US defence boss: We could refuse a nuclear strike order from Donald Trump

Congress is a leak machine and the left would let this out in five seconds. They would run over each other to get to the NY TIMES.

 

Australia! !!!
We really do like our bar-b-ques but not that much ; (

 

No they would authorize the use of such a weapon in a first strike with them, then leave it to the President and his Security Council who would decide who would use it and would likely need a consensus in a private meeting, then it would be lawful for order such a weapon use. My point is though even if NK does use some such missiles first we would be far better off invading conventionally we would have all our regional allies, all our global allies and perhaps a major rival or two joining us in some way like China sealing the border and maybe doing air strikes with us we would have options to retaliate other than nuking them.

One idea I had drop food crates with a message on them to the common soldiers and officers to turn on their government and if they do we will support them from the air, drop a lot more food for them and the common people and medicine and open the southern border to surrendering troops who will be fed and taken care of then see how long the elite hold power. We could even arm the common people with simple rifles and ammunition. That might work better than invading outright.

 

Ok I see what you’re saying and its not so bad

If the the corrupt swamp rats in congress could be depended on to put national security over politics it might help alert the chinese that the timespan for peace is running out

 

If my commander ordered me to pull the trigger on an unarmed civilian who posed no threat, I would refuse. Same principal.

 

But its rarely so clear. Your commander isn't going to walk up to you and just say "Shoot that helpless unarmed innocent lady".

You will be indoctrinated, you will be immersed in a culture that makes shooting that lady not only possible but you will see it as your duty to shoot her.

Look at the Wisconsin "John Doe" SWAT raids a few years ago. An out of control Democrat state attorney and Democrat judge who hated Gov. Walker harassed people who supported Walker, subjecting average middle class families to SWAT raids in which the people were harassed and abused and threatened. The cops were not told to go terrorize a family because the mom in her free time supported Walker. The cops were briefed about a (totally fictitious) state wide ring of corrupt people who were bribing officials, stealing govt funds, and committing election fraud, and they were going to raid the ringleaders. The victims were dehumanized and portrayed as an enemy to civil order, and it was every good cops duty to bring those "criminals" to justice.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm

Congress RATIFIED the United Nations Charter therefore that is now part of the Law of the Land.

That you don't know these basic constitutional principles says volumes.

 

That you know less than nothing about the Constitution and the Law of the Land says volumes.

 

We have the blanket AUMF that covers that. The US can pretty much attack anyone and as long as Congress is notified within I believe it's 30 days its perfectly legal.

 

Your failure to substantiate your baseless denial says volumes.

 

No, it is not legal if it violates the UN Charter of Nations.

Bush jr lied to the UN about Iraq so that he could illegally invade a sovereign nation. He also lied to Congress for that matter.

 

So you're comparing NK to an unarmed civilian?

 

Wrong, wrong and wrong was the appropriate response for your failure to substantiate your baseless statements.

 

North Korea is full of unarmed civilians.

 

Problem with war hawks is they have too little concern for the lives of others and the human cost of war.

 

So was Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Should Truman have been impeached?

 

Problem with pacifist is they don't realize that in the long run that cost more lives than it saves. Appeasement of Hitler is a great example of how procrastinating end up making things even worse.

 

This is not comparable to the situation with Nazi Germany. North Korea is not in that situation and does not have the economy or the technology to achieve anything comparable to what Germany did before and during WWII. It's one big starving prison camp with a nasty god-man leader who is desperately afraid of the US killing him and ending his reign. Until North Korea does more than talk and rattle its saber, I don't think that any strike, especially a nuclear strike, is warranted or at all acceptable. It's easy for you, comfortable here in the USA, to decide that it would be best, but you're not the one who would have to deal with the real consequences of it. Given what a non-threat to us North Korea actually is, there is simply no justification. Our game here is strategic patience, allowing that regime to collapse on its own and being prepared to help the North Korean people and North Korea's neighbors to handle that crisis when it comes. This is something Trump may not have the mental acuity to understand properly.

 

All of which has precisely nothing to do with civilians dying in war in general or a nuclear attack in specific. NK has nukes, Germany didn't. NK has threatened to use nukes on us and that is justification for a first strike if that were to be decided. Waiting for Kim to take out an American city or two before we turned his country to radioactive rubble proves my initial point that in the long run appeasement cost more lives than it saves. In this case American lives.

 

Whatever his threats, he will not strike our cities, and your glib talk of turning his country into radioactive rubble once again ignores the human cost of what you propose. Stop generalizing about "appeasement." It's simplistic and inaccurate. We are not appeasing Kim in the least.

 

And you'd bet tens of thousands of lives on that.

 

yes, if the generals think such an order is illogical and irrational and based on horrible intelligence, they are obliged to refuse a nuclear first strike order given by any POTUS

 

You want to destroy so many lives in North Korea out of the fear of this happening here, even when it is exceedingly unlikely to happen.

 

1945 =/= 2017

Truman didn't have the option of targeting Japan's military infrastructure with Tomahawks and JDAM's.

 

Which the SCOUS latter ruled unconstitutional stating that no treaty or anything else like that can supersede the constitution. There is no legal binding from the UN. So this "Law of the Land" can just as well be used as toilet paper.