Active Now

BabyDol3o4
SapphicHeart
Jewels Vern
Just Asking
Merlin
Lulu'sMom
GoatJumper
Patchouli
President Silly vs. Sharonna
my2cents
TrumpianZeitgeist
Randy D
Autumnleaves
Jeph
Louie
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Can President Buffoon nuke anybody he wants with NO OVERSIGHT, whatsoever?????

Can President Buffoon nuke anybody he wants with NO OVERSIGHT, whatsoever?????

Hello:

Well, of course, he can.  Right wingers will tell you differently, but they're lying..  They'll tell you that he has to get APPROVAL from some bureaucrat, and then get APPROVAL from his generals...  That's LAUGHABLE on its face, when you consider that he has ONLY 9 minutes to decide whether to shoot or not.  CLEARLY, there's NO time to consult with ANYBODY..  I say that, because the assumption under which the president would FIRE his nukes, is that the ENEMY has already FIRED theirs and they're on the way. 

His handlers took his Twitter account away from him during the last days of the campaign, because they KNEW he couldn't be trusted.  Now, NOBODY, but NOBODY can take away his nuclear bombs.. 

excon

Posted - November 9, 2016

Responses


  • 1231
    And the proof of your claim? I'd love to see that.
      November 9, 2016 9:01 AM MST
    0

  • 3413
    Hello again, Red:

    I COULD explain the football to you, and I COULD explain how nukes are targeted, and I COULD explain what the Commander in Chiefs duties ARE....  But, instead, I'm gonna appeal to your common sense. 

    Everybody in the world, KNOWS that nukes fired at us will get here in 30 minutes or less. 
    Everybody, but YOU..  Can't wait the whole 30 minutes, though.  We'll be blown to bits..  There simply isn't time to convene a committee of generals.

    excon This post was edited by excon at November 9, 2016 11:47 AM MST
      November 9, 2016 11:44 AM MST
    0

  • 1231
    No, I don't think that you can.

    You question clearly demonstrates a simple anti-Trump bias. It also shows that you have no knowledge of how the current National Command Authority system actually works.
      November 9, 2016 11:53 AM MST
    0

  • 3413
    Hello again, Red:

    So, you're saying, that with missiles in the air, aimed at US, some National Command Authority has to meet BEFORE a president can DEFEND us????

    DUDE!

    excon
      November 9, 2016 12:02 PM MST
    0

  • 1231

    But no, that's not what I'm saying. That's what the National Command Authority protocol now requires. Your thinking that the President can launch an unprovoked nuclear strike on a whim is just plain wrong. If there were inbound missiles a LOT of people in the government would be made aware of the attack at the same time as the President, INCLUDING the Secretary of Defense, or his or her legal proxy.


    This post was edited by Just Asking at November 9, 2016 11:17 PM MST
      November 9, 2016 12:13 PM MST
    0

  • 4011
    @Salty Herbert -- I cite the following CNN article:

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/06/politics/nuclear-football-president-button/

    and I pull out the relevant quote...

    "The president has supreme authority to decide whether to use America's nuclear weapons. Period. Full stop," said the Arms Control Association's Kingston Reif. A president could only be stopped by mutiny, he said, and more than one person would have to disobey the president's orders.

    Personally, I DO NOT believe President Trump will launch a nuclear strike because someone said something mean to him on Twitter and I would HOPE that if he did, there would be the kind of necessary mutiny Mr. Reif describes. But we have no guarantees.

    Once again, your resorting to ad hominem attacks says far more about you and your (deficient) personality than it does the stances of the people you are insulting.
      November 9, 2016 12:20 PM MST
    0

  • 1231
    Oh, yeah. Chicken Noodle News (or the Clinton News Network, if you will) . . .

    Didn't they just tout those more sophisticated polling methods to prove that Trump couldn't win the Presidency? Now THERE'S a reliable source of information . . .

    I'll stick with what the Pentagon has to say on the subject.
      November 9, 2016 3:26 PM MST
    0

  • 4011
    Once again, rather than citing evidence in support of your views, you resort to ad hominem attacks and claims to access to secret knowledge others do not possess.

    I suspect the  Arms Control Association makes it their business to know EXACTLY how control of nuclear weapons works, but if you've got something which shows them to be incorrect, please present it.

    [sound of crickets chirping]
      November 9, 2016 3:34 PM MST
    0

  • 1231
    Yeah, right . . .the "Arms Control Association" . . . THEY have access to our military's protocols . . . you got nothing but your "cut and paste" bull that you try to throw against the wall when someon actually tells a truth that you don't like.
      November 9, 2016 3:43 PM MST
    0

  • 4011
    @S and RP -- Once again, you resorted  to the I've Got Nuggets "counterargument" and ad hominem attacks. No evidence, no dismantling of claims. Just "I'm right, you're wrong, poopy-head!"

    Your inability to offer any rational counterargument lends credence to the theory you are exactly as (Special Kind of) Stupid as I have long suspected you are....;-D... This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 9, 2016 4:21 PM MST
      November 9, 2016 4:20 PM MST
    0

  • 3413
    Hello again, Red:

    Lemme get this straight..  You're saying, that with MISSILES IN THE AIR AIMED AT US, before the president fires back, he MUST FIND the Defense Secretary, or his proxy, and get HIS permission??? 

    And, you accuse ME of smoking something..

    DUDE!


    excon
      November 9, 2016 12:25 PM MST
    0

  • 10967
    ex he always does this.  I drink, you smoke and anyone who disagrees with him gets these 2 year old comments thrown at them.  I just laugh.  He is such an ineffective child.

    He is one of those people who denigrates cut/paste if it makes a point he can't debate.  He cannot debate.  I don't know why anyone answers him after awhile.  I take about a day a month like I used to do with Delivering the Truth and just give it to him and watch him lather.

    It's great fun, but it gets old real fast.  He never changes his style at all. 

    He will take your argument and twist it and make it his and he will take his stupid and accuse you of doing it and not him.

    Sound like someone who recently got a new job in Washington?
      November 9, 2016 3:49 PM MST
    0

  • 7987
    The threat of a nuclear war is no less or greater than it would have been if the other warhawk  won with her idea of a No Fly Zone over Syria.

      November 9, 2016 11:26 AM MST
    0

  • 1650
    I don't trust any leader in the world with nuclear weapons I would be more concerned with the nut in North Korea than Trump you better hope we react fast enough.
      November 9, 2016 2:26 PM MST
    0

  • 4011
    @TT -- You need to bone up on your understanding of nuclear deterrence.

    IF (and that's a big IF) North Korea were to develop ICBMs capable of striking the United States and Beloved Leader Un was stupid enough to launch at the United States, then it does not matter who is President or how quickly he (or she) reacts. The conflict is already lost.

    The ONLY legitimate purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter attack. Once someone violates that principle, everyone loses. Yes, we'll get the "satisfaction" of turning North Korea into a nuclear wasteland. But that "satisfaction" won't bring back the millions of US lives lost to North Korea's (hypothetical) attack, nor will any legitmate geopolitical goal be served.
      November 9, 2016 3:01 PM MST
    1

  • 1231
    That kind of reasoning never stopped the likes of Kim Jong il or that zany bunch of Islamic terrorists known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. But if you feel comfort with that false blanket of security the go for it . . .
      November 9, 2016 3:38 PM MST
    0

  • 4011
    @S and RP -- To date, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in pursuit of geopolitical goals is the United States (Note: while the debate about US use of nuclear bombs in WWII is interesting, I"m not interested in rehashing it here).

    If you are somehow claiming Iran and North Korea are somehow more "zany" than Pakistan (or Israel, for that matter), than I submit you have no basis for that claim other than your bigotry.
      November 9, 2016 3:43 PM MST
    0