuse lest they be brought to justice for it afterwards.
How about we already knew, including these jokers, during the campaign and they STILL voted for Trump.