The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 20, 2017
Author: Oliver North
Post Date: 2017-11-20 16:22:19 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 1990
Comments: 24
General says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike Fox News military analyst Oliver North reacts on 'Fox & Friends.' Just a day after the U.S.’s top nuclear commander said he would resist President Trump’s order if he called for an “illegal” nuclear launch, a fiery debate emerged about the president’s authority to order the firing of a warhead. Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted. Air Force General John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), started the debate when he told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada that he had thought a lot about what to say if he received such an order. “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.” Hyten said running through scenarios of how to react in the event of an illegal order was standard practice, and added: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.” It's hard to overstate how thoroughly the U.S. military has prepared for doomsday -- the day America gets into a nuclear shooting war. No detail seems to have been overlooked. There's even a designated "safe escape" door at the nuclear-warfighting headquarters near Omaha, Nebraska, through which the four- star commander would rush to a getaway plane moments before the first bomb hit. Procedures are in place for ensuring U.S. nuclear weapons are ready for a presidential launch order in response to -- or in anticipation of -- a nuclear attack by North Korea or anyone else. There are backup procedures and backups for the backups. Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president. A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys. The renewed attention on these questions reflects unease -- justified or not -- about Trump's temperament and whether he would act impulsively in a crisis. This past week's Senate hearing was the first in Congress on presidential authority to use nuclear weapons since 1976, when a Democratic congressman from New York, Richard L. Ottinger, pushed for the U.S. to declare it would never initiate a nuclear war. Ottinger said he wanted to "eliminate the prospect that human ignorance and potential human failure in the use of nuclear materials, especially nuclear weapons, will lead to the destruction of civilization." Forty-one years later, the U.S. hasn't ruled out first-strike nuclear options and is unlikely to do so during Trump's tenure. This troubles experts who worry about a president with the sole -- some say unchecked -- authority to initiate nuclear war. The committee chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he was not targeting Trump. But he has publicly questioned whether Trump's aggressive rhetoric toward North Korea and other countries could lead the U.S. into a world war. In the end, Corker's hearing produced little impetus for legislation to alter the presidential authorities. James Acton, co-director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, saw politics at play. "But I think it's a genuinely important subject, and I think it's one we should be debating irrespective of who the president is," he said Poster Comment: Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted. False implication. --- This is yet another effort to tar Trump as a madman.. ---
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#5. To: tpaine (#0)
Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer? Why is this even still in the news?
We are in violent agreement.
If Trump reassigns the guy because of that statement the press will have a field day, claiming Trump expects his generals to obey illegal orders. But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.
If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER. If this is not the case, then it is an illegal order to be disregarded. SIMPLE. There is a definite protocol that must be followed at all levels from the crew members up to and including the President. I can detail the protocol to you, but then I must shoot you….just kidding. The aircrew I was assigned to for eight years lived 24/7 every third week in an alert bunker within a few yards of a B-58 Hustler loaded with five nukes and we were ready to get airborne in a few minutes on the way to our assigned targets. Everyone at all levels from the air crews up to an including the President operates under the “Two-Man Policy.” That is to say that two people must validate or issue a launch order before any launch is executed. My navigator and I had to validate a launch message before our pilot was authorized to take off. We ignored an “illegal” order at least once during a tour of alert duty and sometimes as many as two or three. These were issued to keep us on our toes and ready to immediately react. There were always two individuals on duty at our Command Post and when they received an alert for an incoming message….they would sound klaxons and we would man our aircraft with engines started and awaiting a message. If the message was invalid [illegal] we would shut down the engines and return to the alert barracks. Had the message been valid [legal] we would have launched and proceeded a holding point awaiting another message to proceed on to our targets. Bullshit. Click on Protocol….this is essentially accurate. Highlighted from the link … Poster’s comment from the thread … Bad implication! McKeon didn’t only “rub his chin,” he pulled this out of his ass. The commander in chief CAN be thwarted….by the secretary of defense.
Yes,and no. It is STILL not a legal order unless the President and his staff have consulted with the Chief of Staffs or the US Military and they agreed with the decision. This is the ultimate "committee decision".
Until then, I will continue to believe that the JCS is merely a body of senior uniformed leaders in the United States Department of Defense who simply advise the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. Again, the JCS is merely an advisory group are not any part of the National Command Authority (NCA). The NCA is the ultimate source of lawful military orders and there is no statutory requirement for the NCA to have the JCS agree with a decision to execute or launch nuclear weapons. Today, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have no executive authority to command combatant forces. The issue of executive authority was clearly resolved by the Goldwater- Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986: "The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and specified combatant commands to perform missions assigned to those commands..."; the chain of command "runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command." The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the Secretary of Defense jointly, or their duly deputized successors, i.e. the Vice President and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The NCA is single source for issuing an execution launch order of nuclear weapons. Of course the JCS advises the President and the Secretary of Defense and naturally they would have consulted the JCS along with multiple other agencies before launching nukes. However, the NCA does NOT require an agreement from the JCS to execute or launch nuclear weapons.
#15. To: Gatlin, just following orders (#14)
If Dear Leader Kim Jong Un ordered you to turn onto the railroad track, you would!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestGeneral says he'd deny 'illegal' order for nuke strike
#6. To: sneakypete (#5)
Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order. Even Privates are taught in basic training that they have a DUTY to disobey illegal orders. If the military demands this of a private,WTH would they not demand it of a General Officer?
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
(Edited)
Of course he will refuse to obey an illegal order.
#10. To: misterwhite (#7)
(Edited)
But it is disturbing that, in a time of a nuclear crisis, some general is going to second guess the President and decide for himself what is a legal order and what isn't.
Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and co-founder of the Global Zero group that advocates eliminating nuclear weapons, said the Strategic Command chief might, in effect, be bypassed by the president. A president can transmit his nuclear attack order directly to a Pentagon war room, Blair said. From there it would go to the men and women who would turn the launch keys.
As commander-in-chief, the president is the only individual with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. A two-man rule applies, however: the National Command Authority comprising the president and Secretary of Defense must jointly authenticate the order to use nuclear weapons to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The order would then be transmitted over a tan-yellow phone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, otherwise known as the "Gold Phone", that directly links the NMCC with United States Strategic Command Headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.
Brian McKeon, a senior policy adviser in the Pentagon during the Obama administration, said a president's first recourse would be to tell the defense secretary to order the reluctant commander to execute the launch order. "And then, if the commander still resisted," McKeon said as rubbed his chin, "you either get a new secretary of defense or get a new commander." The implication is that one way or another, the commander in chief would not be thwarted.
#13. To: Gatlin (#10)
If the order comes from the commander in chief and it is authenticated by the secretary of defense, it is a LEGAL ORDER.
#14. To: sneakypete (#13)
(Edited)
Yes,and no. It is STILL not a legal order unless the President and his staff have consulted with the Chief of Staffs or the US Military and they agreed with the decision. This is the ultimate "committee decision".
I don’t know where you are getting this from, Pete….that the President and Secretary of State cannot execute or launch nuclear weapons unless the Chiefs of staff have agreed with the decision. I will be please to see a reference that requires the JCS approval. The National Security Act of 1947 designated the Joint Chiefs of Staff as planners and advisers, not as commanders of combatant commands. In spite of this, the 1948 Key West Agreement allowed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as executive agents for unified commands, a responsibility that allowed the executive agent to originate direct communication with the combatant command. Congress abolished this authority in a 1953 amendment to the National Security Act.
10 USC Ch. 5: JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
Replies to Comment # 14. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]