Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

[Stavros]

I believe the oath that a serviceman takes is to uphold the constitution, not their personal conscience, desires or greed. I do believe this is a strength rather than a weakness. Should a President attempt to short-circuit the procedures recommended therein, one would hope the Generals find a way to thwart his/her effort.

However, the US doesn't always adhere to it's own laws, or at least Presidents and Legislators have found subtle ways to interpret it to their own advantage. The Constitutions grants only to Congress the right to declare war. So ever since Korea the US partakes in police actions rather than war. One would think launching a swarm of missiles armed with nuclear warheads would be the ultimate declaration of war, yet this right apparently has been ceded to President who's ever present aide carries with him the nuclear 'football'.

It's a sad world that has produced a sufficient number of nuclear warheads to destroy itself ten times over, and the US has been the leader in the race to nuclear oblivion.

A confused and confusing post, but one that needs clarification on issues of US law on which I cannot make a proper judgement. That said I don't think 'police actions' is the right word to describe the use of force not sanctioned by Congress, given that

According to a 1995 article in the American Journal of International Law, "Presidents and their advisers point to more than two hundred incidents in which Presidents have used force abroad without first obtaining congressional approval."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...of-war/279246/

I am still not sure what would happen if, for example, Iran attacked and sank a US military vessel in the Gulf and President Trump decided to 'nuke Tehran' in retaliation, if there is any basis in law or military procedure to stop a General from carrying out the order. As I think I read somewhere recently, there is no formal procedure to short-circuit that Presidential order.

[martin48]

Something to read here - http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm

Then after a few 'nukes' there will not be any courts around to pass judgement.

[fred41]

So if President Trump loses his temper with Iran and tells his General to 'nuke Tehran' the Four Star guy will do just that, produce the codes and the key and 'boom!'---?

Not quite that simple, but...

well, a hell of a lot simpler than most of us probably think or have thought. Just Wiki it. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has to verify it...then there are targeting options....but
Look, just Wiki it and then read why Trump is a bad idea to be in charge of this. It's pretty good:
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996...-nuclear-codes

here's a snippet:
"The other reason for concern is his character.
After the Watergate scandal broke, and President Nixon became increasingly embattled politically, he turned to drink as a source of comfort. This freaked out Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who worried that an erratic, drunk Nixon might order a nuclear launch out of pique. Schlesinger told aides in the Pentagon war room to check with him if Nixon started talking to them about launching nukes.
Thankfully, Nixon didn’t do it. But the worry with Trump is similar: His character is so erratic that he might order a nuclear launch just because he’s mad at someone."



(BTW, the link in the snippet leads to another interesting opinion article)

[zerrrr]

If you read the electoral college numbers Hillary has this election won. Trump is not winning Virginia and his insults towards the Governor of Ohio doomed that battleground state.

Getting to 270 is an impossibility.

[fred41]

If you read the electoral college numbers Hillary has this election won. Trump is not winning Virginia and his insults towards the Governor of Ohio doomed that battleground state.

Getting to 270 is an impossibility.

True or not I think the link article from my previous post makes an excellent read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213955

[Stavros]

Not quite that simple, but...

well, a hell of a lot simpler than most of us probably think or have thought. Just Wiki it. Apparently the Secretary of Defense has to verify it...

Your link in the latter post actually makes it clear -that Schlesinger was concerned at Nixon's reliance on alcohol clouding his judgement did not remove the illegality of questioning the President's decision, had he made it:

As with his predecessors, Trump’s power over the life and death of entire nations would be practically unbounded. Today, the nuclear deluge he could command would consist of thousands of weapons, each 10 or 20 times more deadly than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima...

There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell...

If he gave the command, his executing commanders would have no legal or procedural grounds to defy it no matter how inappropriate it might seem. ... It must be obeyed as long as it is constitutional—i.e., the president as commander in chief believes he or she is acting to protect and defend the nation against an actual or imminent attack.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213955

I actually think these apocalyptic scenarios though scary beg the question -would the US actually be threatened by a nuclear attack? In reality I doubt it but as the articles linked above suggest, an accidental trigger warning made by human and/or computer error is conceivable and has for years been cited as the most likely scenario for nuclear apocalypse, made worse if there is such a breakdown of trust and or communication between the sides that even a direct call to verify the action by the other side would not be possible.

There is, however, a different and more complicated scenario, and that would involve using 'tactical' or 'battlefield nuclear weapons' of the kind that carry a small payload but can 'take out a target' with ruthless efficiency. On the one hand, the decision to use such weapons would have to come from the Commander-in-Chief and be his (or her) ultimate decision, but on the other hand it would be part of military strategy to deliver a 'conclusive' strike to end an intractable situation, a last ditch action when all other means had failed but some action needed to be taken. Humiliation is one such situation that might play the Trump tune, as he believes in the kind of 'decisive leadership' that he claims Obama does not have which Putin does, and is not the kind of man who would not respond if humiliated.
To be entirely hypothetical, if there were an attack on the USA in the USA on the 9/11 scale organised as well as claimed by Daesh, I can imagine Trump reasoning that only one response is now necessary, to 'nuke' either Mosul or Raqqa, or both, on the military grounds that both cities would be 'taken out' but that the wider nuclear fall-out would not be severe or as severe as it was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Job done. Daesh blown to smithereens.
The main problem with this is that once one state uses tactical nuclear weapons in this way, it would establish a precedent other nuclear states might also use, setting aside any legal challenges -but it is also a situation different from the crisis management of an incoming nuclear strike but adds emotion to a 'reasonable' military choice. And Trump might argue with his Generals that other nuclear states would see this is as 'one-off' and not the 'normalisation' of nuclear deployment on the battlefield.
And happily, this is all speculation..

[fred41]

]
The main problem with this is that once one state uses tactical nuclear weapons in this way, it would establish a precedent other nuclear states might also use, setting aside any legal challenges -but it is also a situation different from the crisis management of an incoming nuclear strike but adds emotion to a 'reasonable' military choice. And Trump might argue with his Generals that other nuclear states would see this is as 'one-off' and not the 'normalisation' of nuclear deployment on the battlefield.
And happily, this is all speculation..

I think people have a tendency to forget that we actually have tactical nuclear weapons (smaller scale strategic nuclear weapons). I wonder if that was what Trump was musing about when he questioned having nuclear weapons and not using them. But again, as you mentioned in the quote - no one really wants to set the precedent....or take the chance of escalating a battle beyond all control.

[Stavros]

I read in the Guardian that

Nearly 15,000 emails recovered by the FBI from the private server used by Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state are set to be made public just before the presidential election in November, it emerged in court on Monday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-election-day

I am puzzled by this release of emails because I can't think of another example of a senior politician in the USA having their correspondence made public while they are still either in office or running for office -the closest I can think of is the release of Richard Nixon's White House tapes, but that took place after he resigned. What I find even more puzzling is that first of all, if there were any classified documents they will obviously not be in the batch released to the public, and those that are released will turn out to be of little or no interest if the larger cache released earlier this year is anything to go by. Those who have been demanding the release on the assumption the emails will contain sensational correspondence that will 'sink' the Clinton campaign should be locked in a room at 9am and ordered to read them. My guess is that by 10 am they will be banging on the door and screaming to be let out. Boredom does that to the politically ambitious.

[nitron]

Originally he was "with Hillary" and the plan was to sabotage the Party. Soften the opposition for her.That was the Plan. Now.;...
HE"S GONE ROGUE!!!
That CRAZY BASTARD!

[Stavros]

The breaking news all over tv and the front pages for the last few hours has focused on the FBI opening a new investigation into the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was Secretary of State. But it appears to be focused on email exchanges between Mrs Clinton's adviser Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner, with no evidence any email from or to Mrs Clinton is 'in the frame'. I have no idea what this is about, other than what we have been told and the speculation is that it might hurt Mrs Clinton one percentage point as most voters, it is assumed, have either already voted or made up their mind.

In a typical roar of whimsy, Trump said 'This is bigger than Watergate' several times, as if even he couldn't quite believe it. One wonders if Trump has any real idea what happened between the break-in at the Watergate building in 1972 and the resignation of President Nixon two years later. Or maybe if he wins the vote, his Secretary of State will be more important than the President?