BawWatchin Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 3 minutes ago, Detournement said: The reason nuclear weapons haven't been used in war since 1945 is because US Presidents have refused to let their Generals use them. I'm sure there are some modern day LeMays and MacArthurs who would lobby for nuclear war with little provocation, it is then down to the President to bring some sanity. The Cuban missile crisis completely changed JFK's outlook on the Cold War because he realised he was surrounded by lunatics. The decision doesn't fall on military generals from direct communication from the president. The decision needs to pass through congress and I don't think Trump has too many friends in there at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 13 minutes ago, BawWatchin said: The decision doesn't fall on military generals from direct communication from the president. The decision needs to pass through congress and I don't think Trump has too many friends in there at the moment. No. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Congress doesn't get any say on whether to use nuclear weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BawWatchin Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 3 minutes ago, welshbairn said: No. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/ This is in the event of retaliation. It doesn't quite work this way if the president just decides he wants to nuke a country one day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 This is in the event of retaliation. It doesn't quite work this way if the president just decides he wants to nuke a country one day.There are checks and balances in all situations. http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/23/americas-nuclear-response-procedure-explained-using-gifs-from-friends/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 49 minutes ago, BawWatchin said: This is in the event of retaliation. It doesn't quite work this way if the president just decides he wants to nuke a country one day. From Wiki on the Single Integrated Operational Plan, or how to launch a nuke. Quote Journalist Ron Rosenbaum has pointed out that the SIOP is entirely concerned with the identity of the commanding officer and the authenticity of the order, and there are no safeguards to verify that the person issuing the order is actually sane.[50] "The president has supreme authority to decide whether to use America's nuclear weapons. Period. Full stop," says the Arms Control Association's Kingston Reif. A president could only be stopped by mutiny, he explained, and more than one person would have to disobey the president's orders.[45] Notably, Major Harold Hering was eventually forced out of the Air Force for asking during his missile training course how he could know that an order to launch his missiles was "lawful," that it came from a sane president, one who wasn't "imbalance[d]" or "berserk." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Amusing that the scenarios posted so far assume that the US will be responding to a nuclear strike from a foreign power. I guess we'll never know who actually pressed the button first, so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Just now, BigFatTabbyDave said: Amusing that the scenarios posted so far assume that the US will be responding to a nuclear strike from a foreign power. I guess we'll never know who actually pressed the button first, so... The same rules apply for an American first strike, it's just that most of the literature assumes that America wouldn't do that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: The same rules apply for an American first strike, it's just that most of the literature assumes that America wouldn't do that. No, I figured as much, it was just amusing that was the assumption. Never the aggressor, although I suppose it would take a massive set to write procedures around the premise that your leaders had just decided to wipe millions of people off the map. Probably a good time to repost this bad boy - the Nukemap. The Tsar Bomba detonating over Glasgow would provide 100% certainty of third-degree burns in Edinburgh, but the good news is that it would apparently be painless, as it would kill your nerve endings. You don't hear that kind of positive information from the anti-war lobby. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 The same rules apply for an American first strike, it's just that most of the literature assumes that America wouldn't do that. Not just most of the literature. Most international law too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Just now, Savage Henry said: Not just most of the literature. Most international law too. If an American President decided to launch a first strike there is f**k all International Law could do to stop it. Hopefully there is such a thing as a deep state to intervene and stop it. I'm actually quite hopeful about Trump on only this issue, he seems less inclined to project military power than his predecessors, especially if there's no profit in it. Venezuela might be a bit tempting, but not in a nuclear way. The worrying thing is his son-in-law, Bolton and MBS banging on about Iran. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 If an American President decided to launch a first strike there is f**k all International Law could do to stop it. Hopefully there is such a thing as a deep state to intervene and stop it. I'm actually quite hopeful about Trump on only this issue, he seems less inclined to project military power than his predecessors, especially if there's no profit in it. Venezuela might be a bit tempting, but not in a nuclear way. The worrying thing is his son-in-law, Bolton and MBS banging on about Iran.Right. But that’s been true from the moment nuclear weapons were conceived. The US as a rational actor is central to the very existence of NATO, the UN and almost all international organisations and treaties. Even the most superficial of loonball conspiracies is based upon the central premise that the US is a rational actor and acts entirely out of its own good. In the one occasion of the US acting non rationally - the bombing of Japan - the international system pretty much ignored it due to the result of the war. And you’ll still get folk arguing that it was rational.Still, pretty much everyone assumes that those were exceptional circumstances. It doesn’t require a deep state, not that such a thing exists, to prevent Trump - or whomever - bombing the crap out of wherever using first strike capability. One of the inherent contradictions of nuclear armament is that it’s essentially defensive, but its use would almost certainly be a first strike scenario. But still, implicit within its existence is that the US (and Russia, I guess) is rational. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-inaugural-committee-investigation-president-mueller-fraud-money-laundering-a8763526.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 23 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-inaugural-committee-investigation-president-mueller-fraud-money-laundering-a8763526.html His company, his handpicked committee, his family, his advisors, his campaign manager, and his media confidants are all suspected and indicted of serious jail-time crimes. He's absolutely on the straight and narrow, and this is all an anti-Russia witch-hunt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Fox News-About as balanced as the BBC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 9 hours ago, Savage Henry said: His company, his handpicked committee, his family, his advisors, his campaign manager, and his media confidants are all suspected and indicted of serious jail-time crimes. He's absolutely on the straight and narrow, and this is all an anti-Russia witch-hunt. It’s a real pity this conflicted with the state of the union as it deserves in depth coverage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieThomas Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 On 04/02/2019 at 15:18, welshbairn said: If an American President decided to launch a first strike there is f**k all International Law could do to stop it. Hopefully there is such a thing as a deep state to intervene and stop it. If there was a deep state, the p***k would have been given a JFK skull flap months ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_&_T Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 On 04/02/2019 at 20:18, welshbairn said: If an American President decided to launch a first strike there is f**k all International Law could do to stop it. Hopefully there is such a thing as a deep state to intervene and stop it. I'm actually quite hopeful about Trump on only this issue, he seems less inclined to project military power than his predecessors, especially if there's no profit in it. Venezuela might be a bit tempting, but not in a nuclear way. The worrying thing is his son-in-law, Bolton and MBS banging on about Iran. Hilary was talking about taking on Russia, which could have been very nasty. One thing to hope for is that Israel never faces an existential threat - Google "The Sampson Option". Perhaps in addition to AIPAC's status and influence, this accounts for the massive foreign aid and other resources gifted to Israel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 22 hours ago, Granny Danger said: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-inaugural-committee-investigation-president-mueller-fraud-money-laundering-a8763526.html Quote The investigation is reportedly examining whether some of the committee’s donors gave money in exchange for policy concessions, influencing administration positions or access to the incoming administration. After they sort out this committee they are going to investigate the Tooth Fairy..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 (edited) On 2/4/2019 at 20:18, welshbairn said: If an American President decided to launch a first strike there is f**k all International Law could do to stop it. Hopefully there is such a thing as a deep state to intervene and stop it. I'm actually quite hopeful about Trump on only this issue, he seems less inclined to project military power than his predecessors, especially if there's no profit in it. Venezuela might be a bit tempting, but not in a nuclear way. The worrying thing is his son-in-law, Bolton and MBS banging on about Iran. I am definitely not a Trump fan but so far he is the only American President since Truman not involved or created a foreign war or conflict, SO FAR, When I read the post above I decided to look into the foreign policies of past presidents and found them to be mainly warmongers as follows; Truman- Signed for the Nuke attacks on Japan, Authorised the Korean war. Eisenhower - Commenced nuke testing on a massive scale which initiated the Cold War with Russia, Continued with the Korean War and authorised early Vietnam military involvement. Kennedy - Invaded Cuba on the Bay of Pigs, escalated the Vietnam War. Nixon, Johnson and Ford - All three involved in the Vietnam war. Carter - Foolishly authorised the CIA to provide $500,000 of assistance to the Afghani Mujahideen which prompted the Soviets to invade the country in a nine year war. Reagan - Increased military spending to 2.8 Trillion dollars, Invaded tiny Grenada, authorised Libyan airstrikes. Bush Senior - Invaded Kuwait and initiated the Gulf War. Clinton - Authorised Mogadishu/Somalian airstrikes, Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan, Authorised Yugoslavian/Kosovo bombing. Bush Junior - Total warmonger, the worst of the lot-Invaded Iraq, Invaded tiny Panama with 27,000 troops. Obama - Continued with Iraq war and approved airstrikes against ISIS, approved Libyan air strikes, increased troop size in Afghanistan to 17,000 to maintain military ops. Makes you wonder who really is the aggressor since the end of WW2. So right now let's be thankful that Daft Donnie is concentrating on his wall and trade spats with China. Edited February 6, 2019 by SandyCromarty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.