Mark F Posted June 15, 2017 Report Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Atomic said: Same **** that stopped every other president so far. If you actually think he's going to launch a nuke, you're just buying into democrat/liberal hysteria. It's not going to happen. Bombers game. Edited June 15, 2017 by Mark F johnzo 1
Atomic Posted June 15, 2017 Report Posted June 15, 2017 Just now, Mark F said: cant discuss.... Bombers game. OK see you there bro Mark F and johnzo 2
The Unknown Poster Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 I dont believe Trump would get away with a nuclear launch. The only way he could would be orchestrating something so heinous that it eventually leads to a nuke strike. But that takes a lot of time and effort. It would mean creating a black op the likes we've never seen to create the situation where a nuke strike seems reasonable. And even then, since they are under so much scrutiny and have alienated so many allies around the world, the pressure not to do it would be so great that even if it was reasonable (if nuke strikes could ever be considered that), it would come under such suspicion and disdain, I doubt he could get away with it. If Trump just went nuts and tried to launch, there are many things blocking his path. First, unless it was in response to a launch by Russia, I dont think he can simply use his executive power to unilaterally do it. Congress would demand a say. His Generals would have to carry out the orders and life-long military men are not likely to do something on the whims of a guy they think is nuts. You've got Republicans *now* who think Trump is a clown. If he did that, the pressure on Pence and the cabinet to remove him would be overwhelming. Trump trying a unilateral and unwarranted nuke strike likely leads to his own over-throw by 25th Amendment or a quiet military coup that simply refuses to follow his orders. Whats more likely is Trump trying to distract with more race-based war mongering. But I dont think that resonates enough to change his fortunes. Atomic 1
The Unknown Poster Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 The Nuke thing facinates me so I looked it up: Bruce Blair, a former Minuteman missile-launch officer and research scholar at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, told Business Insider in September that the answer, essentially, is yes. Blair pointed to a step-by-step outline of the nuclear chain of command, which he helped describe in Bloomberg earlier in September. Here's what would happen, according to Blair: The president would consult with top military brass about the use of a nuclear weapon. The president would come to a decision. The order would be verified and officially issued. The launch crews would take over. And finally, the missiles would be deployed. If the threat wasn't imminent, Blair said it would likely take a few days to prepare the weapons. But if in the middle of a sustained conflict during which nuclear weapons had been on the table as a last resort, the process would be vastly accelerated — missiles could be in the air within as little as 15 minutes. Congress could do nothing to stop the decision if it were made in haste, Blair said. "I mean, the Constitution of the United States designates the president as commander in chief, and there is no wiggle room there," he said. "And of course, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 that allows for the president to deploy armed forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. By law, by custom, Congress has bowed out of the process." Blair added that there is "a protocol and requirement" for NATO consultation, and if there wasn't consent from the country responsible for launching the weapon, "it's sort of open to question" whether NATO could "effectively veto" its use. For example, if the weapon were to be delivered from the nuclear base in Germany, where the US shares weapons, and dropped by a German plane, Germany could potentially ignore the order. "You're getting into kind of fuzzy territory there," he said. The only measure that could be taken at home, Blair said, is the invoking of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution — which has never been used. That section allows for the vice president, together with a majority of Cabinet heads or Congress, to declare the president disabled and unfit to execute the duties of the office. The vice president would have to submit a written declaration to the speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate explaining why the president is unable to fulfill his duties. If approved, the vice president would take over. Blair called that "the only thing" government officials "could possibly do" in such a situation. ***I still say, barring an immediate threat that rises to the level of making nuke use warranted, Trump would be stymied by his military advisers and cabinet. Although, I think we we think of nuclear weapon use we think of a horrific outcome. I suppose a smaller payload, strategic strike would be possible. But I cannot imagine a President using nukes in this day and age in an offensive away that doesn't end his career. Mark F 1
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 54 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Quote “I was going to fire Comey — my decision.” - Donald J. Trump in an interview with Lester Holt seriously... WTF. blue_gold_84, SPuDS and Mark F 3
blue_gold_84 Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: President Snowflake.
Fatty Liver Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 20 hours ago, Mark F said: I now worry about Trump becoming so desperate that he pulls off something really horrific, to avoid exposure of the truth about him. Together with his deep ignorance, and failure to understand the most basic things. nuclear launch for instance. He already said he didn't see why they can't be used. Have those battle ships not reached N. Korea yet? If not, what's taking them so long....maybe they changed their minds along the way. Useful distractions are only useful if they're timely, but a nuclear attack will do the job and it's instant. Mark F 1
The Unknown Poster Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 Come on Pence. Just "25" this guy out of here.
bigg jay Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 If Pence is actually that exasperated already, how does he expect to last the next 3.5 years? It's not like this is going away anytime soon.
The Unknown Poster Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, bigg jay said: If Pence is actually that exasperated already, how does he expect to last the next 3.5 years? It's not like this is going away anytime soon. At some point Pence and the rest of the cabinet and party will have to decide if they want to go down with the SS Trump. To 25 Trump out of office is a big deal though and a gamble. Its never been done. They would have to be able to count on Congress' support as they have to provide a written explanation as to why they feel the President's mental health precludes him from acting in that position. And then the President can fight it. Its more likely whispers of a potential 25 are a precursor to a resignation. And they risk alienating Trumps base They'd have to have a really good, specific reason. The aforementioned "nuke" scenario being one that might finally make them act. More likely, Pence keeps up his balance beam act so that should impeachment hearings finally happen, the sense of Congress might be to get Trump out because they have a much better man waiting in the wings.
Atomic Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Come on Pence. Just "25" this guy out of here. Let me guess.... 17 "anonymous" sources.
HardCoreBlue Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 28 minutes ago, Atomic said: Let me guess.... 17 "anonymous" sources. What's your point?
Atomic Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: What's your point? FAKE NEWS. Richard Sherman says it better than I ever could: https://sports.yahoo.com/richard-sherman-rips-story-portrayed-rift-russell-wilson-163615933.html Edited June 16, 2017 by Atomic
HardCoreBlue Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, Atomic said: FAKE NEWS. Richard Sherman says it better than I ever could: https://sports.yahoo.com/richard-sherman-rips-story-portrayed-rift-russell-wilson-163615933.html To me using this statement is irresponsible, not to mention the fact of using a sport example to overly generalize something where once someone says anonymous source, oh fake news. It's the old 'well if it's happening here, it must be happening there' tactic. Sort of like guilty by association, i.e., anyone using the term anonymous sources can't be trusted. Use a better argument to dispel something. And I'm not even arguing whether this story about Pence is true or not.
Atomic Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 16 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: To me using this statement is irresponsible, not to mention the fact of using a sport example to overly generalize something where once someone says anonymous source, oh fake news. It's the old 'well if it's happening here, it must be happening there' tactic. Sort of like guilty by association, i.e., anyone using the term anonymous sources can't be trusted. Use a better argument to dispel something. And I'm not even arguing whether this story about Pence is true or not. I'm not trying to dispel anything. I'm just saying that people's blind hatred for Trump shouldn't override their critical thinking ability when they read an article that bashes him, just because they agree with the premise. Journalists get stuff wrong, journalists make stuff up, journalists accept money when they shouldn't accept money. Some are good and some are bad, just like any other profession. It's up to the people to decide what they want to believe.
HardCoreBlue Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Atomic said: I'm not trying to dispel anything. I'm just saying that people's blind hatred for Trump shouldn't override their critical thinking ability when they read an article that bashes him, just because they agree with the premise. Journalists get stuff wrong, journalists make stuff up, journalists accept money when they shouldn't accept money. Some are good and some are bad, just like any other profession. It's up to the people to decide what they want to believe. As soon as you wrote FAKE NEWS, you were. If you're talking critical thinking ability, then encourage people to critically think about the issue not FAKE NEWS. Two completely different streams.
Atomic Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said: As soon as you wrote FAKE NEWS, you were. If you're talking critical thinking ability, then encourage people to critically think about the issue not FAKE NEWS. Two completely different streams. Tell me more about my intentions because you clearly know them better than I do.
Mark F Posted June 16, 2017 Report Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: ***I still say, barring an immediate threat that rises to the level of making nuke use warranted, Trump would be stymied by his military advisers and cabinet. Although, I think we we think of nuclear weapon use we think of a horrific outcome. I suppose a smaller payload, strategic strike would be possible. But I cannot imagine a President using nukes in this day and age in an offensive away that doesn't end his career. good research thanks for that article. article says Quote There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell. Edited June 16, 2017 by Mark F The Unknown Poster 1
HardCoreBlue Posted June 17, 2017 Report Posted June 17, 2017 16 hours ago, Atomic said: Tell me more about my intentions because you clearly know them better than I do. All I have are your words, it would be great to have this discussion in person. Maybe at a Bomber game when they're up by fifty and we have time.
Mark F Posted June 17, 2017 Report Posted June 17, 2017 22 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said: President Snowflake. HE'S A FLIP FLOPPER!!!
Recommended Posts