As a thought exercise, if the only information available was a tweet and the pictures you mentioned, I would have a hard time personally concluding that those actions amounted to an imminent threat.
Injecting some reality into your question, in addition to what North Korea made publicly known, the US Government would very likely have access to intelligence gathered by satellites, signals intelligence, human sources, and similar means that would give policy makers a better judgment of how serious the threat was at that time. For example, it is not outside the realm of the possible that North Korean diplomats may make certain signals through back channels to message that they are simply planning a test, perhaps with indications to bolster confidence in that message. I have no clue at all whether this is happening or not, but if we are going to deal with reality – “very, very close to what has actually happened” in your words, then you have to acknowledge that you may not have all of the story just because you read a tweet and saw some pictures of the North Korean war room.
And I must say that the premise of the question – “is this enough?” – is asking me for my opinion. There’s no computer for military leaders, or members of the general public, to punch in a scenario and determine whether it meets certain legal criteria.
The more relevant question is whether that scenario is enough for Secretary Mattis and the chain of military command, and I confess I have no insight as to their opinions.
You are correct. He was asked if he would obey an illegal order. He was not asked what an illegal order constitutes. I don’t think it is particularly fair to criticize General Hyten for not, during a Q&A session at a policy conference, to settle all doubts on all aspects of a very difficult question.
There’s a lot of logic in this statement, but the military chain of command may also pause to consider whether by obeying an illegal order, they may end up spending the rest of their lives in prison, in addition to murdering millions of people for no reason.
I think it is very wise to have them consider their own personal stake in the answer to that question.
That point is well-taken; however, a commander who’s involved in the nuclear launch sequence can be criminally liable for illegally launching missiles that kill millions of people. The whole point of the Nuremberg trials was to say that “I was just following orders” isn’t enough to excuse abhorrent behavior.
It’s on the wiki I linked too. He can confirm the order or veto it…not sure how he’d do both. I assume the succession for this is whoever is next in line wrt the secretaries. My WAG (no time to look stuff up atm) is it would be SecState, and if they are dead then the next all the way to Secretary of Agriculture, which I’d presume last on this tier of list.
Sure, and it’s to be hoped that the folks who are in positions to check the president should he give an order that is illegal will do so. I’m fairly confident they would, in fact. To use the example of a previous poster, if Trump orders a nuclear attack on France, that’s clearly an illegal order that shouldn’t (and I’m confident wouldn’t) be followed. However, an attack order against North Korea? I’m unsure that this would be seen as illegal. I guess it would depend on the circumstances. If Trump, wild-eyed from a night of binge-watching Fox and Friends and InfoWars came raving into the WH command post ordering an immediate attack on that little fat fuck in Pyongyang, it probably would be perceived as illegal and the SecDef would probably veto it. But if he did this during one of the numerous brinksmanship stunts by that same fat fuck? Say we get the word of another nuclear test, or another missile test flying towards Japan? I think that’s a really gray area, and I think that it would fall within the powers of the president to order a nuclear strike and almost certainly it would be confirmed by the SecDef at that point.
Whether it will be followed down the chain of command I couldn’t say. Probably though.
Your scenario is ludicrous, that President Trump would react so callously is ludicrous. Threats of full “fire and fury” were not necessarily a nuclear threat. Any military action resulting in the deaths of millions or even thousands of civilians that would not conform to current international standards and treaties would be illegal. Strategic Command is well aware of all imminent and active threats and well trained in US and International Law to understand a legal and lawful response.
It is beyond preposterous to claim or insinuate that President Trump is somehow less civil, less human, of less self control than previous President’s that a heightened threat of such a gross inhuman illegal action exist. You are being ridiculous if you believe that to be the case.
I don’t think so. It’s pretty obvious that this president IS less in control, and certainly far, far less civil, at least wrt any modern president (some of the early ones were pretty out there and would probably nod at some of Trump’s quips). The thing is, it’s hard to judge how stable the man really is. He SEEMS to be loose cannon, generally on the verge of being out of control of his temper and basically the worst sort of manager…one who thinks they know what they are doing, yet demonstrably is just winging it with no idea of what to do or where he’s going. That’s a bad combination in a manager…it’s worse in a leader. Not only does the enemy (say, North Korea) not know what he’s going to do at any given time, but his allies and a large percentage of his citizens don’t either.
I could sort of understand these concerns a year ago. But now? The man has had “his finger on the button” for 10 months now, and has somehow managed to not nuke anybody. His uses of military force have been rather modest and measured so far. Now, perhaps that’s because he’s largely deferring to SecDef Mattis and other leaders, but … at what point will this not be a significant concern for you guys? If he hasn’t nuked anyone by, let’s say, July 2024, will you feel comfortable relaxing and thinking “ok, he’s probably not quite the loose cannon people said he was”? Sometime before that? Not until he’s out of office?
He’s actually made me more anxious, not less, since assuming the presidency. Just because he hasn’t nuked anyone to date doesn’t, to me, offer a good prediction of the future. I really, honestly don’t know what this guy will do next. At times, he is fighting with the Democrats, with the Republicans, with his own administration, with our allies, with countries that are clearly enemy, with countries that are somewhere in-between, and even with himself on occasions. He seemingly spouts whatever pops into his head at any given time, or what he’s seeing on cable news or wonderful places like InfoWars, which is scary just in itself wrt where he’s getting his information from (the thought that Alex Jones has influence over him alone gives me chills).
Basically, this guys is scary, to me at least. I really don’t know what he’s going to do, and while I don’t THINK he’d nuke a country out of pique, the situation in North Korea especially (but not just there) is one close to spinning out of control, IMHO. Not only do we have Trump to worry about in this situation, but that unstable fuck in charge of North Korea…and we have all of the other regional players. Any of which could spark a war on the peninsula that goes nuclear, or at the least causes massive loss of life.
Every chicken and cow on every farm wakes up thinking: “This cannot possibly be the day I go to the slaughter house, because I have never been to the slaughter house before!”
I did not say “cannot possibly”. I think the odds are minuscule that Trump will one day decide to nuke a country over a petty insult. There are some people across the aisle from me for whom this represents a substantial concern. I wonder if the passage of time has done / will do anything to lessen that concern for them. XT seemed to say that no, if anything, it has increased. I wonder if SamuelA thought it a more likely occurrence on January 20th or today. Will he think it more likely or less likely on the day before Trump leaves office?
Having been at the pointy end of this spear, my personal opinion is that once the order leaves the top level command center heading out towards the field, performance will be very, very close to 100%. Net of malfunctions and miscommunication.
Intermediate HQs or operators at the periphery choosing to sit out is real, real close to unthinkable.
My first-hand knowledge is now 30 years old. Certainly some stuff has changed. My bet is not much has changed in this area.
Aren’t those operators largely cruising beneath the waves or sitting around in a buried bunker? It’s not like they’re spending their days pouring over the latest NYT articles or CNN, right? They’re pretty dependent on the chain-of-command to tell them if it’s go-time or not. They’re not really in a position to be sufficiently-informed to make an independent determination. I always thought that was - at least in part - by design.
My own military experience is equally long ago and far away, but this jibs pretty well with my own take. Basically, if higher command authority says we should do X then we will probably do X. It’s assumed they know what they are doing…at least as much as they ever do.
In that scenario it would be sufficient to restrain (& possibly sedate) POTUS in that case, then VPOTUS and the Cabinet and invoke the 25th Amendment; no need to kill POTUS.
If SecDef refused to confirm a launch order POTUS could fire him on the spot, but then POTUS would have to work his way threw the DoD’s line of succession; it wouldn’t go to another Cabinet secretary.
It’s a good thing we have brave people on this board to take on opinions that are just this side of conspiracy theories, and refute them with logical fallacies!
That’s my take. YMMV, but I really don’t know what Trump will do at any given time or in any given situation. My powers of prediction are zero wrt this guy. I also don’t think he will just nuke someone over a petty insult, but what I could see happening is he (or someone on the other side trying to figure out what the fuck he is thinking) will misjudge a situation or give a bad or faulty signal and all hell will break loose. I could easily see that happening with North Korea, but it could happen with Russia, China, Iran or myriad other places.
I will feel it’s less likely to happen once Trump leaves office, depending on who the next president is.
Not sure to be honest. It would be unprecedented, so we’d be in uncharted waters at that point. It could be that Trump or whoever is president would have to appoint a new SecDef that would have to be ratified. Could be that he could go to the next person in the chain. At some point, if enough people refuse, the VP and cabinet could step in and invoke the 4th article of the 25th, which would have to be responded to by the President to Congress (s/he has to write a letter, IIRC, saying they are fully able to do their duties, and Congress has to decide if that’s the case or not). Most of these would delay things long enough for legal actions to be taken to ensure an ‘illegal’ launch order was not invoked. I think it would hinge on what is actually being required and who in the administration is supporting the President on it, so I could see it going either way.
I’m not sure either, but there almost has to be some way for a person to step in and fill the vacancy in a hurry in cases of a deceased / incapacitated / retiring SecDef. Imagine a scenario where the SecDef dies and the Russians launch an all-out attack because they know we’re vulnerable. I can’t picture the entire DoD sitting around saying, ‘well, that sucks, we can’t retaliate because we’ve got no SecDef’ while missiles are streaking across the North Pole. That’s just too big of a loophole to leave open.
