If the military does that, it’s a coup. That means the military is in charge of the country. It means democracy is over, and we are in a de facto autocracy. Except in some very dire circumstances, the cure is worse than the disease.
That said, the whole “they won’t obey illegal orders” doesn’t mean much. There’s a lot the President can do to fuck up the world that isn’t illegal. And it’s still an open question whether an order by the President to nuke a country can ever be an illegal order.
Still, there are other ways to take Trump out of power. You don’t need a whole military to depose him.
How is there doubt? Launching a nuke is an act of war. The president is entitled to engage in acts of war where war has been declared (e.g., AUMF by Congress), otherwise the order would be illegal. It would probably not take so much effort on his part to obtain that authorization, but he does not have the open-ended white card to press the button as he pleases.
OTOH, DHS has officially stated that they’d comply with Trump’s directives and EOs regardless of their legality. And I’m quite certain many police officers and military commanders would do so as well, even if the high command took a principled stand.
[QUOTE=BigT]
If the military does that, it’s a coup. That means the military is in charge of the country. It means democracy is over, and we are in a de facto autocracy.
[/QUOTE]
Well, sometimes democracy needs a Cincinnatus. Or a Robespierre (the real one, not the unholy monster his opponents durably turned him into after they had him killed).
One reason to avoid something like this happening is that IMO this would mean acknowledging that the current Republic has failed, and require the constitution of a Second (Third?) Republic. Which I am having a hard time picturing going about quite as well as 1787 in the aftermath of such an event, given the current political dynamics. levdrakon: Which every time the fix sticks for less time and the last time just failed and backfired badly.
Nevertheless, a military coup doesn’t automatically mean democracy is over and in the case of Turkey, if democracy is over, it’s not the military’s fault.
And just as some historical perspective, we barely got it passed then either. It was why Madison, and pretty much everyone else, very much disagreed with Jefferson’s idea of ripping up the Constitution and creating a new one every generation.
That’s an interesting theory. It could go that way, or about 100 other ways, with everything from almost no one bats an eye to China and Russia both nuking us with all they’ve got. Like you said, it’s a highly theoretical scenario, which makes foolsguinea’s certainty (“national suicide, which a nuclear strike on Iran, say, would be” & “there is no way …”) all the more bizarre.
If we nuked a country that didn’t present an immediate existential threat (i.e. about to nuke us), then we’d skyrocket to world villain #1, and rightly so. We’d be the biggest mass murderers in 50 years or more.
Sanctions would be the least of our worries. For one thing, our military would face an existential crisis, since many officers and enlisted folks (including me, if I were still serving), would resign or desert rather than fight for a villainous cause that almost matched the Holocaust in evil wrought.
I voted no. I would rather them just make funny faces at Trump if he orders the military to do something immoral or illegal. Just straight up ignore them like they didn’t happen. I don’t like the millitary solving political problems that sounds pretty third world to me. No offense to the third world intended, but that’s not how we should handle it. The president is a civilian in the end and we should be able to take him out in a civilian way should we have to.
I think you’re a bit long on hyperbole and short on facts here. Let’s review what happened the last time we nuked a country: Japan “didn’t present an immediate existential threat” when we nuked them, and yet we still didn’t “skyrocket to world villain #1” (it probably helped that there were real, actual, honest-to-goodness Nazis back then and we had just uncovered the horrors they’d wrought). It was certainly a controversial decision (and still is), but it wasn’t “national suicide” then, and it probably wouldn’t be today either.
You said “We’d be the biggest mass murderers in 50 years or more.” It’s a possibility, if we went all “glass parking lot” on a country and unleashed our full arsenal, but there’s a range of options short of that too, like the Fordow scenario I gave previously. If we just nuked Fordow, we wouldn’t be, by any mathematical measure “the biggest mass murderers in 50 years or more.” Estimates vary, but to use a round number, let’s say 100,000 people died when we nuked Hiroshima. On the other hand, the Syrian civil war has killed like 5 times that many people. In short, it depends on the specifics of the nuclear strike. It might be something very catastrophic or only middling outrageous.
There were no nukes back then. There was little understanding of their capabilities and of fallout. Further, Japan had attacked us and would not surrender, despite quite obviously losing the war. And the Japanese Empire really was an existential threat to us, at least at its height.
None of this is comparable at all to Iran.
Nuking Fordow, even with a very small weapon, would be catastrophic – the fallout would carry into Qom quite quickly (and beyond), and would be killing people by the thousands for decades after the detonation (which would probably kill tens or hundreds of thousands on its own). Risks of cancer would skyrocket for the lucky ones – the unlucky ones would linger and die horribly for days, weeks, and months afterwards. It would be the stuff of nightmares.
In terms of a single incident, and a single national decision, I think it’s fair to compare that to any single incident of the past several decades.
And it would be one of the most evil acts (if not the most evil) perpetrated on Earth in the 21st century, and 2nd half of the 20th. It would rightly be seen as a monstrously evil crime against humanity. Iran, even if they had nuclear weapons, does not present an existential threat to the US. Further, nuking them would only harden their resolve if they didn’t have the weapons (and if they did, they would immediately launch against us or our allies) that getting such weapons was the only way to prevent being nuked by the evil America regime (and in that case, we would be rightly seen as evil).
This would make us the bad guys. I wouldn’t have fought for the bad guys, and I know a lot of the guys I served with in the Navy wouldn’t either.
I would expect our military officers and senior NCOs to be capable of a subtle enough not-really-mutiny if something truly monstrous were up. “Yes, sir, as soon as we meet Regulation 6085.105(b)Sub(4)Par(C) as otherwise we cannot deploy those resources unless we invoke the exception under 6098.009(d)12(A) and that would require recalling COL Fussmucker who’s out of contact on an Antarctic expedition because BG Ahmad is hospitalized at Walter Reed for pruritic dentition … etc.” until the civilians get their act together.
The point behind a Fordow strike would be to destroy the underground facility, not sprinkle the area above / around it with radioactive material. The world had decades of underground nuclear tests precisely because it was a good way to contain the radioactive danger. A nuclear-warhead-equipped bunker buster, sort of like the DoE worked on in the early 2000’s (see here), would probably work a lot like an underground test, with most or all of the bad crap contained.