U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-21-2017, 10:35 PM
 
15,476 posts, read 7,877,373 times
Reputation: 14476

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
No Commander in Chief since the end of the Vietnam War has had their competency questioned regarding the ordering of use of nuclear weapons, until now. This was actually an off shoot of the CIA's questioning if they are required by law to disclose sensitive top secret information to the current Chief Executive if they have reason to question the competency of that person to safeguard the information. And that was probably an offshoot of the DOD wanting to know what to do if certain members of the administration's security clearance was in question. This is really the only time so many questions over the competency of an entire administration was called into question.

This is not however, the first time a senior official's ability to access or have control of certain items were questioned. The closest it came before was under Reagan when the DOD and CIA raised issues over mental incapacity after a speech. Just like today, it was a short lived media event until some new controversy occurred.

However, those of us who served know full well that the President (Commander in Chief) does not have the sole and only authority to launch nuclear weapon. Under the US Constitution, he has the sole authority to order use of nuclear weapons but the actual order to use those nuclear weapons must also be authorized by the Secretary of Defense under the Two-Man Policy. Still, how to deploy those weapons falls within the command structure of those controlling the weapons.

I'm sure the media is making a big deal of it, but that's their job, so let them do what they are paid to do. After all, didn't we serve to defend the Constitution regardless of our own political affiliation?
Actually, whichever individual is the National Command Authority at the moment does have the single ability to launch a strike. There is no "two man" policy at that level.

What the general was talking about was what kind of strike would be legal under the Law of Armed Conflict. No general is going to prison with the president on an illegal order. The top ones who are just in it for the glory aren't going to prison for the president, and the younger ones still hoping for more stars aren't going to prison, either. The lower you go, the less likely anyone is going to push the button when their own lawyers are saying they're going to hang.

They've taken the LOAC course--heck I took the nuclear targeting portion of the LOAC course. Legal nuclear possibilities with whatever war can happen with North Korea will be exceedingly limited. When we're talking about nuclear strikes at less than the level of a general nuclear war (Major Attack Options executed), there is the fact that a legal reckoning is going to be had later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:07 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,887 posts, read 8,323,544 times
Reputation: 3918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Top general says he'd push back against 'illegal' nuclear strike order


Top general says he'd push back against 'illegal' nuclear strike order - CNNPolitics


Anyone with military experience would know that this headline must be much less volatile than it sounds. And apparently there are some top civilians who haven't attended the required briefings.


All the difference is in that word "illegal," and what it might mean in any given circumstance.
Simple, if the president says to Nuke Berkley, CA, that would be an illegal order and the military would refuse it. Why is this confusing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:13 PM
 
15,476 posts, read 7,877,373 times
Reputation: 14476
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmarie123 View Post
Simple, if the president says to Nuke Berkley, CA, that would be an illegal order and the military would refuse it. Why is this confusing?
If you've had the training, it's not particularly confusing.

To posit an extreme for the situation, if the North Koreans were to shoot down a B-1, any attack on a city in retaliation would be illegal. Destroying that missile site would be legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:38 PM
 
7,605 posts, read 8,204,132 times
Reputation: 11520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Actually, whichever individual is the National Command Authority at the moment does have the single ability to launch a strike. There is no "two man" policy at that level.
The National Command Authority is both the President and the Secretary of Defense which establishes the two man policy for nuclear weapons. The actual command to launch nuclear weapons can not occur unless the Commander in Chief orders it and the Secretary of Defense directs it. The President has the sole authority to order nuclear weapon to be use, but no legal authenticated order is valid unless the Secretary of Defense agrees. The President is free to remove the person as Secretary of Defense if they don't agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:40 PM
 
4,215 posts, read 1,579,652 times
Reputation: 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Actually, whichever individual is the National Command Authority at the moment does have the single ability to launch a strike. There is no "two man" policy at that level.

What the general was talking about was what kind of strike would be legal under the Law of Armed Conflict. No general is going to prison with the president on an illegal order. The top ones who are just in it for the glory aren't going to prison for the president, and the younger ones still hoping for more stars aren't going to prison, either. The lower you go, the less likely anyone is going to push the button when their own lawyers are saying they're going to hang.

They've taken the LOAC course--heck I took the nuclear targeting portion of the LOAC course. Legal nuclear possibilities with whatever war can happen with North Korea will be exceedingly limited. When we're talking about nuclear strikes at less than the level of a general nuclear war (Major Attack Options executed), there is the fact that a legal reckoning is going to be had later.
So we have put so much legal liability on ourselves that we wont likely be able to properly defend ourselves in the event the crap starts hitting the fan .... great.


I doubt that the pilots of the anola gay and the generals behind that mission were staring down a similar barrel. Pretty sad really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2017, 11:43 PM
 
4,215 posts, read 1,579,652 times
Reputation: 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
If you've had the training, it's not particularly confusing.

To posit an extreme for the situation, if the North Koreans were to shoot down a B-1, any attack on a city in retaliation would be illegal. Destroying that missile site would be legal.
That missle site and every single other site as well as the presidents house and or bunker. I guaentee a B1 is WAY more expensive than the missle site.


We will soon be ripe for invasion with how we allow lawyers to basicly control the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:24 AM
 
15,476 posts, read 7,877,373 times
Reputation: 14476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabrrita View Post
The National Command Authority is both the President and the Secretary of Defense which establishes the two man policy for nuclear weapons. The actual command to launch nuclear weapons can not occur unless the Commander in Chief orders it and the Secretary of Defense directs it. The President has the sole authority to order nuclear weapon to be use, but no legal authenticated order is valid unless the Secretary of Defense agrees. The President is free to remove the person as Secretary of Defense if they don't agree.
If the SecDef can be removed at will, then there is no "two man" policy.

But the right answer is "nope." The NCA has a succession, and there is still an NCA even if the president and the SecDef are dead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:28 AM
 
15,476 posts, read 7,877,373 times
Reputation: 14476
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
So we have put so much legal liability on ourselves that we wont likely be able to properly defend ourselves in the event the crap starts hitting the fan .... great.


I doubt that the pilots of the anola gay and the generals behind that mission were staring down a similar barrel. Pretty sad really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
That missle site and every single other site as well as the presidents house and or bunker. I guaentee a B1 is WAY more expensive than the missle site.


We will soon be ripe for invasion with how we allow lawyers to basicly control the nation.

Nope. The LOAC never requires that a proper military objective cannot be destroyed. It only requires that all objectives actually be military and that due diligence has been taken to avoid necessary casualties to destroy that military object.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:29 PM
 
4,215 posts, read 1,579,652 times
Reputation: 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Nope. The LOAC never requires that a proper military objective cannot be destroyed. It only requires that all objectives actually be military and that due diligence has been taken to avoid necessary casualties to destroy that military object.
My understanding is we nuke Japan because they had a dispersed manufacturing base, little huts spread all over making arms. Where as Germany had massive factories (easy to hit without blowing up civilians).


However, back then we were the only one with nukes so we could sit around and sip coffee and collect signatures, it wont be so simple the next time around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:30 PM
 
7,605 posts, read 8,204,132 times
Reputation: 11520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
If the SecDef can be removed at will, then there is no "two man" policy.

But the right answer is "nope." The NCA has a succession, and there is still an NCA even if the president and the SecDef are dead.
You made my case for me.

There is a successor on each of the lines. If the President removes the SoD for refusing to concur on a nuclear deployment, the SOD's successor steps in and if that person refuses, guess what, they can also be fired and the next successor steps in. This can go on and on until he President finds someone next in line to concur with the use of nuclear weapons. The command to launch those weapons can not be made without both lines agreeing. This is the two-man policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top