The Briefing Room
General Category => Military/Defense News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on November 18, 2017, 06:51:21 pm
-
By Kathryn Watson CBS News November 18, 2017, 11:26 AM
Top general says he would resist "illegal" nuke order from Trump
Last Updated Nov 18, 2017 12:10 PM EST
The top U.S. nuclear commander said Saturday he would push back against President Trump if he ordered a nuclear launch the general believed to be "illegal," saying he would hope to find another solution.
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Saturday that he has given a lot of thought to what he would say if Mr. Trump ordered a strike he considered unlawful.
more
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-strategic-command-gen-john-hyten-resist-illegal-nuke-order-from-trump/
-
Illegal or offends his liberal sensibilities?
-
I read yesterday, if Trump puts in the strike command in the black box that is with him all the time, the nuclear launch would happen in FOUR MINUTES. That is not long for this general to stop it.
-
A General who says he intends to disobey one of the most important direct orders a President can give needs to be fired, yesterday. Especially when he makes this announcement on foreign soil.
-
I hope that a general who has reservations about the legality of an order to launch nukes would question that order and seek assurances from the president that the order is legal.
That is part of the duty and responsibility of a senior officer, and the “I was just following orders” excuse hasn’t been a valid excuse at least since Nuremberg, if not before.
-
I hope that a general who has reservations about the legality of an order to launch nukes would question that order and seek assurances from the president that the order is legal.
That is part of the duty and responsibility of a senior officer, and the “I was just following orders” excuse hasn’t been a valid excuse at least since Nuremberg, if not before.
Seems like a balanced view of things. It's also a good excuse to gum up the chain of command to ensure that order never comes. Just like everything else we've seen from the bureaucrats who really run the DeeCee show since January.
Brings up the question: Who runs the military these days? Is the President really CiC? The question goes back a couple of Presidents, it's not a "Trump thing."
-
And this subversive Commie still has his job why?
(http://kauz.images.worldnow.com/images/5335299_G.jpg)
-
Whodat?
-
Agenda driven journalistic hit piece. Implies that Trump alone, would issue an illegal order.
For how many pages will his detractors here, go on and on, about this?
Does anybody know the exact procedure followed when President Truman authorized the ONLY use of nuclear bombs?
Simple question. Yes or No.
-
I hope that a general who has reservations about the legality of an order to launch nukes would question that order and seek assurances from the president that the order is legal.
That is part of the duty and responsibility of a senior officer, and the “I was just following orders” excuse hasn’t been a valid excuse at least since Nuremberg, if not before.
The General mentions this in the interview.
I do think it is unwise for a top ranking officer making these public statements..this isn't the military I grew up in or been apart the last 42 years.
-
The General mentions this in the interview.
I do think it is unwise for a top ranking officer making these public statements..this isn't the military I grew up in or been apart the last 42 years.
I agree. This sort of thing raises a doubt in the minds of the enemy, and that's dangerous. Wars have been started because the enemy doubted our resolve. Korea and Iraq (1991) are examples.
-
There is another possibility - disinformation for Kim Dung Un. Just saying -
-
I hope that a general who has reservations about the legality of an order to launch nukes would question that order and seek assurances from the president that the order is legal.
That is part of the duty and responsibility of a senior officer, and the “I was just following orders” excuse hasn’t been a valid excuse at least since Nuremberg, if not before.
Agreed. The oath of office deliberately does not include the clause about obeying the orders of the President. It's an officer's duty to not obey an illegal order, but if you go down that route, you better be right. And any order that comes from the President is assumed to be legal unless proven otherwise.
-
A General who says he intends to disobey one of the most important direct orders a President can give needs to be fired, yesterday. Especially when he makes this announcement on foreign soil.
Yep. MAD can't work if they think you won't pull the trigger when the time comes.
-
Note the "illegal" qualifier. You have no duty to follow an unlawful order I believe. Of course, liberals are jumping with delight with the headlines that a general would disobey an order from Trump, but they did this with Bush too.
-
Note the "illegal" qualifier. You have no duty to follow an unlawful order I believe. Of course, liberals are jumping with delight with the headlines that a general would disobey an order from Trump, but they did this with Bush too.
So what happens if you have an Obama General who's decided that all nuclear weapons are "illegal?"
-
The General mentions this in the interview.
I do think it is unwise for a top ranking officer making these public statements..this isn't the military I grew up in or been apart the last 42 years.
Making this statement publically will soon make him an EX General IMHO!
-
Making this statement publically will soon make him an EX General IMHO!
It should, but will it?
-
So what happens if you have an Obama General who's decided that all nuclear weapons are "illegal?"
Obviously he'd be court martialed. Hopefully we'd have sane judges in there.
-
Obviously he'd be court martialed. Hopefully we'd have sane judges in there.
Sure. In which smouldering ruin of a city would you hold it if the refusal to order leads to a breakdown in MAD? Yours?
-
Sure. In which smouldering ruin of a city would you hold it if the refusal to order leads to a breakdown in MAD? Yours?
How would you compel him to give the order? obviously he'd be relieved of duty and replaced. Fact is that Generals don't have much power when it comes to the president.
Of course the next general could refuse as well.
-
How would you compel him to give the order? obviously he'd be relieved of duty and replaced. Fact is that Generals don't have much power when it comes to the president.
Of course the next general could refuse as well.
I suppose you would do it the same way you make sure the guys in the silos turn their keys like they're supposed to: Run drills to weed out the ones who would refuse their legal orders. Sure as Hell can't wait until a live legal Presidential order gets refused. Too much at stake.
-
I suppose you would do it the same way you make sure the guys in the silos turn their keys like they're supposed to: Run drills to weed out the ones who would refuse their legal orders. Sure as Hell can't wait until a live legal Presidential order gets refused. Too much at stake.
The general would not be the one in silos turning the keys.
-
So what happens if you have an Obama General who's decided that all nuclear weapons are "illegal?"
@Cyber Liberty
His exec would shoot him and then follow the Presidents orders.
The better question is; 'What if worms had machine guns? Then birds wouldnt mess with em.
-
A General who says he intends to disobey one of the most important direct orders a President can give needs to be fired, yesterday. Especially when he makes this announcement on foreign soil.
He never said this. It is fake news.
What General Hyten really said
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/what_general_hyten_emreallyem_said.html
-
He never said this. It is fake news.
What General Hyten really said
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/what_general_hyten_emreallyem_said.html
Thank you. These gullible saps will believe any kind of link this forum provides.
-
He never said this. It is fake news.
What General Hyten really said
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/what_general_hyten_emreallyem_said.html
You have to be kidding me. That's better?
-
Thank you. These gullible saps will believe any kind of link this forum provides.
You're a bigger fool than I thought if you think that quote in the articles is an improvement.
-
You have to be kidding me. That's better?
Yes, because it is accurate.
-
Yes, because it is accurate.
Accurate but stupid. I hope this idiot is shuffled out of the nuclear chain of command, quick. An intelligent General would never have answered that hypothetical.
-
He never said this. It is fake news.
What General Hyten really said
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/what_general_hyten_emreallyem_said.html
Considerable uproar was generated this past weekend by legacy media reports that the commander of U.S. strategic forces would ‘resist "illegal" nuke order from Trump’, as CBS, in a headline echoed by most media sources, put it.
@IsailedawayfromFR
Should have known that See BS was involved! Thanks for digging this up and getting to the truth of the matter!
I'm sure that General Officers in our military were at one time trained to NEVER answer hypothetical questions from the press and this is a PERFECT illustration of why!
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
Should have known that See BS was involved! Thanks for digging this up and getting to the truth of the matter!
I'm sure that General Officers in our military were at one time trained to NEVER answer hypothetical questions from the press and this is a PERFECT illustration of why!
Here's what he said:
“And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I‘m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”
That sounds good? How about acting like a General and not answering stupid hypothetical questions that might give the enemy an insight into how to gum up the chain of command.
-
How about acting like a General and not answering stupid hypothetical questions that might give the enemy an insight into how to gum up the chain of command.
NEVER give SEE BS an opportunity! NEVER!
-
NEVER give SEE BS an opportunity! NEVER!
Fox is reporting it too. He said that bit I quoted at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada. An international forum! That POS needs to be out of the chain of command yesterday, as I originally stated before being called "gullible."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/20/generals-comments-on-illegal-nuclear-launch-by-president-sparks-debate.html
-
Fox is reporting it too. He said that bit I quoted at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada. An international forum! That POS needs to be out of the chain of command yesterday, as I originally stated before being called "gullible."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/20/generals-comments-on-illegal-nuclear-launch-by-president-sparks-debate.html
Fox is not immune from picking up the stories originally coming from other sources! It's a symptom of a VERY much larger problem we currently have with the media in general!
-
Fox is not immune from picking up the stories originally coming from other sources! It's a symptom of a VERY much larger problem we currently have with the media in general!
Who reported it is irrelevant to me. He said what he said, and it was at an international forum of other military type guys. He gave the impression that he, as a General, is important enough to derail a direct Presidential order to launch a nuclear attack. Should he be? Possibly, but we don't need to be broadcasting that kind of information around, especially in front of the crowd he was before. Now the enemy knows where they can introduce enough doubt to get their missiles over our border before we can strike back.
-
Who reported it is irrelevant to me. He said what he said, and it was at an international forum of other military type guys. He gave the impression that he, as a General, is important enough to derail a direct Presidential order to launch a nuclear attack. Should he be? Possibly, but we don't need to be broadcasting that kind of information around, especially in front of the crowd he was before. Now the enemy knows where they can introduce enough doubt to get their missiles over our border before we can strike back.
I agree completely! His answer to the original hypothetical question should have been: "Sorry! I do not respond to that kind of question!"
-
I agree completely! His answer to the original hypothetical question should have been: "Sorry! I do not respond to that kind of question!"
That's why I suspect he's an Obama General: They didn't pick the sharpest knives in the drawer in those days. In fact, they went out of their way to advance idiots, in order to drive out the competent ones.
-
Who reported it is irrelevant to me. He said what he said, and it was at an international forum of other military type guys. He gave the impression that he, as a General, is important enough to derail a direct Presidential order to launch a nuclear attack. Should he be? Possibly, but we don't need to be broadcasting that kind of information around, especially in front of the crowd he was before. Now the enemy knows where they can introduce enough doubt to get their missiles over our border before we can strike back.
So sources mean nothing to you?
You must be the most naive person to ever populate this or any thread.
-
So sources mean nothing to you?
You must be the most naive person to ever populate this or any thread.
Answer me this simple question: Did he, or did he NOT say what I quoted above? I'll wait....
-
Answer me this simple question: Did he, or did he NOT say what I quoted above? I'll wait....
Keep waiting as I was not there, and I doubt you were either.
Answer me this: do you believe all headlines you read as the source is immaterial?
-
Keep waiting as I was not there, and I doubt you were either.
Answer me this: do you believe all headlines you read as the source is immaterial?
The headline meant nothing to me, it rarely does which is why I normally read the article as I did this one.
I don't give a rat's patootie who reported it (it was multiple sources) or what the headline is/was. I don't care about the political slant of the author who wrote it up, either. It's the actual quote and circumstances that bug me.
I care about an Air Force General, who is in the nuclear chain of command, boosting his ego by bragging he can slow down an order to launch a nuclear attack. That is the sort of thing that instills doubt in our enemies' minds about our resolve to use our nuclear deterrence, a critical component of MAD (which, thanks to Democrats since Reagan, is still all we have).
So call me naive if you wish, but I am far from it. That fat-headed General made things more dangerous, not less.
-
This AF general got his 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars under Obama. As such he is precisely the political type, that would intentionally seek to embarrass the C in C if he thought he could get away with it or would eventually benefit from it (get on teebee every other week).
Only gullible saps think otherwise. His undergrad was Hahvaaad btw---the land of WTFs of this world
-
This AF general got his 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars under Obama. As such he is precisely the political type, that would intentionally seek to embarrass the C in C if he thought he could get away with it or would eventually benefit from it (get on teebee every other week).
Only gullible saps think otherwise. His undergrad was Hahvaaad btw---the land of WTFs of this world
Thanks for looking that up. I suspected he was one of Obama's fidiots (that is a combination of two words, in the same manner as "fugly"), and I was about to go digging for exactly what you just pointed out.
Added: Mattis can't flush these douche canoes out fast enough.
-
The headline meant nothing to me, it rarely does which is why I normally read the article as I did this one.
I don't give a rat's patootie who reported it (it was multiple sources) or what the headline is/was. I don't care about the political slant of the author who wrote it up, either. It's the actual quote and circumstances that bug me.
I care about an Air Force General, who is in the nuclear chain of command, boosting his ego by bragging he can slow down an order to launch a nuclear attack. That is the sort of thing that instills doubt in our enemies' minds about our resolve to use our nuclear deterrence, a critical component of MAD (which, thanks to Democrats since Reagan, is still all we have).
So call me naive if you wish, but I am far from it. That fat-headed General made things more dangerous, not less.
And this is where we disagree! IMHO the purposefully misleading story by SEE BS which was mindlessly picked up and ran with by multiple others IS a huge problem even though none of that would have been possible had the general simply refused to answer the question in the first place.
-
This AF general got his 2nd, 3rd and 4th stars under Obama. As such he is precisely the political type, that would intentionally seek to embarrass the C in C if he thought he could get away with it or would eventually benefit from it (get on teebee every other week).
Only gullible saps think otherwise. His undergrad was Hahvaaad btw---the land of WTFs of this world
All the more reason for Trump to fire his ass immediately!
-
And this is where we disagree! IMHO the purposefully misleading story by SEE BS which was mindlessly picked up and ran with by multiple others IS a huge problem even though none of that would have been possible had the general simply refused to answer the question in the first place.
Normally I would agree with your point, @Bigun, but this AF General was at an international forum full of exactly the sort of people we don't need having this information. They caught his act "live," if you will. Even if no media had covered it, the damage would have been done (except we and maybe the President would have never heard about it).
-
The headline meant nothing to me, it rarely does which is why I normally read the article as I did this one.
I don't give a rat's patootie who reported it (it was multiple sources) or what the headline is/was. I don't care about the political slant of the author who wrote it up, either. It's the actual quote and circumstances that bug me.
I care about an Air Force General, who is in the nuclear chain of command, boosting his ego by bragging he can slow down an order to launch a nuclear attack. That is the sort of thing that instills doubt in our enemies' minds about our resolve to use our nuclear deterrence, a critical component of MAD (which, thanks to Democrats since Reagan, is still all we have).
So call me naive if you wish, but I am far from it. That fat-headed General made things more dangerous, not less.
That's where journalism comes in. I was taught it to be improper to have misleading headlines, like this one was, in order to create a false impression.
A real journalist would only report news.
That's where one must seek the source of any article.
-
That's where journalism comes in. I was taught it to be improper to have misleading headlines, like this one was, in order to create a false impression.
A real journalist would only report news.
That's where one must seek the source of any article.
You'll get no argument from me no that score. I think the state of "journalism" today is a disgrace, for exactly the reasons you point out. That's why I don't rely on a headline, or even the single source, if I'm going to write a comment longer than the headline.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBow1ToJBFE
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBow1ToJBFE
I thought that was pretty funny, still do. I don't think I can see the applicability here. Are you suggesting what the General said was no more serious than that?
-
I thought that was pretty funny, still do. I don't think I can see the applicability here. Are you suggesting what the General said was no more serious than that?
It is for those who settle on the idea, of Trump being "unstable," for what he says.
The same suspects said the EXACT same thing about Reagan.
The general COULD HAVE said any one of several good responses:
--They suggested Reagan was unstable, too.
--Our nuclear protocols are classified.
--Nobody should doubt our resolve.
--We will follow the orders, of our C in C.
etc.
-
Pssssst....
Not every criticism of what goes on in the Administration is Trumps fault. I've said at least once this is not a slap at Trump. In fact, the only thing that sounded like one was a quote from an idiot Dem Senator. Now, if I look and a month from now this stupid Obama General is still in position, it will BECOME a slap at Trump. See how that works?
Grow the eff up.