Nuclear Launch Order May Be Disobeyed

[Brian37]

OMG, there may be a small chance, that US and its muppet in charge will not be able to blow up the world, when push comes to shove? How am I going to sleep tonight?

Yeah, I seriously don't give a flying f*ck if any of US nukes even work anymore. I don't believe actual deployment of nuclear arsenal would be useful in pretty much any way. They're supposed to be a deterrent and that's it. Of course, if the orange coprophage does try to use it and gets publicly denied by the military - the deterrent factor may be severely compromised.

Yea I agree, and up till 45 that is all they were. 45 managed to undue what all the prior presidents set up, BOTH PARTIES. He has re ignited the cold war divisions because of all his fucking bullshit scapegoating rhetoric. And the asshole is a blowhard on top of that, because all that trash talk went out the window when he actually had to face those leaders in person.

45 has no fucking clue how global diplomacy works. That fucker has literally treated politics like an episode of Jerry Springer.

[Minimalist]

Looks like the general(s) was referring to "first" strike nuclear option in a non nuclear situation.  Not nuclear retaliatory.

In 1939 Hitler claimed Poland invaded Germany first.... and they just happened to have 50 divisions sitting on the border to "retaliate." 

Such distinctions are meaningless when you have a psychotic like the WLB with his finger hovering over the button.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I think most of you have probably heard of this.

As much as I despise the circus clown who currently occupies the oval office, this kind of talk disturbs me. The whole point of the President having the sole authority to let the nuclear missiles fly is that you can't afford to get into a partisan debate when the shit hits the fan. Action needs to be taken NOW! You can't be in a horizontal position with your pants down when the enemy is raining down nuclear destruction on you. You MUST respond. The enemy must know that you WILL respond. That knowledge keeps them from  starting shit in the first place.

If I was one of the U.S. Air Force officers sitting in the bunkers with my hands on the buttons which would launch the missiles, I would definitely prefer that my ultimate commander would be someone other than a jackass I have no respect for. Even in that case though, I would have to follow orders unless those orders were very clearly unethical. It has to be that way. You MUST be willing to destroy the enemy and they must be confident that you will. That is how you deter them in the first place.

Ironically, this is an argument for hawks to never vote for a clown like Trump. He is a danger to national security because he has so little confidence in those he commands. Even if he gives the order, the utter lack of respect and lack of confidence in him will probably result in mass disobedience of his orders.

Regardless of political ideology, a President MUST command a certain level of respect in order to be an effective leader. Trump only commands respect from FUCKING  IDIOTS.

Far from being a strongman who his idiot supporters hope him to be, Trump is a weak man who invites attack on us. Our enemies know  he is jackass. They will manipulate him accordingly.

Are you kidding me? IT IS PRECISELY because that inept fuck has control that someone needs to have a check on him.

FYI it does not matter who fires the first nuke, friend or foe, that will hurt EVERYONE, friend and foe. Nobody wins in a global nuclear war. REAGAN AND JFK new this. 

I think it is a bit naive to assume if we fire ours first, or in response, that there will be a planet left over for us or them to control.

Nuclear war is a no win situation. It is mutual destruction.

The world could survive a nuclear war, depending on the targets and the concentration and the size of the bombs.  It could probably handle 500 or so smaller sized bombs without too much trouble.  However, if it got into the thousands we would be in a world of hurt.  Remember, we used to drop nukes on our troops all the time and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt within weeks.

[Fireball]

See, I still have hope in humanity, and so I believe the only way Trump gets to launch a nuke is if it's a nuclear retaliatory strike or if some dumbass takes him on a tour of the base and he goes "ooh what does this button do".

The Chump would have to get an AF officer to sit in the other seat and turn the keys in unison with him, and that would only launch the missile(s) in the controlled silo(s). I'd venture to say that he will not be allowed in a silo without an escort (i.e., babysitter). Retaliation is the only scenario I would find acceptable for launch. The time an ICBM is launched to the time the US has to launch is many minutes.

[Brian37]

Are you kidding me? IT IS PRECISELY because that inept fuck has control that someone needs to have a check on him.

FYI it does not matter who fires the first nuke, friend or foe, that will hurt EVERYONE, friend and foe. Nobody wins in a global nuclear war. REAGAN AND JFK new this. 

I think it is a bit naive to assume if we fire ours first, or in response, that there will be a planet left over for us or them to control.

Nuclear war is a no win situation. It is mutual destruction.

The world could survive a nuclear war, depending on the targets and the concentration and the size of the bombs.  It could probably handle 500 or so smaller sized bombs without too much trouble.  However, if it got into the thousands we would be in a world of hurt.  Remember, we used to drop nukes on our troops all the time and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt within weeks.

"Key word is "DEPENDING"

Only a delusional nut would take that kind of gamble.

We are not talking about a conventional ground war. BOTH friend and foe alike have enough NUKES WORLDWIDE to blow this planet up several times over. 

"MUTUAL DESTRUCTION"  LEARN IT!

And BULLSHIT, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT rebuilt within weeks, that is fucking NONSENSE. Where the fuck are you getting that from?

And FYI, our world nukes today make Fat Man and Little Boy look like firecrackers. 

I find it sick that you'd think we can gamble with our modern nukes.

[Rev. Rye]

During the big nuclear crisis last year with North Korea, I looked up the procedure for calling a nuclear strike.

It turns out there actually are supposed to be checks and balances about whether or not military brass would comply with such a demand, but it's usually assumed that if the situation's dire enough that nukes are being mentioned as a possibility, they might not press the point too much. It estimates a total of about five minutes between the President calling the Pentagon and the missiles being fired.

[Brian37]

Nukes today, friend or foe are used to force diplomacy, negotiation. Using them, on any side would be a murder suicide pact, no matter whom shoots them off first.

[henryp]

A hypothetical based on a failed political talking point doesn't need to be publicly addressed.

Does it need to be said if a president says something crazy like "Let's Nuke Ottawa!" that there would be pushback? Trump primarily delegates. The idea that he's going to unilaterally decide to nuke someone without support from at least a number of his generals seems like something that would never happen.

[Brian37]

A hypothetical based on a failed political talking point doesn't need to be publicly addressed.

Does it need to be said if a president says something crazy like "Let's Nuke Ottawa!" that there would be pushback?  Trump primarily delegates.  The idea that he's going to unilaterally decide to nuke someone without support from at least a number of his generals seems like something that would never happen.

We are NOT dealing with musket pistols and slapping people in the face with white gloves challenging to duels at 10 paces.


UNFORTUNATELY WITH THIS ORANGE ASSHOLE. YES!

Trump does not delegate. He shoots his mouth off.

[henryp]

A hypothetical based on a failed political talking point doesn't need to be publicly addressed.

Does it need to be said if a president says something crazy like "Let's Nuke Ottawa!" that there would be pushback?  Trump primarily delegates.  The idea that he's going to unilaterally decide to nuke someone without support from at least a number of his generals seems like something that would never happen.

We are NOT dealing with musket pistols and slapping people in the face with white gloves challenging to duels at 10 paces.


UNFORTUNATELY WITH THIS ORANGE ASSHOLE. YES!

Trump does not delegate. He shoots his mouth off.

Yeah, that's the failed talking point.  If Trump responds to trolls on twitter, then he'll probably Nuke someone. 

I get that a lot of people's identity currently revolves around the idea Trump is going to end the world, but that's just the result of some people doing some solid politics/social engineering.