North Korea vs USA

[Kompany Car]

He needs to read up on that then a bit more.

There's virtually no oversight on a president pressing the button. That's for a very good reason, to ensure a quick response if necessary.

Apparently during Nixons time in office Kissinger prevented a nuke strike occurring after a rather drunk president authorised one ! Think they changed the protocols slightly after that, but still it's fairly limited oversight.

http://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-richard-nixon-nuke-north-korea-2017-1

 

[bobmcfc]

Nope, that link is bollocks. I got as far as:

If traveling, the president is patched in on a secure line.

If they can't spell travelling correctly then I'm not going to bother taking them seriously.....

Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1][2][3]

Not really much standing in his way after reading that

 

[malg]

He needs to read up on that then a bit more.

There's virtually no oversight on a president pressing the button. That's for a very good reason, to ensure a quick response if necessary.

Jesus, are you up Der you'd table writing that? As if he'd just press a button and that's that! Christ, even the BBC have said there's more to it, and they hate Trump more than you lot on here.

Grow up.

 

[SWP's back]

Jesus, are you up Der you'd table writing that? As if he'd just press a button and that's that! Christ, even the BBC have said there's more to it, and they hate Trump more than you lot on here.

Grow up.

You're wrong Malg. Simple as that.

People have shared links, you call them bollocks because it used American spelling (in an American outlet!) and yet you tell others to grow up. Laughable really.

Find a link that doesn't say what Bob quotes then:

'Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1][2][3]'

Explain to us why it's bollocks rather than it just being a hunch.

I await you coming back and either showing why everyone other than you are wrong OR popping back for some mea culpa, I hear it's cathartic anyway.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You're wrong Malg. Simple as that.

People have shared links, you call them bollocks because it used American spelling (in an American outlet!) and yet you tell others to grow up. Laughable really.

Find a link that doesn't say what Bob quotes then:

'Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1][2][3]'

Explain to us why it's bollocks rather than it just being a hunch.

I await you coming back and either showing why everyone other than you are wrong OR popping back for some mea culpa, I hear it's cathartic anyway.

I think the situation is markedly different with regards to a first strike as opposed to a response to an attack. In the latter scenario there might be no time for debate since incoming ICBMs could be only minutes away from destroying US cities.

In such circumstances, I can well imagine the US president saying fire and it getting actioned pretty much immediately.

In the former scenario, if the secretary of defence if in his opinion decides the President's lost the plot, he could refuse. This may be illegal, but he could still refuse. The President can sack him and replace him with someone else who could also refuse.

It would come down to just how stupid Trump was being. Can anyone imagine if he said tomorrow "ok Nuke the Kremlin now", it would actually get actioned? I cannot.

 

[Zin 'messiah' Zimmer]

You're wrong Malg. Simple as that.

People have shared links, you call them bollocks because it used American spelling (in an American outlet!) and yet you tell others to grow up. Laughable really.

Find a link that doesn't say what Bob quotes then:

'Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.[1][2][3]'

Explain to us why it's bollocks rather than it just being a hunch.

I await you coming back and either showing why everyone other than you are wrong OR popping back for some mea culpa, I hear it's cathartic anyway.

He's right in that it wouldn't be Trumps decision.... if people actually believe he's anything other than a puppet then blimey. There hasn't been a legitimate president in 50 years, they certainly won't start with weetabix head!

 

[SWP's back]

He's right in that it wouldn't be Trumps decision.... if people actually believe he's anything other than a puppet then blimey. There hasn't been a legitimate president in 50 years, they certainly won't start with weetabix head!

riiiiight

 

[west didsblue]

I think the situation is markedly different with regards to a first strike as opposed to a response to an attack. In the latter scenario there might be no time for debate since incoming ICBMs could be only minutes away from destroying US cities.

In such circumstances, I can well imagine the US president saying fire and it getting actioned pretty much immediately.

In the former scenario, if the secretary of defence if in his opinion decides the President's lost the plot, he could refuse. This may be illegal, but he could still refuse. The President can sack him and replace him with someone else who could also refuse.

It would come down to just how stupid Trump was being. Can anyone imagine if he said tomorrow "ok Nuke the Kremlin now", it would actually get actioned? I cannot.

The point is the command chain is very straightforward and if Trump decided to nuke someone it would only take one other person (the SecDef) to go along with him and it would happen. I still think there's only a small chance (probably less than 5%) that he would launch a nuke, but I'd rather that it was a one in a million chance rather than a one in twenty.

 

[Zin 'messiah' Zimmer]

riiiiight

Lost on some...

 

[allan harper]

I think the situation is markedly different with regards to a first strike as opposed to a response to an attack. In the latter scenario there might be no time for debate since incoming ICBMs could be only minutes away from destroying US cities.

In such circumstances, I can well imagine the US president saying fire and it getting actioned pretty much immediately.

In the former scenario, if the secretary of defence if in his opinion decides the President's lost the plot, he could refuse. This may be illegal, but he could still refuse. The President can sack him and replace him with someone else who could also refuse.

It would come down to just how stupid Trump was being. Can anyone imagine if he said tomorrow "ok Nuke the Kremlin now", it would actually get actioned? I cannot.

Think you may have set a few alarm bells going off in the Kremlin. 'nuke' and 'Kremlin' I'd imagine are a few key words Russian intelligence would monitor. I'd get a plutonium detector off eBay if I was you.