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.
In my mind, that would be an easy one. Our president is temporary, IE two terms per life. Our constitution is the foundation of all that is America, so umm.... hate to tell our president this, but I would choose upholding the Constitution above all else.
More importantly, we the people are obliged to tell that president he is out of line with that constitution. We are obliged to protect our own military from such conflicts. WE have to insist a POTUS abide the constitution. Not point fingers off to st elsewhere. WE have to hold up our end of democracy.
More importantly, we the people are obliged to tell that president he is out of line with that constitution. We are obliged to protect our own military from such conflicts. WE have to insist a POTUS abide the constitution. Not point fingers off to st elsewhere. WE have to hold up our end of democracy.
And there is where we've been asleep at the switch for at least the last 20 years.
I truely believe there are more moderates and moderate/right leaning people than there are left/far left people. That being said if you look at voter participation until THIS election cycle it's been pitiful to say the least so if there's someone to blame for where we are shouldn't we (those who don't vote or take time to learn before we do vote) look in the mirror?
The one upside to all the tea parties and protests is they're starting to wake people up and make them participate.
I don't care what side it's time to peacefully and respectfully stand up for what you believe before you don't have that choice.
If you don't the powers that be will figure either you don't care or won't care what they do so will do what benefits them the most.
North Dakota has enough nukes to be the world's third most nuclear-armed country.
You don't need launch codes for nuclear bombs. Between the bombs and ICBMs located in ND and MT the midwest would be a powerful nation.
As for the military attacking, you take an oath to uphold the constitution and obey the president. I guess it would be a personal decision to choose which part of that oath to follow when they conflict.
The troops would follow their chain of command. They are chosen and trained for that and very few will actually be from the area. You do need the launch codes to both launch and arm the missiles. Otherwise they just stay quietly in their silos.
In my mind, that would be an easy one. Our president is temporary, IE two terms per life. Our constitution is the foundation of all that is America, so umm.... hate to tell our president this, but I would choose upholding the Constitution above all else.
And since the President took an oath to uphold the Constitution -- if he fails at that, he has broken his oath and his faith with us, so there again -- the Constitution trumps the President. If you are forced to pick one, it must be the Constitution, or you too have broken faith with our country.
The troops would follow their chain of command. They are chosen and trained for that and very few will actually be from the area. You do need the launch codes to both launch and arm the missiles. Otherwise they just stay quietly in their silos.
And the first general who said "I will not follow an illegal order, as that breaks my oath to uphold the Constitution" would start an avalanche against any order to fire on citizens, even revolting citizens. And the first general who DID order troops to fire on citizens.... would start secession in earnest from the whole region. How many citizens do you plan to kill, Komrade? It's not 1860 anymore; the world will know instantly and there won't be time to drum up bogus reasons, nor the tacit support for "kill anyone who disagrees with us" that such military actions used to get.
As to launch codes... per all the people I know who've worked IN the silos, you just need two people, each of whom have half the code, and that usually means the maintenance grunt and his immediate C.O. In any event, any decent electrical engineer could hotwire around that.
But I don't think ND would attack anyone else -- unless there was a serious and immediate threat to ND's people. And then you'll find those quiet farmers are as bristly as any MT rancher.
And the first general who said "I will not follow an illegal order, as that breaks my oath to uphold the Constitution" would start an avalanche against any order to fire on citizens, even revolting citizens. And the first general who DID order troops to fire on citizens.... would start secession in earnest from the whole region. How many citizens do you plan to kill, Komrade? It's not 1860 anymore; the world will know instantly and there won't be time to drum up bogus reasons, nor the tacit support for "kill anyone who disagrees with us" that such military actions used to get.
It's pretty clear that you were never a military officer. You have no clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac
As to launch codes... per all the people I know who've worked IN the silos, you just need two people, each of whom have half the code, and that usually means the maintenance grunt and his immediate C.O. In any event, any decent electrical engineer could hotwire around that.
But I don't think ND would attack anyone else -- unless there was a serious and immediate threat to ND's people. And then you'll find those quiet farmers are as bristly as any MT rancher.
LOL you know a guy who tells you stories. Hot wire an ICBM and have it work? You read to many comic books.
It's pretty clear that you were never a military officer. You have no clue.
LOL you know a guy who tells you stories. Hot wire an ICBM and have it work? You read to many comic books.
I grew up in the shadow of Malmstrom AFB, during the height of the Cold War. I suspect I have more clues than you think. In any event, it's pretty clear you're from under a bridge, and there's no point in attempting a rational discussion.
I grew up in the shadow of Malmstrom AFB, during the height of the Cold War. I suspect I have more clues than you think. In any event, it's pretty clear you're from under a bridge, and there's no point in attempting a rational discussion.
As a ten year old you heard all sort of stories. Sorry doesn't measure up.
And since the President took an oath to uphold the Constitution -- if he fails at that, he has broken his oath and his faith with us, so there again -- the Constitution trumps the President. If you are forced to pick one, it must be the Constitution, or you too have broken faith with our country.
So Lincoln broke faith with the Constitution by going to war? Thanks, I've always thought that.
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.
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.
citizens. And the first general who DID order troops to fire on citizens.... would start secession in earnest from the whole region. How many citizens do you plan to kill, Komrade? It's not 1860 anymore; the world will know instantly and there won't be time to drum up bogus reasons, nor the tacit support for "kill anyone who disagrees with us" that such military actions used to get.
