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

Attn duty Moderator - I think this should have been in forum United States
political topics specific to the USA?? Could you move it for me please? Thanks.

Excuse me but wouldn't this totally undermine the office of the president of the United States of America to the point where the holder would be totally impotent in the face of all threats? 'Commander in Chief', and all that? I mean WTF!! It amounts to an invitation to global Islam to walk in and take over the country without a fight. A surrendering of the US by the very leaders whose prime responsibility is the defence of the realm and of its people. Would this not make them 'traitors' by any other name? And final question - can it get any more surreal than this?

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-11-19/...use-a-nuclear-strike-order-from-donald-trump/

 

Read the US military oath, that will straighten this out for you. Yes, US military personnel have the right to refuse an unlawful order. In fact, to not do so is a crime. What the general was getting at is if a deranged president gave an order to launch nukes at, for example, North Korea - NOT in response to a NK launch - this order could and would be deemed illegal. Seeing as how it's Trump in office, the advice is timely.....it prevents crazy people from doing stupid things.

 

Yeah, but come on, it's like not lighting fireworks on the 4th.

 

i have a feeling that if Trump ordered nukes without a VERY good reason the military would not only not do it but they'd unseat him. Mind, I don't think WE would ever know it had happened, the only real indication would be that the tweets would either stop or get much more rational

 

A nuclear strike without preemption on a belligerent nations part would require a consensus of key member of Trumps cabinet, the chiefs of the armed forces and likely key military commanders and lets be frank there is no good reason with our conventional might to go there we could flatten North Korea as a threat conventionally if we are attacked first even with a nuclear device. And if they go there first we would have the moral high ground and the support of most of the major world governments to deal with them and could invoke all of our defense treaties. At a minimum it would be our regional allies, the British and the French as in SPLAT. And China and Russia wouldn't dare intervene in the case of us attacked first for no good reason.

 

If trump says launch.....they will launch. 100% guarantee given the situation in NK. NK has already threatened us with thermos and has launched icbms over our allies. Anyone not following launch order will most likely be tried and executed for treason. Good luck proving those orders werent lawful. Now if the launch was against Australia then that of course would cause for pause. NK though will be incinerated if it comes to that because thats the correct thing to do if he refuses to disarm.

 

The general used a qualifeir of “if the order is illegal”

So he did not say he would not launch nuclear weapons as long as trump is president

But even so he should be removed from thst command

 

but sooner then later the human over population issue has to be resolved with a culling i see

 

nah the generals and those hot girlfriends of them have under ground bunkers to head too

 

The military cannot "unseat" him. That would be extra-Constitutional.

 

they got their military industrial complex guy in office what did they expect out of him

 

Soldiers are required to refuse to obey unlawful orders.

 

It would be better if this were Congress's decision, but in a world where we have a toddler in the White House who is threatening a nuclear strike over Twitter, it is good to know there are adults out there who might be able to stop him.

 

This guy needs removed. The president is the commander and chief period.

 

An unlawful order would be to do something unlawful and there's no law against a nuclear strike

 

There is law against murder and a unprovoked nuclear strike would be exactly that.

 

NK has gone well beyond unprovoked. Their threats to nuke America and our allies along with missles shot over Japan are justification for a first strike.

 

A conventional one maybe.

 

Problem is a conventional first strike on what is now a nuclear power run by an evil and arguably insane man would likely result in a first strike by him.

 

But the President cannot lawfully just deploy a nuclear weapon without cause he would if pre-emptive need his cabinets support and likely approvals of key military officials then and only then would be likely be able to and Congress would very likely be asked to all for it before he gets to that step by them authorizing the use of nuclear weapons first. Now if its in response to an attack then there is an assumption he can deploy a proportional retaliation if NK fires five weapons we can respond in kind and likely it would not be refused by anyone in the command structure. And then there is the political considerations we drop a nuke on NK then China would likely move to support NK and possibly China and unlike NK they could send a large enough nuclear striking power to force a large scale response and its game over for the world.

 

How can he conduct a first strike when our conventional weapons have destroyed his missile bases?

 

One good question you brought up. Does the president need congressional approval for a first strike? I would say probably, because in essence it would be a declaration of war

 

From what I understand a conventional attack could not destroy his underground launch systems.

 

Who says?

The president has the authority to make thst decision rather rhan some liberal flunkie left over from the obama years

Its time for that guy to retire

 

No

Congress gave him that authority