If Trump ordered a nuclear missile attack on North Korea would the military carry it out?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[jberryhill]

1. Yes

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. This isn't a rhetorical question. Are you sure?

Members of the military are under no obligation to follow unlawful orders. I would add embodied in my question is the assertion that the attack would be out of the blue with no clear casus belli.

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. The answer is yes.

Because the nuclear launch process is designed for speed, not deliberation.

Also, you obviously have no idea what a rhetorical question is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I would tell you what you can do with your ad hominem attack but I don't want a hide.

You're clearly not worth one.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. You apparently don't know what an ad hominem is, either.

An ad hominem attack is a fallacious argument with which one side attacks the other's character instead of the substance of their position. It does not apply to insults, japes, jibes, or, in this case, observations the concerned party would rather not hear, that occur throughout the process of reasoning with the substance of that position.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I know what a rhetorical question, an ad hominem attack, and a pedant is.

And your pedantry is off putting and boring. I would say a lot more but you aren't worth a hide.

[LanternWaste]

123. I pretend people who disagree with me do so because they have no idea as well.

I pretend people who disagree with me do so because they have no idea as well. It's another tool we can use to maintain the pretense of cleverness whether warranted or not...

[Act_of_Reparation]

161. Wow. That's fascinating.

Cool story, bro.

[WinkyDink]

12. The military would not be in the position of determining if THIS PARTICULAR ORDER was unlawful. It

is NOT the same as a commander ordering a subordinate to, say, shoot civilians with a gun.

The military personnel manning the nuclear weapons aren't even above ground, many of them (silos and subs).

[yurbud]

132. When was the last time some civilian authority decided a politician's military order was unlawful?

at most, enlisted personnel are punished for the war crimes of elected officials, like the guards at Abu Ghraib were.

If those at the lowest levels can be punished for the crimes of those at the highest, maybe they should exercise some veto power as well.

[jberryhill]

20. Are you joking?

The president has sole discretionary launch authority. For the president to order the launch of nuclear weapons is not only a lawful order, but it is a mechanism upon which the entire credibility of the nuclear deterrent rests.

Any answer other than "yes" is destabilizing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Then why did Defense Secretary Schlesinger and Secretary Of State Kissinger place ...

Then why did Defense Secretary Schlesinger and Secretary Of State Kissinger place limitations on President Nixon's emergency orders including the order to launch nuclear missiles as he cracked under the pressure of Watergate?

[WinkyDink]

54. Your question did not ask, "IF the SoD and the SoS put limitations......" In any case, they acted

illegally:
"His new secretary of defense, James R. Schlesinger, himself a hawkish Cold Warrior, instructed the military to divert any emergency orders — especially one involving nuclear weapons — to him or the secretary of state, Henry A. Kissinger.

It was a completely extralegal order, perhaps mutinous. But no one questioned it."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-codes.html?_r=0

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. You could have asked me to elaborate.

Just as you could have asked me to elaborate before suggesting I thought Donald Trump would not be within his rights to order a nuclear attack on North Korea if they attacked Hawaii.

[WinkyDink]

60. Sorry; you have something to say, express it as well as you can.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I gave my audience the respect of believing they were capable of drawing logical inferences...

I gave my audience the respect of believing they were capable of drawing logical inferences and making rational assumptions.

Mea culpa.

[WinkyDink]

67. Really? Because, as you've learned, your implications are insufficient for intelligent inferences.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. The verbal portion of the SAT and GRE must have been really hard on some people.

[WinkyDink]

80. You don't want to go there, I assure you.

Tell you what: We'll read Chaucer in the original, no, "Beowulf," at dawn.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Throw the corn in the water and you never know what bites

[Coventina]

98. LOL!!

on-glaewlic!!

(sorry, don't have the actual characters available to me right now)

[WinkyDink]

100. :-) I used to begin the year with asking the students if they could figure out this bit of OE:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;

Si þin nama gehalgod

to becume þin rice

gewurþe ðin willa

on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg

and forgyf us ure gyltas

swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum

and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge

ac alys us of yfele soþlice

("þ" ism "th&quot (I think I printed it out with the "th&quot

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not PC, but in my school, quite all right. Heh.

[Coventina]

110. That is cool!!!!

My OE is shaky at best, but the rhythms and cadences are similar enough that I could get it! I won't spoil it for those who might also like to try!!

Even though my dad hasn't studied OE at all, when I recited the opening of the Gospel of John to him, he figured it out pretty quickly!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. It is profoundly saddening you would join in insulting someone who has been unfailingly civil to you

It is profoundly saddening you would join in insulting someone who has been unfailingly civil to you thus proving that intelligence and wisdom aren't necessarily synonyms.



I will defer to my better angels, take the high road, and not respond in kind.


I feel like I am back in the primary wars. My nemeses are almost all gone. I'm still here.

[Coventina]

133. I apologize. I didn't mean to be piling on you.

I responded to the other poster because I rarely come across other people with an interest in Old English.

Your dispute is between the two of you and it was not my intent to insert myself into that.

Again, I apologize if that is how it came across to you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. Thank you for your kind response.

I merely asked a question. I learned a lot in this thread. It's hard to shake one's opinion, including my own.

I don't understand why some posters made it personal. Maybe it's a character flaw but my first response is to respond in kind.

One of the most profound things I "learned" on the internet is "there are real people behind the keyboards." That was revealed to me by a thirteen year old young man on a ESPN discussion board after another poster tore into him.


Thank you again for your kind response.

DSB
Brian

[Coventina]

136. ..

These are very scary, unprecedented times. I think we're all on edge because we have no way of knowing what is going to happen.

We thought we had left nuclear holocaust behind us with the end of the Cold War.

Now it's back, coupled with the coming doom of Global Warming. Our species is in serious trouble, no matter which way you look at it.

It's very, very scary. A common side-effect of fear is anger and lashing out.

We have to remember to be kind to each other, even if we can't do anything else.

I know I'm guilty of forgetting that, so thank you for the reminder to be more careful with my words.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. How does this end?

Any way I wonder how this ends. I can't believe a plurality of Americans, much less a majority, believe this behavior is acceptable. It's madness.

[Coventina]

138. I wish I knew. My fear is that too many Americans either don't care or don't truly understand

what is happening.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. In normal times most folks don't think about politics. They just get on with their lives.

[Coventina]

140. Agreed. And, I don't think most folk have grasped just how bad the situation is.

[bettyellen]

142. This would make a great subject for an OP! You buried the lede in the comments though.

WOuld love to read and discuss this idea further.

[DBoon]

88. Yes after praying to Jesus Christ

Divine guidance provides cover for horrific deeds.

[get the red out]

2. No

Not at this point. JMO.

[IronLionZion]

3. No

You'd be surprised how many in our military leadership think he's an incompetent dangerous buffoon. He has very little respect from the military.

There is a process
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

[jberryhill]

46. So, at some point, do we have a coup?

Thus completing our race to banana republic status?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. If we are going to get there we might as well get there soon thus leaving more time to repair...

If we are going to get there we might as well get there soon thus leaving more time to repair the damage.

BTW, I would put the chances of a coup somewhere between slim and none.

I do believe somebody would intervene before Trump incinerated, say, Mexico City or Toronto.

[jberryhill]

53. Which person on the submarine do you suppose will do that?

They don't know if an order to launch is because Russia or China has an attack in progress or not.

We have a nuclear tripwire in Korea.

Given the geography and numerical balance of conventional weapons, if DPRK started shelling Seoul with chemical weapons, then the president is certainly authorized to say "Nuke Pyongyang now".

NOBODY in the chain is going to know if Seoul is being shelled or not, but they are not going to sit around and find out. From a submarine, there isn't even any way to know that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. I understand all these caveats and that theoretically the president's powers in this area is ...

I understand all these caveats and that theoretically the president's powers in this area is absolute. I would add that I never suggested the president's hands should be tied when it comes to a legitimate attack as had been suggested in this thread. I just believe, that even in that scant twelve minutes, somebody would intervene if any president order a nuclear attack out of the blue and in a moment of pique.


Hopefully we don't get to that juncture.

[WinkyDink]

68. The President's abso;ute power here is not theoretical; it is, in fact, ABSOLUTE. IT'S A SIMPLE

CONCEPT.

[Coventina]

70. The entire military structure, and ESPECIALLY the nuclear aspect, is built around NOT questioning.

Here is what I learned at the Missile Museum:

The launch codes arrive.

They are double-checked by the two officers on duty.

Once verified as correct, the two officers turn the keys in the console.

That's it.

They don't even know where the missiles are going!

The ONLY thing that would stop the process is if the launch codes were somehow incorrect.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I believe they have added a step or two.

Since our missiles are no longer pre-locked to specific destinations. They would need launch authorization, confirmation, and targeting info.

Both the US and Russian 'de-locked' targets from our strategic weapons in the early 90's, as part of de-escalation of threats in the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Both sides scrapped a large number of boomer subs too)

China, I don't know. I suspect they may have done the same. China de-escalated in a way as well, moving from liquid-fueled ICBM's that could carry 4mt warheads, down to solid-fueled ICBM's that carry 150-180kt warheads. Still a deterrent, cheaper to maintain, more reliable to launch, and not as much of a provocation.

[Coventina]

79. Good to know! Thanks!

[WinkyDink]

82. It's a matter of the POTUS's having the codes. PERIOD.

[Coventina]

87. Trust me, I get it.

I was using outdated information, but my point was, the officers in the silos are NOT going to stop a verified order from being carried out.

[defacto7]

159. That's what I understand.

That's also why having a president who is not trusted or respected is even more dangerous. There would be confusion in a real crisis at different points in the protocol. It's good when it's a wrong call, bad when it's a necessity.

[jberryhill]

160. Yes, but there are still pre-set attack plans which the president calls like football plays

The missiles are not themselves targeted.

However - along with the launch codes, the president may select any of a number of preset attack plans, for which he also possesses the codes.

The launch authorization, and the attack plan, are entered at the same time. The missiles are targeted and the keyholders turn their keys.

[frankieallen]

126. Have you discussed this with the Military Leadership personally?

You seem awful well informed of their feelings

[IronLionZion]

141. I also thought Trump would lose the election in a historic landslide

so that should tell you how informed I am.

[MFM008]

5. Perhaps one

Would put an end to maggots reign of error once and for sll.

[Goodheart]

6. I'm voting NO

[MineralMan]

7. I truly hope we do not have to learn the answer to that.

That's the most I can say, really. The leaders of our military have gamed almost any situation anyone is capable of imagining. No doubt, such a situation is one such.

[treestar]

106. That's true

At least we can hope. When Donald asked why we could not use nuclear weapons, one hopes they started some process to put the decision in sane hands.

[WinkyDink]

9. Yes. It is what they are trained to do. Would you prefer the military question the order, while

missiles might be on their way here (or Hawaii, Japan, S. Korea, etc.)?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Nice strawman. The assertion embodied in my question is the attack is out of the blue.

No sane person would argue an individual or a state is not within his or her right to exercise self defense.

[liberalmuse]

10. Someone predicted Trump will start a war tomorrow.

I wouldn't be surprised at anything right now. Trump is cornered and completely off his nut.

http://newzmagazine.com/2017/04/25/texas-psychic-says-ww3-coming-soon-reveals-exact-date/

Disclaimer: I don't believe in psychics, but came across this awhile back and thought it was...interesting, especially considering how crazy Trump is.

[RKP5637]

30. I think that's possible as a deflection, because we are not dealing with a sane individual. n/t

[Coventina]

11. After having visited the Titan Missile Museum in Tucson, I say yes.

As long as the codes were verified as accurate, they would be launched in just a few moments.

There is no debate, no discussion.

[WinkyDink]

14. Exactly. This isn't some Tom Cruise movie we're living in. Don't kid yourself! Correct code? LAUNCH.

[Coventina]

15. Yep. Any discussion / debate takes place before the order is given.

Once given, there is no going back.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I was told they would follow the orders because the system was designed for "speed and accuracy."

Now I am being told there can be a launch only after deliberations. These two statements are mutually exclusive.
And for good measure a straw man was thrown in that I was suggesting a president wouldn't be well within his or her rights to respond to any kind of military attack with proportional force. The assertion embodied in my question is the attack would be out of the blue.

[jberryhill]

21. I know a guy who was a navy nuclear launch officer

He hated Trump with a passion and feared his election for this very reason alone.

If the codes are issued, it is a lawful order. Period.

That is, in fact, why he left the navy. When he realized that he could not, he had to quit. The guys that do this are checked and drilled on this shit.

[smirkymonkey]

26. You don't think they would make an exception considering the fact that Trump is clearly a madman?

There are orders and then there is potential global nuclear annihilation. Even the most devoted officers are not unthinking, unfeeling robots. They must at some point stop to weigh the enormity of their actions.

[jberryhill]

28. No

That's the entire point of the system.

It is critical to our nuclear deterrence doctrine that there be no question about whether the orders would be followed accurately and promptly.

If you introduce a measure of unreliability into the system, then under our deterrence doctrine, you are eroding its effectiveness.

There were people in the military who believed Obama was not a US citizen and therefore not a legitimate president. One of them even went to Leavenworth.

It's not set up for picking and choosing. It is a machine.

[WinkyDink]

33. That ain't the way. Sorry.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. For much of the first part of Trump's 111 days in office

any given Ohio class boomer could have been at sea, with limited media/news access for the crew to even consider that point.

On a normal rotation, any that were at sea prior to the inauguration should be back in port by now, but a good 60-100 day window could obscure any current crews at sea from current events, like Comey's firing, and the Russia allegations.

So confirmation bias that makes us feel Trump is a 'madman', might not be apparent to them.

[RKP5637]

35. Who would discuss this before he entered the codes? Could he be just alone one night and

for whatever insane reason just enter the codes without any prior discussion with others?

[jberryhill]

44. Well, that's the point

What, is someone going to say "Don't hand him the football!" when he asks for it?

Is someone going to say to him, "You can't go in there until we hear from so-and-so" when he enters the WH Situation Room?

He doesn't have any sort of nanny or minder telling him what he can or can't do at 2 AM. The system runs around the clock.

[RKP5637]

55. My gut feeling, right or wrong, is this is just going to get more deranged relative to him

making the call. Really scary times. It's far too much power in one person's hands.

[jberryhill]

58. " It's far too much power in one person's hands. "

Yes, but the way to address that was BEFORE electing a madman, and we could have done so.

[WinkyDink]

63. it's been our way FOR MANY DECADES.

[jberryhill]

25. Deliberations with whom?

The President is the Commander In Chief.

Our system is expressly designed to place ultimate authority over military action in the hands of a civilian.

Limitations such as the War Powers Act, etc., give the president a free hand in initiating military action. These limitations were intended not to bog us down in an unwanted foreign adventure for a prolonged period, but certainly do not limit the president's discretion to act in what he or she alone perceives as an imminent threat or action.

The absence of deliberations is itself part of the deterrence doctrine. With deliberations of defined parties, there can be a decapitation attack in which communications or individuals in the chain are disrupted, and command and control is taken out. From the match that lights the fuse to the black box, the system is designed to be an ultra reliable and secure method to vest that power in one pair of tiny hands.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Deliberations were implied in Post 15

Checks on the president are discussed in Post 32. Secretaries Kissinger and Schlesinger checked Nixon as he descended into Watergate madness.


If the absolutist position is correct he can order a nuclear attack on Canada and Mexico this morning and the military would carry it out. Surely no sentient person believe such an order would be complied with.

[Coventina]

47. It would be up to Trump's inner circle to dissuade him from issuing the launch codes.

Although, Trump could act on his own, and there would be nothing to be done about it.

Once the launch codes are sent to the military, it's a done deal.

[WinkyDink]

36. "I am being told..." by whom? The deliberations are within the OO. "Out of the blue" is NOT FOR THE

MILITARY TO DECIDE.

PLEASE try to grasp this; it is simplicity itself. The personnel at the launch sites have been vetted; they are not questioners, rebels, slackers, cranks, pacifists, or mental deficients. They are all psychologically prepared to accept their and the world's fate, and perform their sworn duty.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I was told in Post 15 there would be deliberations pursuant to the order.

Why did Secretaries Kissinger and Nixon put checks on Nixon as he slipped into Watergate madness.

If the absolutist position is correct he can order a nuclear attack on Canada and Mexico this morning and the military would carry it out. Surely no sentient person believe such an order would be complied with

[WinkyDink]

41. You misread. The word used is "before," not the term "pursuant to." As in, the POTUS and advisors

will have deliberated BEFORE THE ORDER.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. The assertion embodied in my question it the attack is out of the blue.

If the attack is out of the blue how can there be deliberations?

Would they follow an order to launch a nuclear attack on Canada ? the United Kingdom ? Mexico?

That sounds absurd on it face but I am not the one arguing the president's ability to launch a nuclear attack on any one is absolute.

[Coventina]

48. Yes, if the launch code targeting any of those countries were issued, it would be done.

Period.

The time to stop it is BEFORE the order is given.

[jberryhill]

50. But again you miss the point

There's a 20 to 30 minute window, depending on which system you want to use, from the time we can detect an incoming nuclear attack to the time we can fire. A lot of that gets chewed up on checks as the information filters up.

In order to maintain a credible launch on warning posture, to eliminate the incentive for a first strike to impair retaliatory capability, we do not have a "launch on impact" doctrine.

The president ends up with FOUR MINUTE WINDOW to decide. Please review this article from Foreign Policy:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

When the order (which includes any of many pre-set attack plans) is given, no one is authorized to say, "Well, I didn't hear anything."

We have people in submarines who don't know jack shit about what is going on in the world from hour to hour. They get the codes, they launch. Done.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Some small percentage will fail to launch.

Testing and unplanned simulation weeds them out, but all this is good data and the only credible answer to the original hypothetical is 'yes'. Enough of the system will follow the orders that the only answer can be 'yes'.

People who did not follow orders will be quickly extracted from the process, and replaced with people who will execute.

[jberryhill]

115. That's my understanding as well

And is also why my career path has changed over the years to avoid being in the business of enabling that technology.

[WinkyDink]

65. OMG. It wouldn't be "out of the blue" TO THE POTUS, FGS!! HE COULD DELIBERATE. Are you being

deliberately obtuse now?

Because this really is high-school level stuff, maybe even elementary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. What's your point?

If he has a casus belli he has every right to attack. You created a strawman when you said that I said he would be outside his rights to respond to a nuclear attack on Hawaii.

In the interest of comity I will ignore your puerile epithets, for now.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. They would flatten Madagascar if so ordered.

There are meatbags in the system, but it's better to think of our strategic deterrent as a machine. Input-Output. It verifies credible authority to launch, and then it goes.


It seems people have somewhat forgotten this terrible power exists.

[jberryhill]

116. "It seems people have somewhat forgotten this terrible power exists."

Along with why it works the way it does.

We fooled ourselves into believing, as a basic assumption, that a madman would not be elected.

But it may be too early to judge, before all the facts are in...

[AtheistCrusader]

118. I think the post-soviet-collapse euphoria may have obscured some realities.

If anything, the system got more efficient after that, as it became more general-purpose.

But it's also under-funded because strategic deterrent is not sexy from a budgeting perspective anymore.

[jberryhill]

125. Wel, yeah...

But there are remaining regional contingencies such as Korea, and the "Islamic bomb" phrase that was popular at one point.

[treestar]

71. That should be changed

They should not be robots either.

Are they willing to die for no reason? Knowing it is insanity? I hope they are aware of the different nature of the current WH resident? (part time, I should say).

[Cosmocat]

24. Correct

nm

[workinclasszero]

51. I agree

If BLOTUS gives the order, the missiles fly and God help us all.

A few thousand fox/hate radio brainwashed entitled racist Americans thought it would be a good idea to put a madman and a life long narcissistic right wing liar in charge of the end of the world.

So did Vladimir Putin and his online troll army for obvious reasons.

Elections have consequences as we have already seen with Dump and he is just getting started. We can do nothing about it. The only people that can begin to stop Trump are republicans.

So IOW we are fucked. Their fantasy of stripping the wealth of average Americans to give to the rich is stronger than self preservation of this country or the world in general.

I don't know what the answer is, resist as much as possible, fight for your lives and that of your children. Trump is bringing chaos and hell and there is little we can do to stop him.

[Blaukraut]

16. At this point, no. He's clearly insane.

[WinkyDink]

38. Were you ever in the US Military?

[Blaukraut]

43. My husband served 22 years in the AF and is now a GS 12 at Hanscom, so kinda?

[WinkyDink]

92. Do you think he ever once seriously considered disobeying an order? For one single second?

[Blaukraut]

95. This particular disobedience would have been way above his pay grade

The only person who can disobey is Secretary of Defense under the National Command Authority. He has to give secondary confirmation of the code.

[WinkyDink]

99. See Post #77. SoD CANNOT VETO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Thank the both of you for your service to our country.

[Blaukraut]

105. No thanks necessary.

Hubby didn't join to serve the country. He joined to get to travel and to have a job. The service was incidental, I suppose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. I have friends that are career military and career military spouses.

They give up a lot of stability and control. I had a friend who did twenty years military and then twenty plus years civilian-military.

[Blaukraut]

111. This is true

Our kids grew up like gypsies and our civilian friends had head starts on home ownership and settling down. Still, the rewards outweighed the price. Affordable healthcare and retirement pay being the most important in these times.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. He passed away. He was African American.

He joined the Army at 17 in 1950. I asked him how he could fight for a country that treated him and his kind so shabbily. He said he fought for the promise America holds. It's hard to feel America has promise at this moment.

He has a Bronze Star from Korea and Vietnam. He was a remarkable man. He went up on my roof when he was seventy eight years old to clean out the chute from my clothes dryer. I told him your wife is going to kill me.

He made a nominal investment in a black community owned bank that he parlayed into a million dollars.

He was probably the most color blind person I ever met.

[Blaukraut]

114. He sounds like a wonderful person

You must have been glad to have him as a friend. I'm sorry for your loss.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. He had four children who served in the military. Three became officers.

One of his daughters was in Africa when she was called up during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. He also was awarded a commendation by the Southern Poverty Law Center as part of its Teaching Tolerance program.

[treestar]

69. If you thought it an insane order

what would you do? Suppose a superior ordered you to torture somebody?

Surely even the military does not do away with one's cognitive faculties.

[WinkyDink]

93. PLEASE STAY WITH THE OP'S QUERY!! Nuremburg dealt with your post. Enough said.

[jberryhill]

119. You would not have the JOB if you thought that

The keyholders in the silo know exactly what their job is, and why they are issued guns to shoot anyone who refuses to perform.

[treestar]

146. at this point don't we know it means

mass planetary suicide? People have disobeyed the law or orders over a lot less than that.

We could nuke NK as they likely don't have nukes that could hit us - wipe them out before they can do anything. The fallout might not be pretty but the others who have nukes could not retaliate that way due to mutually assured destruction.

The OP is not about a defensive, but about being ordered to hit NK, so it is possible.

[jberryhill]

147. Yes, but the point being....

Once the pre-set attack plan is issued, there is no person in the mechanism who would even KNOW if it was defensive or offensive.

We have people, incommunicado for long times, in submarines and missile silos.

There is nothing between the president and those people which can say "Hey, what's going on."

I think what is not understood here is that once the president electronically authorizes it, it's going to happen.

It's like posting a nude selfie to Twitter - once it is done, it's done.

[maryellen99]

19. I hope to God not nt

[berni_mccoy]

22. Most likely, yes. The people who would launch the missiles are sanitized from the decision making

they simply are given an order they must execute.

Furthermore, the strike wouldn't come from continental US. It would come from a sub.

[Kentonio]

23. It appears so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/?utm_term=.fa7e6da27741

[yurbud]

27. No. People in the military aren't robots. The order would be stopped before it got to the silo

[jberryhill]

31. The order goes from the black box to the silo

[WinkyDink]

40. Really? That would be "NO." Would YOU like to be the General who oversaw destruction because you

didn't know what the POTUS knew---that N. Korea had launched an attack on Japan?

[treestar]

74. What if you know the current president operates on

alternative facts?

[WinkyDink]

86. That is not in the military's purview. I'm referring solely to the OP's query.

[yurbud]

129. I have known a fair number of military people including a couple of launch officers

the job requires a degree of intelligence in addition to a willingness to kill millions of people.

Someone in the chain of command might have noticed the commander in chief isn't trustworthy of the title for this decision.

[yurbud]

127. how would someone in the military not know that pretty quickly? Also, North Korea knows once they

launch, there will no longer be a North Korea. A minute or two difference for independent confirmation won't hurt.

[Lee-Lee]

34. Yes. The nuclear launch process is about speed and verification only

The only step where possibly it could be blocked is the servicemember that is assigned to the President who carries the equipment used to transmit the Presidential authorization. If he/she scuttled the launch effort it might be stopped but most likely delayed while the backup system was employed and the person blocking the attemp arrested.

Past that it's all about verification. If the codes match then each person in the chain does the procedure as it's called for. They don't know what the target is, they don't know what the reason is. They only know that the command authority has given the proper code for them to act. The system is designed for rapid speed once the authorization is given and there is no time for second guessing or questioning it. The process is designed with the urgency that presumes a launch against the US has happened and they need to launch their missles before they are destroyed in the silos or a launch against the US is about to happen and they need to destroy the enemy missles before they can launch.

[jberryhill]

56. I was surprised during the election at how few Trump supporters know this

It is the first consideration anyone should make when voting for president.

[Coventina]

59. I think most Americans are unaware of how our nuclear defenses work.

For example: before I went to the Titan Museum, I did not know that the silo guys had no idea where their missiles' destinations were.

It's rather sad, actually, because since ultimately WE are the government, we should educate ourselves about these matters.

[treestar]

73. If they know the President is nuts, what can they do?

[Lee-Lee]

81. Nothing

They don't have any way of even knowing if the launch command came from the President. For all they know he could have been killed in a nuclear strike and whomever is along the chain of succession or the chain of launch authority may have ordered the launch.

[treestar]

84. So once we elect an insane President

we are out of luck.

Better get the 25th Amendment thing rolling.

[jberryhill]

120. That's correct

And that HAS to be correct.

This is not a protocol that someone cooked up one weekend. It HAS to function that way or else it would destabilize the intended deterrent.

Now, sure, is it a system that might have been re-thought post-USSR collapse? Maybe, maybe not. The assumption was that voters would take this into account in THEIR deliberations.

The thing can be legislatively fixed, but this is what we got. Anything else is make-it-up-as-you-go-along government, or government by coup.

[WinkyDink]

89. Well, for one thing, they can ask why he is still not impeached. See how that works?

[sarisataka]

42. Short answer- yes

Longer answer- excepting in the case that the Secretary of Defense fails to concur with the launch order and Amendment 25 is invoked.

I do not know the window of time that would be allowed between the order to launch and waiting on a confirmation by the Vice President and members of cabinet that they are invoking Amendment 25 but it would be extremely short.

[treestar]

66. They probably don't all want to die

or do something that would make them war criminals. I would think they would behind the scenes try to get the 25th Amendment solution.

[WinkyDink]

94. During a nuclear attack or strike?!

[treestar]

103. Well I guess work on that now?

It is downright scary that we can all die due to an insane President. I guess we deserve it having elected him.

[jberryhill]

122. Did you not know this before the election?

It is the most important consideration in voting for a president.

It transcends anything - human rights, economy, anything you can name.

Because this issue is one of existence of our species. Period.

And, yeah, I'll trade a lot of political issues in exchange for not having a president - anyone - who is not a threat to the survival of the human species in the first place.

[treestar]

145. It seems the voters did not

Maybe more should have been made of it.

I think people assumed Hillary would win.

But a lot of voters may not realize that. I don't think the Founders thought the CIC should have some kind of absolute power, but they could not imagine nuclear weapons.

[WinkyDink]

77. Okay, I've about had it. THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT IN NUCLEAR LAUNCHES IS ABSOLUTE. READ ON:

The commander in chief can also order the first use of nuclear weapons even if the United States is not under nuclear attack.

“There’s no veto once the president has ordered a strike,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear specialist who held White House and Defense Department posts for 31 years before leaving government service in 2005. “The president and only the president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-codes.html?_r=0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell.

If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. As long as the president can establish his or her true identity by his or her personal presence in the Pentagon’s nuclear war room or its alternates (places like Site R at Fort Richie near Camp David), or by phone or other means of communications linking him or her to these war rooms using a special identification card (colloquially known as “the biscuit” containing “the nuclear codes”) in his or her possession (or, alternatively, kept inside the “nuclear briefcase” carried by his or her military aide who shadows the president everywhere he or she works, travels and plays), a presidential nuclear decision is lawful (putting international humanitarian law aside)....

Under the president’s open-ended mandate to decide when the national interest is threatened, ordering up a nuclear strike is his or her prerogative, and obeying the order is incumbent upon the military servants of civilian authority.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Coventina]

83. Good luck!

It's obvious that many here will never believe that.

[WinkyDink]

96. The mind boggles. As a CHILD, I got it, "taking cover" under my school desk.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Too many movies.

'We need to stretch this into a 2hr profitable drama!'
*invents a bunch of laughable shit that doesn't exist*

[treestar]

108. Well now we should change that

Now that we know we can elect a buffoon. Nothing should be ABSOLUTE. It's a big mistake if we let any one person have that kind of power. Now that we've seen that an insane person can get into the office, we need that changed.

[AtheistCrusader]

121. We elected Bush II, who set the 'no first use' idea aside for even terror attacks.

Nihil sub sole novum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations
http://fpif.org/bushs_nuclear_doctrine_from_mad_to_nuts/

A problem the sane Obama administration backed us carefully away from in the 2010 "The Nuclear Posture Review".

Bush was a blood-dripping fucking monster, and don't forget it. Thus far, Trump has not become one, but we got a long road to go...

[treestar]

143. Make them possible to use.

Good grief! I think humanity has entered an age of insanity. We know the damn things are useless because the last thing we want to do is use them. I recall as a child during the Cold War that the intercepting missiles hit the oncoming ones and the fallout is still an explosion and we can blow up this planet 10 times over.

[jberryhill]

124. Indeed we should

I'm sure Paul Ryan will put this on the calendar right away.

[workinclasszero]

134. Yes right after he and the republicans pass single payer health care for all Americans,

legal MJ nationwide and a special prosecutor to investigate Dump's Russian connection and Comey's firing.

in case anybody didn't get the joke.

[treestar]

144. We need to quit electing

madmen to positions of power.

[kentuck]

90. Yes, as soon as he fired McMaster.

They would follow orders, in my opinion.

[WinkyDink]

97. No need to fire anyone. See post #77 for authoritative details.

[PearliePoo2]

104. I listened to Gen. Michael Hayden on 'Morning Joe' discussing this.

He said the system was set up intentionally for speed. Once proper procedures and codes are followed, it's takes about 4 minutes total and the birds fly. They can not be destroyed or called back.
fuck...

The only thing I can think of is if there are cabinet people or military present with him and assuming North Korea (or any other nation) has not actually attacked us or anyone else, if he's doing a launch because he is mad/insane, then someone hopefully, would step in and do what has to be done...

[Kablooie]

109. There are no checks on the president for nuclear

By design

It is designed for a president to be able to order an attack within minutes. This is in order to defend against an incoming attack from an enemy. There might be no time to get approvals.

This is the nuclear deterrent system developed in the 60s.

[Jim Dandy]

112. Yes, and besides Mike Pence would back it up.

Pence sees it as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

[nycbos]

130. I would say yes.

If they didn't they would face a court martial.

[ElementaryPenguin]

131. No. And I don't believe he's been given the real nuclear codes.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY GIVE THEM TO HIM??

Would YOU give them to him? Who doesn't know that the guy certifiably NUTS??

How would they get caught - how would he be on to them not giving him the real nuclear codes, unless he tried to use them - and how would he explain/justify that?

So I refuse to believe that he has them, which is probably the only reason I'm able to sleep at night.

[jberryhill]

148. I don't think it is possible to give him fake codes

That would require a number of conspirators who would be committing serious crimes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

150. What would the day after look like?

Assume there was no casus belli. World markets would tank. Allies would flee. The tacit prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons would be null. We would be a pariah nation.

[jberryhill]

151. I doubt we'd know

I think "markets would tank" would be among the minor happenings of that day.

The entire world would plunge into chaos. Civil disorder would be immense, even if there were no retaliatory strikes from others. All hell would break loose on the Korean peninsula which would immediately require action by Russia and China, who now have important strategic agreements.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

152. "We" would likely still be around. But we would be living in an anarchic world.

Russia and China wouldn't be crazy enough to nuke us. They wouldn't cut off their noses to spite their faces.

[jberryhill]

153. We don't know how Russia and China would react to inbound nukes in their neck of the woods

We just don't.

Remember when the Russians shot down that airplane?

They are not going to say, "Oh, he's just hitting North Korea" when we have birds in the air heading their way.

They are going to be looking at "use 'em or lose 'em".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

154. I thought about that. "We better nuke them before they nuke us."

It's all conjecture. Even Trump's not that crazy. I am sure he wants to leave a world for his kids.

[jberryhill]

155. I would not be so sure

What, in this man's experience, suggests any genuine concern for his family members?

What struck me, when he was going on about Bill Clinton at the airport, was "How long does it take to talk about your grandchildren?"

"Oh, yeah, the grandchild are great. Done."

That moment alone convinced me there is not a drop of humanity in him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

156. I always try to find something human, even in my enemies/opponents.

That moment came when I read that Bush visited Walter Reed and he was getting reamed by the spouse of a soldier injured in the Iraq War. He just took it. He didn't try to defend himself. He told his aide if that's how she feels that's how she feels. Another moment is when he went to his Yale reunion and one of his classmates had gender reassignment surgery. He was totally nonchalant about it.

Even Nixon was a devoted family man who doted on his daughters and wrote himself messages that he constantly needed to get better.

I read there was a kid with cancer on The Apprentice who just wanted to hear Trump tell him "you're fired." Trump couldn't bring himself to it.

But maybe he is black a hole. Sad.

[MicaelS]

149. Yes they would.

Read about the case of Major Harold L. Hering. He is a former officer in the United States Air Force, who was discharged in 1973 for questioning the process for launching nuclear missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering

In 1978, journalist Ron Rosenbaum wrote a 15,000-word article in Harper's Magazine about the nuclear command and control system in which he publicized the case of Hering. Rosenbaum later wrote that Hering's question exposed a flaw in the very foundation of this doctrine, and asked "What if [the president's] mind is deranged, disordered, even damagingly intoxicated? ... Can he launch despite displaying symptoms of imbalance? Is there anything to stop him?" Rosenbaum says that the answer is that launch would indeed be possible: to this day, the nuclear fail-safe protocols for executing commands are entirely concerned with the president's identity, not his sanity. The President alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man rule does not apply to him.

[JI7]

157. not just based on trump himself

[former9thward]

158. If nuclear weapons were used in N. Korea they would be tactical not strategic.

Last edited Sun May 14, 2017, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

They would be localized low yield and low fallout strikes designed to get into the below ground N. Korean sites. No, the world would not come to an end. Russia and China would probably give a sigh of relief that their crazy uncle in the attic was no longer their problem.