Strike on North Korea

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Yes the President can be told no. Contrary to popular believe a president cannot in any way shape or form on a whim launch a nuclear strike. As Delgard pointed out there is doctrine already in place which is to be followed after certain criteria has been met for such an event to happen.

In this case popular belief is right.

While there is a theoretical possibility of sabotaging an unlawfull order, the realities of the nuclear C3 preclude this from happening. The C3 for nuclear weapons is built to be fast, reliable, secure, survivable. Morever, POTUS is the sole command authority in case of nuclear weapons and does not require to consult with anyone regarding nuclear usage.

Because the C3 is reliable and secure, it is linked directly to the POTUS and CnC/NCA and I am not sure if there is even a technical capability for a general or a group of generals to sabotage it.

Because C3 is fast, it cuts out other civilian authorities (ie US lawmakers) and precludes any military authority from questioning the orders (after you got drilled for years, you just verify formalities and, like a machine, do your job).

[Jimbuna]

Just a pity the same doctrine and safeguards aren't in place over in NK.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Just a pity the same doctrine and safeguards aren't in place over in NK.

Good thought

[mapuc]

A good question

If KJU order a nuke strike somewhere will his officer obey without hesitation or will we see a military riots among his officer ?

Markus

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by mapuc

A good question

If KJU order a nuke strike somewhere will his officer obey without hesitation or will we see a military riots among his officer ?

Markus

Instant obedience without question I should imagine.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Some weeks ago I saw an issue on our News channel, where some historian to US politics said something about

Nixon's last day in office. Another person(can't remember who) made a deal with some at NORAD-If Nixon order a nuclear strike they should call this person to get either a confirmation or a non-confirmation

Markus

You are referring to the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was approached by some officials in the Pentagon and the State Department who were concerned about Nixon's increasingly erratic behavior, fueled by an increase in Nixon's alcohol consumption. There had been a reported case where Nixon apparently tried to put the country at DEFCON 1 and there was concern Nixon might go, ahem, 'ballistic'. It was then, several weeks before Nixon resigned, that Kissinger, quietly and without Nixon's knowledge, put into effect an order that no heavy military measures ordered by the President were to be undertaken without explicit, written co-authorization of the Secretary of State. IIRC, it was shortly after Nixon left that the protocols were revised to make it even harder for a President to initiate a first strike...







<O>

[ikalugin]

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...-Authority.pdf
This document mentions Nixon, but amongst others from that organisation and FAS states that there are no checks and balances in the US C3 system for nuclear use.

Which incidentally leads to suggestions such as this:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/safeguar...dures-proposal

[Delgard]

Things can change rather quickly with leadership changes. Passive or aggressive positions by a leader are built into the system so that nothing extreme occurs in either direction.

The past, up until this moment, teaches us that crisis management is...managed.

Rather a general statement, but experience does teach us. We just don't always hear about those management steps that occur. The STRATCOM CDR statement is a rare public exposure to a small corner of the management program involved.

I expect that the General, in question, will be reviewed and appropriately managed as his seniors see fit. Like all things about the management program involved it probably will not be as public as some will want; good or bad.

[ikalugin]

I think that improving the C3 and/or moving to 2nd strike only policy would be a good policy for US, considering US conventional superiority.

[Delgard]

I assume you are referring to an encounter with N.K.

The U.S. has really started making use of the meanings for collective, combined, and coalition.

[ikalugin]

I was talking about how it is not a part of official US policy to prohibit first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict, atleast on paper.

Doing that and shifting from a 1 man decision making system to a 2-3 man decision making system (with relevant infrastructure) in my opinion would be the way to go.

[vienna]

<O>

[u crank]

^

Well that was informative. Good to know and something I suspected all along. Not that easy to push the button.

[Mr Quatro]

Thank you vienna for the video, but it boils down to what James Clapper thinks voicing his opinion and
without saying so is pointing to his thoughts are simply this, that President Trump can't make the right
decision when it comes to launching nuclear weapons.

In my opinion God is in charge of when, where and how this country would respond using nuclear weapons.

The God that moved Moses across the Red Sea and the God that won WWII and the God that has restored the state of Israel.

[Reece]