I am the only man in my family not in the Navy. All of them are submariners and all of them have stories. Though I can not dispute the difference between tactical and strategic capabilities on our subs, I do know some of the trident subs are being outfitted with nukes. It was all over the news a few months ago, and the defense plant locally has just received the contract for the conversions, which of course made the papers.
When you live in the submarine capitol of the world you tend to pick up bits and pieces of information from friends and family in the navy. As for the numbers of subs out there and what they are actually outfitted with, I should not give exact figures, as I do not know them. Formidable surly doesn’t begin to describe them though.
To clarify what’s up with the Ohio-class subs: They were originally built to carry the Trident (and now Trident II) strategic nuclear ICBM. Several of the older Ohio subs are now being converted to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles instead of the Tridents. The Tomahawk can carry both nuclear and conventional warheads, thereby increasing the strategic and tactical capability of the Ohio.
See this article for more info on the conversion:
http://www.thesunlink.com/news/2002/november/11241conversionw.html
Um. Yes.
Oh, and there won’t be much talk about nation building afterwards.
Look, two buildings went down in NYC, so we went after the country of Afghanistan. But that went too well, and too quickly, and the American bloodlust was not satisfied. After Iraq falls, maybe we will calm down a bit. But if a nuke detonates on US soil, I would expect the response would be immediate and overwhelming retaliation on our perceived enemies, evidence to be provided later.
Sorry, I was under the impression that only the President can declare martial law. I say he would readily do this to capture and interrogate any suspects under military jurisdiction. Thats why I speculated that the nation would be under a temporary state of martial law, akin to having all airliners grounded on 9-11. Once the suspects are captured, martial law would be localized to the bombed area.
I would safely say that a nuclear bomb going off anywhere in the US would constitute if not indicate a complete breakdown of civilian authority. I dont know of any state having a nuclear protocol. Thats the US military’s job. The president declaring martial law would bypass any state governor’s attempt at jurisdiction.
With regard to the scenario that OBL and Al Qaeda are soley to blame. Well, then its afghanistan all over again except it may center around Pakistan I imagine. Investigations will also focus on where the heck did Al Qaeda get the components and who helped them get it in the US.
A nuclear bomb going off constitutes a nuclear bomb going of. It may or may not result in a breakdown of civilian authority.
A president declaring martial law seems like something Idi Amin or Omar Gadaffi would do.
What’s your point? You don’t think a nuclear bomb detonating on US soil would change things a bit?
OTOH I suspect many an american would head for the hills if a city was nuked. It just might shake society to the point of “breakdown”. The sheer notion of an actual atomic bomb going off would scare the sh*t out of me, …and I’m living quite far away!
My point is that it doesn’t “constitute if not indicate a complete breakdown of civilian authority.”
Interesting article on the subs. I didn’t know that they were being refitted like that. I’m afraid that I took your post the wrong way, thinking that you meant that we’re making Ohios carry 24 tactical nukes on board instead of their usual complement of strategic warheads. If that article is accurate about carrying conventional tomahawks that could potentially be given nuclear warheads, I do think it’s a good idea. Surely we don’t need as many Ohios anymore with the fall of the Soviet Union. We might as well start using them. Right now, the entire job of an Ohio is to sit around and never be used – if we can retire them without ever having used them, they’ve been worth every penny.
Ironically, the Virginia class submarines are actually substandard to the Seawolf class. Both classes were designed to replace the Los Angeles class, but Seawolf came first. Clocking in at 2.1 billion each, though, they were too expensive for certain tastes. The Virginia class, actually being a step downward from Seawolf, are only 1.65 billion each. Don’t get me wrong, they’re still superior to any other sub in any navy (again, save the Seawolf), but I’d much rather design the best possible ship (boat), considering the hulls last for decades. It means you don’t need to upgrade again quite as fast.
Libertarian, the subs are indeed fully autonomous as to when to fire their weaopns – in the same way that an air force base commander is, or a missile silo. The Chain of Command keeps them from ever launching on their own, but if a sub commander and XO were to hypothetically go ballistic (pun intended), he would indeed be able to fire all the nukes on the boat. The codes in the “football” are only telling the sub that authorization is indeed coming from the President… they aren’t “release codes” for the warheads that they (physically) can’t be armed without. I sort of feel like this is an awkard explanation, but you probably get the point. And, of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if the sub had a list of conditions under which they could fire on their own authority (“If you hear screams coming from fleet command, followed by a gigantic boom, and then static for several days, and lose all contact with Washington, Norfolk, San Diego, etc… well, you might want to think about launching.”)
-Psi Cop
Several executive orders are already in place prior and after 9-11 that would give the semblance of Martial law without actually declaring one. Bush could merely sic FEMA on everyone.
Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.
- Plagerized from this site:*
http://pub83.ezboard.com/fcorpustforumsfrm5.showMessage?topicID=7.topic
They say the weather in Tasmania is nice…
In strict dictionary terms, martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of control might vary - a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the courts administered by the military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called “martial law.”
Martial law should not be confused with military justice. In the United States, for example, each branch of the military has its own judicial structures in place. Members of the service are under the control of military law, and in some cases civilians working for or with the military may be subject to military law. But this is the normal course of business in the military. Martial law is the exception to the rule. In the United States, the military courts were created by the Congress, and cases can be appealed out of the military system to the Supreme Court in many cases. In addition, a civilian court can petition the military for habeas corpus.
Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.
(That Jose Padilla, a civilian American citizen is being held in a military jail, and has been denied counsel should be a prima facie case of of a violation of Article I., Section 9. But I digress.)
Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President’s imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus through out the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on “prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy,” as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President’s proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln’s imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.
In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of “what is martial law?” “Martial law,” it was argued, “is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler.” In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, “The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender.”
In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was “Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?”
Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: “Martial law … destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.” The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. “Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish.”
Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: “If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.”
A single nuke blast in America does not create a nationwide case for martial law.