Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

An order to shoot kids is illegal, an order (properly authorised) to nuke the city they live in is not. Not a comment on the morality of it, but the reality of it. 

If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't there need to be a question of the proportionality of the act? Not every order to launch a nuclear attack is legal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, legov said:

My take is that if Trump is still a player in the game in 4 years time that is a bigger problem for the Republicans than for the Democrats. He will be less popular to swing voters and moderate conservatives than he is now but will have a significant chunk of the current Republican base wedded to him no matter what.

He will need to be distanced from the Republican Party if they are going to have a chance to win an election again, otherwise they might as well rebadge the ‘Grand Old Party’ as the MAGA party and ride it into the ground but if he’s still holding his MAGA voters whilst he’s running as a third party candidate the Democrats will saunter to a clear victory under that scenario as well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Awol said:

That’s all irrelevant to the original point, if Trump gives a legal order to the military then they will follow it because he’s their CiC and they have to. 

Have to? That might be what they have been trained to do, conditioned to do.  I do understand a thinking soldier is not always desirable.  

Edited by fruitvilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Haven't they famously run mock tests for nuclear launch and most individuals failed to make the launch and that's why they were replaced with automated systems. 

Then Generals I am sure would still make a human decision. 

I'm sure if there was a known emergency involving a major protagonist and they were at Defcon 1 then they would do their duty. 

I'm equally certain that if they were at Defcon 5 and told to Nuke Scotland, there would be questions asked and discussions about the President being in his right mind. 

In fact I wouldn't be suprised if there is an official protocol in place. 

The first four points are all correct. I suspect the fifth isn't, but don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't there need to be a question of the proportionality of the act? Not every order to launch a nuclear attack is legal.

Sadly, you are mistaken. Please don’t take my word for it though, Dr Jeffery Lewis, @armscontrolwonk on Twitter, is the authority on the nuclear in a US context. The podcast below removes any illusions about proportionality, people using their better judgement etc. It’s all wishful thinking, unfortunately. 
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/arms-control-wonk/id872594726?i=1000504760196

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

My take is that if Trump is still a player in the game in 4 years time that is a bigger problem for the Republicans than for the Democrats. He will be less popular to swing voters and moderate conservatives than he is now but will have a significant chunk of the current Republican base wedded to him no matter what.

He will need to be distanced from the Republican Party if they are going to have a chance to win an election again, otherwise they might as well rebadge the ‘Grand Old Party’ as the MAGA party and ride it into the ground but if he’s still holding his MAGA voters whilst he’s running as a third party candidate the Democrats will saunter to a clear victory under that scenario as well.

This I think is nuanced look at the problem. The Republicans have to balance their short term issues ie its complete swing to the Alt Right with longer term Republican values. 

Having said that getting politicians to focus on the longer term ...  good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Awol said:

From what I can gather Trump absented himself from the chain of command (didn’t answer his phone) during the riots, and was ringing around senators (on someone else’s phone) asking them to overturn the election...

After 90 minutes of this, Pence, as the next most senior link in that chain after the President, gave the order to DOD to deploy the Guard. 

That’s all irrelevant to the original point, if Trump gives a legal order to the military then they will follow it because he’s their CiC and they have to. 

Maybe you know better. I would assume that the local area military commander (east coast or capitol defense) would have the ability to do as he/she sees fit once certain lines are crossed. D.C. is a weird place ala the City of London, so perhaps differing rules apply here.

Whatever happened, the guard was not deployed until all the interesting things had essentially happened. Heads may role as the House sergeant at arms has already come out pointing fingers elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

Sadly, you are mistaken. Please don’t take my word for it though, Dr Jeffery Lewis, @armscontrolwonk on Twitter, is the authority on the nuclear in a US context. The podcast below removes any illusions about proportionality, people using their better judgement etc. It’s all wishful thinking, unfortunately. 
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/arms-control-wonk/id872594726?i=1000504760196

Thanks for that. I'm about ten minutes in, and it's an interesting listen, but it doeesn't fully support your point, IMO.

Essentially their view is "if he picks a pre-selected order that has been planned and documented, it goes right away, if he tries to nuke somewhere random, there's probably the opportunity to discuss and sabotage".  We won't know for sure, but those ones that have been prepared have almost certainly already had some kind of assessment for legality and justification, surely? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

'Just following orders'.

Just following ‘legal orders’. You missed out the key word for some reason? 

I’m not cheerleading nuclear war, just clarifying how the US military chain of command works in the real world. Even with Trump at the top it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Thanks for that. I'm about ten minutes in, and it's an interesting listen, but it doeesn't fully support your point, IMO.

Essentially their view is "if he picks a pre-selected order that has been planned and documented, it goes right away, if he tries to nuke somewhere random, there's probably the opportunity to discuss and sabotage".  We won't know for sure, but those ones that have been prepared have almost certainly already had some kind of assessment for legality and justification, surely? 

 

They are clear by the end of the episode. Glad you’re enjoying it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the case that the President has singular authority to order a nuclear attack. The point is that the system requires a quick turnaround, as in the time period between being aware of a launch and being able to retaliate there isn't the time to debate, etc the decision. Ultimately if the President says launch, it happens. 

The only thing stopping that is an act of mutiny, with the consequences that come from that for the individuals involved. 

There is no safeguard against an unhinged President. The only safeguards are the decision of the people in an election, and to a far lesser extent the 25th Amendment, which is completely untested in any situation where the President is still standing.

The question of whether a launch is legal, justifiable, etc, is for afterwards. And in truth in the US' case they could ignore any attempt from the international community for any penalty if they wished.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Unstable President is a subjective statement, unstable according to whom? 

The safeguard is the election process, that the American people elect a fit and proper person as President and Commander in Chief. After that the military obey their Commander’s legal orders. 

If he ordered the nuking of Scotland then it’s going to get done, personal reservations don’t come into it. Equally, if Boris ordered our missile sub commander to nuke Washington, he’d do it. 

The military follow legal orders, especially when it comes to orders for the release of nuclear weapons. That’s how it works. 
 

Edit: and what Bicks said. In office his Cabinet can take him off the board with the 25th - the other safeguard. 

The thing is America has this weird couple of months of limbo where the electorate kick out a President they don't think is fit and proper yet is still in office and capable of carrying out some pretty wicked, vengeful acts.  I really don't know why in the 21st century it should take this long to go from one President to another, I know America is a much more vast and complicated nation than the UK but our defeated PM is quietly driven out the back door of Number 10 within a day or two.  

Edited by sharkyvilla
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The only thing stopping that is an act of mutiny, with the consequences that come from that for the individuals involved. 

This I think is true. If some General (or group of officers) refuse to carry out a legal order that has not yet been deemed to be bat shit crazy, then the military will go through the motions and do their thing. The general population who are not bat shit crazy will laud them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

The thing is America has this weird couple of months of limbo where the electorate kick out a President they don't think is fit 

Normally this is OK  ...  eg Obama did not suddenly become unfit and improper ...  even Dubya, at least by current standards.

Edited by fruitvilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â