WTF ??


The top US nuclear commander has said that if President Trump ordered a nuclear attack that he disagreed with he would refuse.
Air Force General John Hyten on Saturday told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia that he's thought a lot about what he will do if Trump orders a strike he considers illegal.
'I think some people think we're stupid,' Hyten said, responding to a question about the scenario, according to CBS News. He is the commander of the US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.
'We're not stupid people. We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?'
Hyten said though that if the 'illegal' command did come, they would go through a process to find a better solution.

'I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,' Hyten explained.
But, he said, if the command was 'illegal' he would tell him so, and said that together they would come up with other options.
'We'll come up with options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is and that's the way it works,' he explained.
'It's not that complicated.'
Hyten has trained every year for multiple decades on the law of armed conflict, he told the audience.

The law of armed conflict takes into account certain factors to determine if attacks are legal, including necessity, distinction, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering, among others.
He said that thinking about how to respond in the event of an illegal order is standard, and that he wouldn't execute an unlawful order because of the consequences.
'If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life,' he explained.

These comments come following Trump's most recent flagrant comments about North Korea.
On November 11, Trump tweeted: 'Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try to hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!'
The comment was received poorly by the North Korean leader, who later announced that Trump deserved the death penalty for such remarks.
Trump has also, on numerous occasions, pledged to unleash 'fire and fury' and to 'totally destroy' North Korea if he deems fit.

Congress is also currently re-examining the authorization of the use of military force and power to launch a nuclear strike.
Hyten said the military is on constant alert - ready at any time to respond to a nuclear threat by North Korea.
'We are ready every minute of every day to respond to any event that comes out of North Korea,' he said on Saturday.
He also explained that handling such a delicate and unpredictable situation - like Kim Jong Un's leadership - needs to be an international effort.
Trump has continued to put pressure on China to help manage its communist neighbor, and tweeted after returning that things were looking up.
'China is sending an Envoy and Delegation to North Korea - A big move, we'll see what happens,' he tweeted on Thursday.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...s-nuclear-order.html

Fired. Next?

Obama-bots COMPLETELY removed any warfighting spirit and discipline from the military.

Personally I feel anyone above Lt. Col. is suspect. It's all politics after that. Sack them all, I don't care if a butter bar has charge of a BN as long as he isn't a politician.

This is the media and the Demokrats (one and the same) setting up the Trump impeachment on the grounds he is mentally ill. This question could have been asked starting with Truman, but only in the past year has this become an issue.

Below is a link to a similar article, and here is what a Demokrat senator said:

“Let me pull back the cover for a minute from this hearing,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a consistently vocal critic of Trump. “We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.”

Complete article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.0486024c1d52

Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

By Robert Burns and Richard Lardner | AP November 14

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

The hearing comes as the threat of nuclear attack from North Korea remains a serious concern and Trump’s critics question his temperament. Trump’s taunting tweets aimed at Pyongyang have sparked concerns primarily among congressional Democrats that he may be inciting a war with North Korea.

“Let me pull back the cover for a minute from this hearing,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a consistently vocal critic of Trump. “We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.”

But if a president’s order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal, there’s no one who can stop him.

Not the Congress. Not his secretary of defense. And by design, not the military officers who would be duty-bound to execute the order.

As then-Vice President Dick Cheney explained in December 2008, the president “could launch a kind of devastating attack the world’s never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts.”

And the world has changed even more in the decade since, with North Korea posing a bigger and more immediate nuclear threat than had seemed possible. The nature of the U.S. political world has changed, too, and Trump’s opponents — even within his own party — question whether he has too much power over nuclear weapons.

Some aspects of presidential nuclear war-making powers are secret and therefore not well understood by the public. The system is built for fast decision-making, not debate. That’s because speed is seen as essential in a crisis with a nuclear peer like Russia. Unlike North Korea, Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the U.S. in minutes.

Russia’s long-range missiles could reach the U.S. in about 30 minutes. Submarine-launched missiles fired from nearer U.S. shores might arrive in half that time. Given that some of the U.S. response time would be taken up by administrative steps, the president would have less than 10 minutes to absorb the information, review his options and make his decision, according to a December 2016 report by nuclear arms specialist Amy Woolf of the Congressional Research Service.

A president who decided to launch a nuclear attack — either in retaliation for a nuclear strike or in anticipation of one — would first hold an emergency conference with the defense secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and other advisers. The commander of U.S. Strategic Command, now Air Force Gen. John Hyten, would brief the president on strike options, and the president would make his decision.

The president would communicate his decision and transmit his authorization through a device called the nuclear football, a suitcase carried by a military aide. It’s equipped with communication tools and a book with prepared war plans.

If the president decided to order a strike, he would identify himself to military officials at the Pentagon with codes unique to him. These codes are recorded on a card known as the biscuit that is carried by the president at all times. He would then transmit the launch order to the Pentagon and Strategic Command.

Blair, the former missile launch officer, said there is no way to reverse the president’s order. And there would be no recalling missiles once launched.


Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Hold on, no where did it say this General would refuse his order because he “disagrees”. What a total shit piece. Officers are obligated not to obey an unlawful order. Nothing but overhyped crap ment to make Trump look weak.

Well thats the point. They are trying to show how the military is against Trump by showing off politicians (er, officers) who disagree.

He is a general. He is a liberal politician. He is a turd burgler.

Besides Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly I don't trust a single one.

Every officer has the responsibility to disobey an illegal order. In WW2, the German Army murdering prisoners, Jews, etc, was deemed illegal orders in the trials after the war.
This general must be careful to say that he would not follow an illegal order without questioning it and determining if it is legal. I hope it doesn't mean that the general will determine if the order should be obeyed or not based on his personal opinion instead of following a legal order from his Commander-in-Chief.

President Trump might want to have a good conversation with this general and determine if he should be relieved of his command.

Look at the source of the article - The Daily Mail is doing its bit to make it look like the military thinks of Trump the same way as the leftists do.

They left out this bit “As head of STRATCOM, I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,” Hyten 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, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
Hold on, no where did it say this General would refuse his order because he “disagrees”. What a total shit piece. Officers are obligated not to obey an unlawful order. Nothing but overhyped crap ment to make Trump look weak.

No kidding. Just an extremely biased, terribly written, misleading article. Pure crap.

quote:

Originally posted by drew3630:
Look at the source of the article - The Daily Mail is doing its bit to make it look like the military thinks of Trump the same way as the leftists do.

They left out this bit “As head of STRATCOM, I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,” Hyten 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, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Yup. That is the way it works.

I guess none of you are Clancy fans. This exact scenario was in Sum of All Fears (the book, not the Affleck movie).

And yes, the article is bullshit.

Clancy? I watched War Games today. Even the Chair Force general had a cigar. . In the crystal palace!

Fake news. An unlawful order shouldn't be carried out. This man will follow lawful orders. It's liberal weenies pushing the narrative that Trump is irrational. Trump actually has a great relationship with his Generals.

Yep this is a set up. They are playing the long game and the short game simultaneously. The only way to beat them is to know they are the enemy of liberty and justice, to remain vigilant and know that everything they say is meant to deceive and/or disarm.

Every 4 star, and maybe every flag officer, has a legal staff attached to his/her command and it would not be surprising that that staff has briefed the law and different scenarios as part of readiness efforts. The unexpected always happens when you least expect it.

Even Boy Scouts know to be prepared.

More from an ignorant and biased media who's attempt to understand how the military and federal government works can be best summed up as notes from a television program. Daily Mail = USA Today....lots of pictures and charts, very little content.

There's nothing that general said, that is shocking or, provocative, let alone news worthy. These media types and those who Hoover their mana want to believe that wearing a uniform means acting like a robot. His most important quote was what drew 3630 pointed out:

quote:

They left out this bit “As head of STRATCOM, I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do,” Hyten 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, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

Instead, they insert their assumption into the headline and let everyone know what how their MO.

quote:

Originally posted by medic451:
Hold on, no where did it say this General would refuse his order because he “disagrees”. What a total shit piece. Officers are obligated not to obey an unlawful order. Nothing but overhyped crap ment to make Trump look weak.

I read his remarks in a fuller context than just the headline and that is how I read it.

Fake news IMO.

But he should have been smart to realize the press was trolling him to get him to say he would refuse to launch - understanding they misrepresent his comments.

------------------------------

quote:

But he should have been smart to realize the press was trolling him to get him to say he would refuse to launch - understanding they misrepresent his comments.

------------------------------

^^^ this^^^^

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Well thats the point. They are trying to show how the military is against Trump by showing off politicians (er, officers) who disagree.

He is a general. He is a liberal politician. He is a turd burgler.

Besides Gen. Mattis and Gen. Kelly I don't trust a single one.

I know General Hyten, having served under him. He is extremely smart, and I believe this was a "what if" ambush piece. Garbage media is at it again.

I doubt that Gen Hyten just came out of the blue to slander POTUS. They probably asked, rhetorically, what would hapoen if je were given an illegal order, and they took his answer out of context.

Gen Hyten is no idiot, and he is an outstanding commander. Only an idiot would state that quote as it is implied. . .

There is no doubt that plans are ready to respond to any number of senerios. Little Kim shots a missile at Guam there are likely several responses ready. The Daily Mail makes it sound as if the President wakes up one morning and tells the general to bomb little Kim. Not going to happen.any planned response will have been gamed out, examined and legal.

I'm with Hound Dog and the rest of the team. The "reporter" misrepresented the General's words.

I would be interested in what an "Illegal" order would look like at that level, given the procedures in place to ensure a single rouge actor cannot order a launch.

As stated, an officer has a duty to refuse an illegal order. Believe it or not, there is significant training on this stuff. Part of my duties was providing this training, and advising commanders on what constituted a "legal" order under certain scenarios.

Hit piece.