Speaking at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada, Gen. John Hyten, who is the commander of US Strategic Command, shared what would happen if he were ordered to launch a nuclear strike.
"I provide advice to the President," Hyten said. "He'll tell me what to do, and if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm gonna say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' ....

Corker announces Senate hearing to examine Trump's 'authority to use nuclear weapons'
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., announced Wednesday that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing Nov. 14 to examine the president's "authority to use nuclear weapons."
Corker is one of Trump's fiercest critics within his own party. The hearing represents a significant escalation of Corker's concerns about the president's temperament and fitness for office.
The hearing was announced less than a day after Trump delivered a speech in which he called the nuclear-armed North Korean dictatorship a "dark fantasy" and a "military cult."

mmo wrote:

I guess I am confused. Are you saying you have issues with this because the military should follow the commander in chief regardless, or is this an objection to the topic being discussed?

Just because the CIC or any superior gives an order does not mean it is a lawful order.

Francoflier wrote:

We now live in a World in which the army and the government have to reassure the public that they won't let the unstable and unqualified President start a nuclear war on a whim...



*It's a nervous laugh. I'm actually dying inside.

ozglobal wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

We now live in a World in which the army and the government have to reassure the public that they won't let the unstable and unqualified President start a nuclear war on a whim...



*It's a nervous laugh. I'm actually dying inside.

Thanks for perfectly summarizing my point.

We're afraid that at 3am when a tweet no longer brings him catharsis, the button will be next. Not joking.

ozglobal wrote:

mmo wrote:

I guess I am confused. Are you saying you have issues with this because the military should follow the commander in chief regardless, or is this an objection to the topic being discussed?

Just because the CIC or any superior gives an order does not mean it is a lawful order.

Sorry. Guess I assumed it was obvious:

For the first time in 40 years since unilateral powers were given to POTUS to launch an emergency nuclear first strike, large numbers of law makers are genuinely asking how Trump in particular can be contained should he go rogue. I find the situation and the real possibility a grave concern.

ozglobal wrote:

We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.

windy95 wrote:

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.

windy95 wrote:

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.

windy95 wrote:

And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.

DfwRevolution wrote:

peace through strength.

DfwRevolution wrote:

ozglobal wrote:

We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.

We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.

And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.

salttee wrote:

We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

windy95 wrote:

Goldwater was on record advocating the use of nukes in Vietnam.
Goldwater was over the top.

mmo wrote:

I think you might be a little confused. Your incident was not caused by anything but a misinterpretation of sunlight off high altitude clouds and the inability of the Moliyna constellation to discern the reflection. In addition, at the time the USSR did not have OTH detection capability and there were objects "tracked" when there was no capability.

mmo wrote:

With respect to Goldwater, you are not quite right on his position. Goldwater's position was if you are going to go to war, you go prepared to win. You use all the weapons you have at your disposal. If you are not prepared to do that, then you need to rethink if you really want war. I think the 55,000+ military members who gave their life would argue Goldwater might have been correct.

ozglobal wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

ozglobal wrote:

We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.

We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.

And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.

The thing is, we non-Americans are not especially preoccupied with your local partisan politics, nor do we have a dog in that fight, we're just rather attached to this planet and our children staying alive. When all that stands between a precipitative nuclear war and the lack of it is the self-restraint of an individual that demonstrates none, we're going to have an opinion on the matter.

DfwRevolution wrote:

You all assume he's some ignorant buffoon.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges.....

DfwRevolution wrote:

....... and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.

ozglobal wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

ozglobal wrote:

We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.

We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.

And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.

The thing is, we non-Americans are not especially preoccupied with your local partisan politics, nor do we have a dog in that fight, we're just rather attached to this planet and our children staying alive. When all that stands between a precipitative nuclear war and the lack of it is the self-restraint of an individual that demonstrates none, we're going to have an opinion on the matter.

salttee wrote:

windy95 wrote:

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.

We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

.

windy95 wrote:

LOL... A soviet satellite glitch was because of Reagans cowboy Policies? Get real.

salttee wrote:

windy95 wrote:

LOL... A soviet satellite glitch was because of Reagans cowboy Policies? Get real.

As is usually the case with loudmouth right wingers, your knowledge of events is superficial. This misunderstanding was already addressed in post #15.

BobPatterson wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

You all assume he's some ignorant buffoon.

No assuming necessary. Mr. Trump's constant mis-statement of fact (or lying) is evidence enough of his buffoonery (or dishonesty).

BobPatterson wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges.....

How many so far? Is the pace of approvals of his court picks similar to that of recent Presidents?

BobPatterson wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

....... and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.

Overhauling/replacement of political (Plum Book) appointees is not overhaul of the bureaucracy.

Mass firings and agency reorganizations (of which there has been little) would constitute an "overhaul".

Hasn't happened yet.

salttee wrote:

I think you're the one who is confused. While you have identified the technical glitch that precipitated the event, the danger came from the "severely strained relations between the United States and the Soviet Union" at the time, including intentionally provocative behaviors of the US military. Read the background section at the Wiki link.
I think those 55,000 servicemen and their families would have rather had them live their lives out, rather than dying in a pointless military adventure which never had any hope of succeeding.

In mid-February 1981, and continuing until 1983, psychological operations by the United States began. These were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability and to demonstrate US nuclear capabilities. They included clandestine naval operations, in the Barents, Norwegian, Black, and Baltic seas and near the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment.

DfwRevolution wrote:

1. Nonsense. Europeans widely take sides in U.S. partisan politics with strong favor to Democrats. President Obama entered office in 2009 with nearly 90% approval rating according to Pew survey of Europeans. You can't get 90% of people to agree on a pizza order. Recent presidents like Bush and Reagan were widely regarded in Europe as ignorant cowboys despite taking pursuing strongly pro-European policies.

Aesma wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

1. Nonsense. Europeans widely take sides in U.S. partisan politics with strong favor to Democrats. President Obama entered office in 2009 with nearly 90% approval rating according to Pew survey of Europeans. You can't get 90% of people to agree on a pizza order. Recent presidents like Bush and Reagan were widely regarded in Europe as ignorant cowboys despite taking pursuing strongly pro-European policies.

Why would Europeans favor Democrats ? It's not like we're all voting for our left-wing parties, a majority of European countries at any time are headed by right-wing leaders, some of which would have no problem passing as Republicans in the US (the sane part of the GOP, that is).

The problem lies in the individuals involved, not their political party. If you elect failed businessmen and actors as president, don't expect instant respect from the rest of the world. I'm too young to remember but I'm sure opinions on Reagan improved over time, on W Bush, not so much. On Trump, he started low, got lower, and is now digging.

salttee wrote:

I do place blame on Regan for the military adventurism during his time in office. I referred you to the Wikipedia article simply because it provides an accurate short synopsis of the 1983 false alarm incident; in the past I have read in depth of the Russian side of that event and there is a lot more to be said of it than "sun reflecting off of clouds" although I know that the segment of the population with short attention spans might choke on reading a Wiki synopsis I'll post this snippet because it points up the politocal/military envirnment at the time.

In mid-February 1981, and continuing until 1983, psychological operations by the United States began. These were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability and to demonstrate US nuclear capabilities. They included clandestine naval operations, in the Barents, Norwegian, Black, and Baltic seas and near the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment.

I don't understand your use of the word "enjoyed" above, it seems a quite affected way of accusing them of participating in similar activities as the US in probing the other guy's air defense. They may have done it, but nowhere near the scale of what the US regularly did on the fringes of the SU.

BTW I had gotten out of the military prior to the Regan years, I had had discussions with USAF pilots in Europe about these kinds of things, I can vouch for Wiki's accuracy in their abbreviated synopsis.

A particular gripe of mine about the cowboy Reagan years comes from the Korean 747 that the US naval intelligence directed to enter Russian airspace. KE007 was on a mission to probe a newly installed Russian radar installation. The pilot was the highest ranking KCIA agent on KAL's payroll and the plane had two US ELINT aircraft tagging along behind it as it penetrated Soviet airspace. KE007 flew a flight path that required (at least) two separate course changes from the filed flight plan to place it on the course it was on as it overflew Kamchatka - it could not have been on the course it was on by accident. I had a good friend on that plane. If you want to argue about that one you'd better know what you're talking about and you'd better hold back on the insults lest you wind up eating them.

Goldwater's view of military affairs in Vietnam was about parallel with MacArthurs' view of the Korean situation in 1950. They were both frenzied warhawks that wanted to extract any opportunity for war with China. Goldwater was not some wizened backbencher who merely wanted to used adequate force if we were to use force, he wanted the US to show off its military might anywhere and everywhere. The argument you're trying to make was lost over fifty years ago.

mmo wrote:

If and when I give you an insult, it will be very obvious and not something veiled and obscured. So, perhaps you should "edit" your response before I ask the moderators to delete your dribble.

mmo wrote:

You claim the US "as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment" care to share your facts to back that statement up. At the time you are referring to, I was an active duty pilot in the USAF and just so happened to be flying that type of aircraft. I'd like to know what I missed because your allegations are false. It certainly didn't happen in my 11 years of active duty or 10 years in the reserves.

mmo wrote:

Let's see, KAL 007.....Good story. Are you a conspiracy theorist by chance? The Captain was a KCIA spy and the Navy directed the KAL flight to enter the area! Where do you get these facts? Having flown the 200 and with the Delco INS it is very easy to see what happened. The big question is was it an error or a "shortcut" to save fuel and get more payload on.

mmo wrote:

The USSR was just as eager as the US to probe the defenses. They did it as much or more often than the US did. They had too. From a technology perspective, they were way behind the US at that time and were about as subtle as a bull in a china shop when it came to probing. What they excelled at was HUMINT, perhaps you have heard of the Walkers? Or Christopher Boyce.

mmo wrote:

Finally, your comments about Goldwater, are from my perspective, wrong. Show me anyone who has a military background (served) who wants to do what you claim. My experience has been the exact opposite. Military people know the value of life and the last thing they want to do is put their subordinates at risk. Further more, they don't want to do it if they are hamstrung by what the can and cannot do. I am just surprised you didn't lump Curtis LeMay in with your broad stroke condemnation.

salttee wrote:

The usual failed explanation for the actual flight path rests on the premise that the plane flew on heading mode instead of INS mode, and that would require an extremely weird failure on the part of the multiple compass's on board. But it appears that you are discarding that theory, so I won't beat that one to death.

mmo wrote:

Your comments about the "extremely weird failure" are indicative of your lack of knowledge of the 747-200 INS system. It is extremely easy to get the Nav mode into heading as the selector is right in the center of the glareshield. I don't know how many times I have seen it hit with pilots getting out/or in the left and right seat. There is no visual indication or aural warning. So, for you to say it was a "extremely weird failure" is just ludicrous at best.

mmo wrote:

It's funny, you come back to me about MacArthur, when I never mentioned him.

mmo wrote:

I am still waiting for a list of your "bomber flights" where you reported they turned at the last possible moment.

mmo wrote:

And again, what about the Walkers, Boyce and others?

mmo wrote:

The problem with conspiracy theorists, and I will put you in that category,

salttee wrote:

There are several reasons this prattle from you is little more than gibberish being hidden behind a false appeal to authority. The first being the incongruity that exists when you claimed above that you know all about the Delco INS and for you "it is very easy to see what happened" (not just easy, but very easy) and now you are backtracking and setting the stage for you to claim that KE007 flew from Alaska to Sakhalin Island under heading mode, which of course does not use the INS, but follows a compass heading which needs to be set, as opposed to the INS which tracks to geographical positions.

Before we go any further, you need to clarify what control you think KE007 was operating under and exactly what this "very simple" error of feature was that brought the aircraft over the Kamchatka Peninsula and then the Sakhalin Island. And while doing so, please answer to the fact that there is no heading or INS course that can duplicate KE007's flight path from Alaska to Sakhalin there has to be a turn somewhere. (this is why I stated that there would have to have been a weird INS failure to have caused the aircraft to have turned off of a great circle course, and then back onto a different GS course)

mmo wrote:

It's funny, you come back to me about MacArthur, when I never mentioned him.

You asked me: "Show me anyone who has a military background (served) who wants to do what you claim." (Invade China) My answer was the blatantly obvious fact that MacArthur ran his army (and airforce) right up to the Chinese border in late 1950. Then you went on with your Readers Digest type of nonsense about how peaceloving military people are "My experience has been the exact opposite. Military people know the value of life and the last thing they want to do is put their subordinates at risk." You obviously think that civilians are complete dumbfucks, have you forgotten that quite a few civilians are ex-military? You really need to stop talking down to people.

And can we now drop this side topic as it has nothing to do with KE007?

mmo wrote:

I am still waiting for a list of your "bomber flights" where you reported they turned at the last possible moment.

Your actual question was: "You claim the US "as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment" care to share your facts to back that statement up." and I gave you two citations, along with your personal acknowledgement of those activities by both the USAF and the Russians.

mmo wrote:

And again, what about the Walkers, Boyce and others?

The the Walkers and Boyce are just your strawmen they have nothing to do with this conversation.

mmo wrote:

The problem with conspiracy theorists, and I will put you in that category,

I too have you in a "category" but I'll be polite and not share it.

We can now see that I was dead on accurate in assuming that you would descend into petty ad hominem attacks.

GDB wrote:

I have never brought the KAL conspiracy, KAL had - and would continue having until the late 1990's - a poor safety record.
But most of all, the Soviets knew they'd screwed up and lied. The pilot of the SU-15 who was ordered to shoot down KAL007 was made to change his radio calls after landing, to simulate the noise of the cockpit in flight an electric razor was switched on nearby, the buzzing noise it made being used for fake 'calls' made after the event. This was admitted by the pilot years later.
Though it IS true that under Reagan there were more and more aggressive ELINT flights near Soviet airspace. So they were extra jumpy.
But the USSR did not want to world to know just how dysfunctional it's command and control was, 4 years later another incident made it impossible to hide when that Cessna piloted by a young West German landed in Moscow!
A launch detection sat that got confused by sunlight off clouds was also hardly a ringing endorsement of their system.

DfwRevolution wrote:

I honestly don't think he cares about matters of fact. We conventionally assess knowledge as a measure of competence. We marvel at fact-heavy technocrats. But again: Trump is playing a different game. His game is influencing behavior and manipulation. That's no trivial skill.

DfwRevolution wrote:

There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Everyone loves to bring up past precedent.

salttee wrote:

We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

L410Turbolet wrote:

How exactly is it Reagan's fault that Russians had garbage satellites (and anything involving electronics), paranoid, half-dead leadership, and a secret service that was perhaps very good at shooting defensless POWs but had exactly ZERO analytic capacity?

salttee wrote:

Reagan's cowboy gamesmanship which sent us into idiotic practices like Able Archer almost cost us our everything.

EA CO AS wrote:

no one knew how truly paranoid the Soviets were...................

salttee wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

no one knew how truly paranoid the Soviets were...................

Just like:
No one knew that the Chinese would join the Korean war if we marched right up to their border
No one knew that the people of Iran would resent the US (and Britain) overthrowing their elected government
No one knew that the people of Guatemala would resent the US for overthrowing the only elected government in Central American history
No one knew that the Vietnamese would never surrender their nation to another (white) foreign colonizer.
No one knew that once we took Saddam down the Shiites would take over the nation and the Sunnis would revert to militant Islam.
Nobody knows that the Islamic people have no intention of surrendering their world to another (white) foreign colonizer.
Nobody knows that war with Iran would be like the Iraq war squared.

The right wing conservative approach, the militant foreign policy, is based on ignorance.

Aesma wrote:

During the campaign, Trump said things like "why do we have nukes if not to use them". After his election he said “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

This is supposed to reassure allies and threaten enemies but it has the exact opposite effect on both counts.

GDB wrote:

IYou cannot separate KAL007 from all the other events around the same time

salttee wrote:

Goldwater's view of military affairs in Vietnam was about parallel with MacArthurs' view of the Korean situation in 1950. They were both frenzied warhawks that wanted to extract any opportunity for war with China.