Originally Posted by Pete F.
The US Department of Defense acknowledges in its law manual that "the law of war governs the use of nuclear weapons".
The responsibility to obey the law "runs from the top down - right down to the crew member on the submarine".
If the president orders an illegal strike, anyone who carries out that order is potentially liable for war crimes.
The President did not order a strike.
They'd have a duty to say "no".
Yes, that is their duty. But this is not remotely like what actually happened. It is not their duty to assume he would or might order a strike. Nor is it their duty to warn and cooperate with an adversary as to what might happen. And worse, the adversary might act preemptively. The adversary may have strike plans of its own about which they won't warn anybody. Or a warning might actually incite it to strike first. Or it might give comfort to the enemy to know that someone of authority would give it a heads up on what he will or will not do. And give it the comfort to know that it is not in much danger of being nuked if it continues its plan to dominate the Pacific rim. It is certainly not the duty of a military officer to personally psychoanalyze the President and act upon his personal diagnosis. If the mental health of the President is in serious question, then it should be clinically and professionally tested.
Or if, as you suggest, "everyone around him" thought he was completely insane and acting like a God king and a danger to the country, it would have been easy to invoke the 25th amendment and remove him from office.
In the real world, it would not be an easy thing to stop.
First one officer says it is a war crime, he’s relieved of command and perhaps more till you get to Bork, who pushes the button because he believes the president has complete control without question.
An unprovoked nuclear strike with the accompanying collateral damage would be considered by most of the world to be a war crime, there’s no exception for the guy with a bigger button.
But this supposition is not what happened. And if we must act on such suppositions, then who is in charge? And on what grounds--supposition, maybe, shoulda woulda coulda? This is a recipe for chaos, which could even be more of a threat of war and self destruction. All manner of suppositions and possibilities could be conceived by such a lack of discipline and certainty of command.
It sounds like you're trying to rationalize his action and give it a sort of logical, rational, imprimatur of pro forma approval.
General Milley worked within the rules, luckily nothing happened.
The same concerns were there in the last days of the Nixon presidency.
Which rules? What rule says you must act in such a way without first having a conversation with the President about his intentions and discussing the Pros and Cons and legality of those intentions. What rule says you have a right to assume the President's intentions, or even the possibility of them, and to reach some agreement with an enemy about your suppositions.
As far as talking to his equal in the Chinese armed forces, the SECDEF knew, it happened in a room full of members of various agencies and a readout was produced and distributed.
He talked to his equal in the Chinese armed forces, but not to the President? The SECDEF knew but the President wasn't informed? This sounds like a coup. And a coup not founded on facts, but on supposed possibility. Where does such a procedure end? The President is the Commander in Chief. The SECDEF and the generals are under his command. If they can go around the President, in this presumed but unproven situation, what's to stop them in other and possibly all other situations? Just assume the President is crazy and so circumvent any possibility he has to act?
Now do TFGs meeting with Putin, with no one and no notes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|