I would have to think using nukes on a country that doesn’t have nuclear power would be a slam dunk illegal order. Like, I mean, if he says to do it, the guys that make that happen, top to bottom, should say, “No, this is an illegal order, and i am not going to follow it.”
If such an order is followed and nothing is forthcoming from some checking force in the federal government, I think i may have lost faith in humanity as a concept. This is the great filter. Can we be trusted as a species?
Upfront: it should be obvious that no sane person wants us to drop a nuke or thinks there’s any connotation of “okay” to any aspect of it.
Why do you think it would be an illegal order? There are very clear rules on what makes an order legal or not and, horribly, attacking a nation that poses no real threat isn’t on the list. What nations we attack is a policy matter, and the rules are very clear that the military doesn’t get a say in policy.
Explicitly targeting civilians for a strike on a city is where the line would be. Targeting something else in the city and deciding the civilians are acceptable collateral damage is right on the line. Legally, it’s entirely unambiguously evil morally.
There are checks that keep the president from unilaterally launching a nuke. Unfortunately, the intent of those is to ensure the president is legally competent and actually the president, not to ensure he’s wise or rational.
The system has been explicitly designed to minimize the risk of conscience preventing a launch. Issue training orders where the firing crews have no idea if it’s real or not. Keep them on two week rotations where they don’t have access to the outside world so they wouldn’t know. Specifically select for people who will follow the order because it’s validcand legal, without considering the greater context. People who are legitimately confused but ultimately unconcerned with protests against them specifically doing what they do, including clergy from their own religion. (Actual story of an ICBM operators reaction to nuns protesting and attempting to block access to the missile site he was stationed at)
There is no doubt in my mind that if the order were given and the VP and cabinet didn’t remove him, that the order would be followed.
Don’t get me wrong, it should be illegal to do a preemptive nuclear strike, it just sadly isn’t.
It might not be feasible for the entire chain to have the information needed to make that call, but there is definitely someone in military authority positioned to know if it’s defensive or offensive, and that person should be both allowed and obligated to refuse the order if it’s an offensive strike.
Morality and the law may not be equivalent, but it would certainly be more convenient if they were closer.
I suppose what I mean is that he doesn’t just have a big red button on his desk labeled Iran that he can press when he chooses.
We’ve stood up a system over many years, and he’s just barrelled through every norm/law/etc. up to and including having his sentence reduced to 0 on felonies, simply because he’s a politician. If we cannot protect ourselves from this man launching a nuclear weapon, or even hold him responsible, then we don’t deserve to survive beyond our planet and the resulting catastrophic collapse of society may be the best thing for the universe overall.
I would have to think using nukes on a country that doesn’t have nuclear power would be a slam dunk illegal order. Like, I mean, if he says to do it, the guys that make that happen, top to bottom, should say, “No, this is an illegal order, and i am not going to follow it.”
If such an order is followed and nothing is forthcoming from some checking force in the federal government, I think i may have lost faith in humanity as a concept. This is the great filter. Can we be trusted as a species?
Upfront: it should be obvious that no sane person wants us to drop a nuke or thinks there’s any connotation of “okay” to any aspect of it.
Why do you think it would be an illegal order? There are very clear rules on what makes an order legal or not and, horribly, attacking a nation that poses no real threat isn’t on the list. What nations we attack is a policy matter, and the rules are very clear that the military doesn’t get a say in policy.
Explicitly targeting civilians for a strike on a city is where the line would be. Targeting something else in the city and deciding the civilians are acceptable collateral damage is right on the line. Legally, it’s entirely unambiguously evil morally.
There are checks that keep the president from unilaterally launching a nuke. Unfortunately, the intent of those is to ensure the president is legally competent and actually the president, not to ensure he’s wise or rational.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hering
The system has been explicitly designed to minimize the risk of conscience preventing a launch. Issue training orders where the firing crews have no idea if it’s real or not. Keep them on two week rotations where they don’t have access to the outside world so they wouldn’t know. Specifically select for people who will follow the order because it’s validcand legal, without considering the greater context. People who are legitimately confused but ultimately unconcerned with protests against them specifically doing what they do, including clergy from their own religion. (Actual story of an ICBM operators reaction to nuns protesting and attempting to block access to the missile site he was stationed at)
There is no doubt in my mind that if the order were given and the VP and cabinet didn’t remove him, that the order would be followed.
I mean, technically, Congress has to declare wars. But no president cared about this since WW2
People think everything they don’t like is illegal.
Don’t get me wrong, it should be illegal to do a preemptive nuclear strike, it just sadly isn’t.
It might not be feasible for the entire chain to have the information needed to make that call, but there is definitely someone in military authority positioned to know if it’s defensive or offensive, and that person should be both allowed and obligated to refuse the order if it’s an offensive strike.
Morality and the law may not be equivalent, but it would certainly be more convenient if they were closer.
I suppose what I mean is that he doesn’t just have a big red button on his desk labeled Iran that he can press when he chooses.
We’ve stood up a system over many years, and he’s just barrelled through every norm/law/etc. up to and including having his sentence reduced to 0 on felonies, simply because he’s a politician. If we cannot protect ourselves from this man launching a nuclear weapon, or even hold him responsible, then we don’t deserve to survive beyond our planet and the resulting catastrophic collapse of society may be the best thing for the universe overall.
Is him launching (or ordering to launch) a nuke considered as an official act? Just asking…