Also in the news

[Pliskin]

22 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Talking of showcasing their military might i'm surprised no one has mentioned the biggest tool of all, it was only 2 days ago.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/zapad-2021-russia-showcases-military-might-with-massive-series-of-drills-alongside-belarus-forces-12407356

It’s all very bizarre, a military pissing contest…. I mean it’s probably what has prevented a world war since WWII, however I can’t see it all ending well, ours and USA’s tails with be ever so slightly raised following the rise of the Taliban, purely because of the groups history. And Korea and Russia are always a concern. 
 

I though the world was slowly become at peace with itself, but in the last two years I think that’s starting to unravel a bit. Like I said with the pandemic and the climate crises having just a major impact on every nation, I can’t help but think at some point the pressure will boil over….. it’s happened countless times throughout history, and we seem to be living in a more passively volatile world if that makes sense, and that could easily change. 

[Guest SO1]

3 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Talking of showcasing their military might i'm surprised no one has mentioned the biggest tool of all, it was only 2 days ago.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/zapad-2021-russia-showcases-military-might-with-massive-series-of-drills-alongside-belarus-forces-12407356

NATO still camped out on Russias border in the Don Bass and elsewhere? What could go wrong?

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58581296

 

Nothing shows confidence in an outgoing leader like a top general having to call their greatest rival and assure them that leader isn't going to nuke them in a fit of pique.

 

Bloody hell.

[Guest SO1]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58581296

 

Nothing shows confidence in an outgoing leader like a top general having to call their greatest rival and assure them that leader isn't going to nuke them in a fit of pique.

 

Bloody hell.

The General is guilty of treason, if its true, and the punishment for this should be prison or worse. There's a chain of command and when you start screwing with that than you are subverting the will of the people who have voted for an elected Commander and Chief. I have no love for Trump but if the military is going to go its own way then we're talking real coups not fake ones like at DC. Seems as if all levels of government are in the mode of delegitimizing themselves through their incompetence and corruption as our economy continues to decline. The economy of the street and not Wall Street

Interesting that Biden is doubling down on all the same military agendas as Trump. Which confirms my suspicions of the "deep state" running this country and not the citizenry.

Edited 17 September 2021 by SO1

[Dunge]

6 minutes ago, SO1 said:

The General is guilty of treason, if its true, and the punishment for this should be prison or worse. There's a chain of command and when you start screwing with that than you are subverting the will of the people who have voted for an elected Commander and Chief. I have no love for Trump but if the military is going to go its own way then we're talking real coups not fake ones like at DC. Seems as if all levels of government are in the mode of delegitimizing themselves through their incompetence and corruption as our economy continues to decline. The economy of the street and not Wall Street

Interesting that Biden is doubling down on all the same military agendas as Trump. Which confirms my suspicions of the "deep state" running this country and not the citizenry.

If you genuinely think that assuring people that they won’t be nuked on the baseless orders of someone who’s just been voted out of power is treasonous, then you need to take a step back and think about what you’re actually advocating here.

 

And that’s before getting to appreciating what the nuclear deterrent truly is.

[Guest SO1]

44 minutes ago, Dunge said:

If you genuinely think that assuring people that they won’t be nuked on the baseless orders of someone who’s just been voted out of power is treasonous, then you need to take a step back and think about what you’re actually advocating here.

 

And that’s before getting to appreciating what the nuclear deterrent truly is.

There is a chain of command for a reason and he doesn't, as a member of the military, get to make up his own. The General is there to serve the commander in chief(president of US). He's not an elected representative.

This has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. If he did this to Biden he'd be guilty of the same.

 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, SO1 said:

There is a chain of command for a reason and he doesn't, as a member of the military, get to make up his own. The General is there to serve the commander in chief(president of US). He's not an elected representative.

This has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. If he did this to Biden he'd be guilty of the same.

 

It just looks like GOP politicking to me.  If the Chinese military was at a point of alarm so severe they needed reassurance from your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff then it seems to me he's done his job for you guys.  You'd have a lot more to complain about if their paranoia went unaddressed and they decided on pre-emptive action.

[Dunge]

7 hours ago, SO1 said:

There is a chain of command for a reason and he doesn't, as a member of the military, get to make up his own. The General is there to serve the commander in chief(president of US). He's not an elected representative.

This has nothing to do with nuclear deterrence. If he did this to Biden he'd be guilty of the same.

 

It has lots to do with nuclear deterrence. Just because you’re reporting to someone militarily doesn’t mean you follow their every order if it’s nonsense. If a general tells a colonel to shoot the man standing next to him for no reason, the general would get declared unfit for command. Any reasonable military in the world would understand this. Similarly, if the US President gave a command to nuke somewhere, the people enabling that command don’t just do it robotically because the president said it. It doesn’t work that way. The president is not above the law, or reasonable removal if he’s deemed unfit for command. (And wanting to nuke somewhere without provocation would definitely be that.)
 

If you truly believe the general’s act would be treasonous, then give me treason every day because the alternative is lunacy - lunacy because they evidently wouldn’t understand the deterrent, that it’s a counterattack only. That’s not just how it works, it’s the only way it can work. If America really had a system where the president could lean on a red button on his desk that set off an unstoppable chain of events to launch a nuclear missile, there would be something horrifically wrong.

[leicsmac]

6 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

It just looks like GOP politicking to me.  If the Chinese military was at a point of alarm so severe they needed reassurance from your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff then it seems to me he's done his job for you guys.  You'd have a lot more to complain about if their paranoia went unaddressed and they decided on pre-emptive action.

 

54 minutes ago, Dunge said:

It has lots to do with nuclear deterrence. Just because you’re reporting to someone militarily doesn’t mean you follow their every order if it’s nonsense. If a general tells a colonel to shoot the man standing next to him for no reason, the general would get declared unfit for command. Any reasonable military in the world would understand this. Similarly, if the US President gave a command to nuke somewhere, the people enabling that command don’t just do it robotically because the president said it. It doesn’t work that way. The president is not above the law, or reasonable removal if he’s deemed unfit for command. (And wanting to nuke somewhere without provocation would definitely be that.)
 

If you truly believe the general’s act would be treasonous, then give me treason every day because the alternative is lunacy - lunacy because they evidently wouldn’t understand the deterrent, that it’s a counterattack only. That’s not just how it works, it’s the only way it can work. If America really had a system where the president could lean on a red button on his desk that set off an unstoppable chain of events to launch a nuclear missile, there would be something horrifically wrong.

Dunge has nailed it here.

 

Quite frankly I'm pretty disturbed that some folks here are OK with the idea of a baseless pre-emptive nuclear strike so long as it follows the chain of command and is following orders (or indeed, in any circumstance at all) - I'm going to call out @marblesand @Heathrow fox as they repped the original post on this and ask exactly how that's justifiable, too.

 

Following an order that's clearly insane is itself insane and I can't find a reason to advocate for it. And it's a false dichotomy to present the alternative as some kind of anarchy where the military dudes can do as they like because you would make the assumption that given their training they are in fact quite discerning when it comes to the nature of such orders and so a happy medium can be reached.

Edited 18 September 2021 by leicsmac

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Dunge has nailed it here.

 

Quite frankly I'm pretty disturbed that some folks here are OK with the idea of a baseless pre-emptive nuclear strike so long as it follows the chain of command and is following orders (or indeed, in any circumstance at all) - I'm going to call out @marblesand @Heathrow fox as they repped the original post on this and ask exactly how that's justifiable, too.

 

Following an order that's clearly insane is itself insane and I can't find a reason to advocate for it. And it's a false dichotomy to present the alternative as some kind of anarchy where the military dudes can do as they like because you would make the assumption that given their training they are in fact quite discerning when it comes to the nature of such orders and so a happy medium can be reached.

I maybe reading SO1s thoughts wrong here but isn’t he questioning the flip side of this situation?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I maybe reading SO1s thoughts wrong here but isn’t he questioning the flip side of this situation?

It's possible, but personally I think that he's using the flip side of the situation to justify this side. And I don't think there's any justification, whatsoever, in practically any circumstance for a preemptive nuclear attack, which was the current topic.

[marbles]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Dunge has nailed it here.

 

Quite frankly I'm pretty disturbed that some folks here are OK with the idea of a baseless pre-emptive nuclear strike so long as it follows the chain of command and is following orders (or indeed, in any circumstance at all) - I'm going to call out @marblesand @Heathrow fox as they repped the original post on this and ask exactly how that's justifiable, too.

 

Following an order that's clearly insane is itself insane and I can't find a reason to advocate for it. And it's a false dichotomy to present the alternative as some kind of anarchy where the military dudes can do as they like because you would make the assumption that given their training they are in fact quite discerning when it comes to the nature of such orders and so a happy medium can be reached.

Justifiable? LOL

Maybe it’s late and I’m tired.  Are you actually asking me to justify myself?

 

Far as your second statement.

Exactly what insane order?

I don’t remember Trump instructing the military to attack. So exactly what are you talking about?

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, marbles said:

Justifiable? LOL

Maybe it’s late and I’m tired.  Are you actually asking me to justify myself?

 

Far as your second statement.

Exactly what insane order?

I don’t remember Trump instructing the military to attack. So exactly what are you talking about?

Then allow me to clarify. The general involved called his Chinese counterpart to assure them that should Trump issue an order for a preemptive nuclear attack (which I think is insane), it wouldn't be necessarily adhered to unilaterally.  SO1 then posited, and I'm assuming you agreed with (correct me if I'm wrong there), that the general involved was committing treason by doing this, viz. seeking to subvert the order of a commander in chief if necessary. 

 

Personally, I don't think subverting an order to launch a clearly insane nuclear attack (or even saying that you would to another party) is itself treason even though you are subverting the chain of command, because I think there really should be a distinction made by military folks between orders that are insane and will only damage the country you serve and those that are not, but I'm curious to know why you think the general was committing treason by saying he might possibly get in the way of such an insane order.

 

In short, I have no problem with a soldier acting on conscience rather than orders when it comes to nuclear weapons being used unilaterally and preemptively and I wonder if and why you do.

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

It's possible, but personally I think that he's using the flip side of the situation to justify this side. And I don't think there's any justification, whatsoever, in practically any circumstance for a preemptive nuclear attack, which was the current topic.

To be clear,by flip side I mean the military ignoring the chain of command going forward and then deciding themselves who to strike.Where has SO1 justified a preemptive hit btw?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Heathrow fox said:

To be clear,by flip side I mean the military ignoring the chain of command going forward and then deciding themselves who to strike.Where has SO1 justified a preemptive hit btw?

By implying that a general must follow such an order from their commander in chief under any circumstances or be guilty of treason.

 

I certainly agree there needs to be checks and balances on all sides, whether it's a military man giving the order or the President doing it. Unilateral control of nuclear weapons release in this day and age where second strike capability is available is an absolutely terrible idea.

[Heathrow fox]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

By implying that a general must follow such an order from their commander in chief under any circumstances or be guilty of treason.

 

I certainly agree there needs to be checks and balances on all sides, whether it's a military man giving the order or the President doing it. Unilateral control of nuclear weapons release in this day and age where second strike capability is available is an absolutely terrible idea.

I think he was implying that the military have too much power.That whoever is President works in their interests and those that get rich in the process 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I think he was implying that the military have too much power.That whoever is President works in their interests and those that get rich in the process 

I think that's possible, and if it is so then I'd agree.

 

However, if it is the case, it might have been nice to make that point in a reply to an article that wasn't talking about one of those few circumstances where a general might need to use that excess of power and be *right* by doing so.

Edited 18 September 2021 by leicsmac

[marbles]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Then allow me to clarify. The general involved called his Chinese counterpart to assure them that should Trump issue an order for a preemptive nuclear attack (which I think is insane), it wouldn't be necessarily adhered to unilaterally.  SO1 then posited, and I'm assuming you agreed with (correct me if I'm wrong there), that the general involved was committing treason by doing this, viz. seeking to subvert the order of a commander in chief if necessary. 

 

Personally, I don't think subverting an order to launch a clearly insane nuclear attack (or even saying that you would to another party) is itself treason even though you are subverting the chain of command, because I think there really should be a distinction made by military folks between orders that are insane and will only damage the country you serve and those that are not, but I'm curious to know why you think the general was committing treason by saying he might possibly get in the way of such an insane order.

 

In short, I have no problem with a soldier acting on conscience rather than orders when it comes to nuclear weapons being used unilaterally and preemptively and I wonder if and why you do.

Ok - gotcha

The problem is that you are confusing civilian life, with the military.

Civilians have the right to question or ignore superiors.  When in the military, you do not.  Under any circumstance.

When in the military, you lose that right. You are expected/required to blindly follow orders - ethics and morals do not come into play.

It is the only way it works.  Its what keeps us safe.  

If at any time this General feared an order from a superior, he should have stepped down.

I personally dont want someone in charge of my countries safety,  who is going to put his personal opinion/beliefs in front of a direct order.

What if the General had different beliefs than you?  What if he alone decided that some small island country posed a threat and made the decision himself to launch a strike.  Would you still be okay with him making his own decisions?  

 

If Trump had given the order (which he didnt BTW), the Generals do have an option.

They could ignore the order.  Its called a coupe.  It is treason, and in some cases punishable by death.

Should this General be put to death? No.  But he should be court martial-ed, and lose everything he has worked for.  

 

 

Like anything concerning Trump, peoples opinions are biased due to their pure hatred of the man.  It makes no sense to allow him to hold such power over you,

Once again, he did not order a strike yet the defense of this General is "what if?" 

Is that a defense you would allow of the police for arresting you when you have committed no crime? 

 

   

 

.

 

 

 

 

   

Edited 18 September 2021 by marbles

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, marbles said:

Ok - gotcha

The problem is that you are confusing civilian life, with the military.

Civilians have the right to question or ignore superiors.  When in the military, you do not.  Under any circumstance.

When in the military, you lose that right. You are expected/required to blindly follow orders - ethics and morals do not come into play.

It is the only way it works.  Its what keeps us safe.  

If at any time this General feared an order from a superior, he should have stepped down.

I personally dont want someone in charge of my countries safety,  who is going to put his personal opinion/beliefs in front of a direct order.

What if the General had different beliefs than you?  What if he alone decided that some small island country posed a threat and made the decision himself to launch a strike.  Would you still be okay with him making his own decisions?  

 

If Trump had given the order (which he didnt BTW), the Generals do have an option.

They could ignore the order.  Its called a coupe.  It is treason, and in some cases punishable by death.

Should this General be put to death? No.  But he should be court martial-ed, and lose everything he has worked for.  

 

 

Like anything concerning Trump, peoples opinions are biased due to their pure hatred of the man.  It makes no sense to allow him to hold such power over you,

Once again, he did not order a strike yet the defense of this General is "what if?" 

Is that a defense you would allow of the police for arresting you when you have committed no crime? 

 

   

 

Thank you for the response. Just two points...

 

Firstly, I would assume that there is a procedure in place in modern first world militaries for the following or not following of orders that are clearly shown to be illegal and/or "wrong" (like a war crime). If not, then what does the precedent established at Nuremberg and My Lai where terrible things were done in the name of orders mean at all? I'd have to look it up, but I'm thinking being in the military means that there still are some orders you simply don't follow or you get court-martialled for following them.

 

Secondly, concerning Trump himself, yes people's opinions are biased regarding the man and he has proven time and again through word and deed that bias is entirely justified. I make zero apology for viewing the man and the ideology he has very effectively spread as a direct threat to the long-term survival of human civilisation, one way or another.

[marbles]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thank you for the response. Just two points...

 

Firstly, I would assume that there is a procedure in place in modern first world militaries for the following or not following of orders that are clearly shown to be illegal and/or "wrong" (like a war crime). If not, then what does the precedent established at Nuremberg and My Lai where terrible things were done in the name of orders mean at all? I'd have to look it up, but I'm thinking being in the military means that there still are some orders you simply don't follow or you get court-martialled for following them.

 

Secondly, concerning Trump himself, yes people's opinions are biased regarding the man and he has proven time and again through word and deed that bias is entirely justified. I make zero apology for viewing the man and the ideology he has very effectively spread as a direct threat to the long-term survival of human civilisation, one way or another.

There is nothing in place when it comes to the US

A few years ago, Democrats introduced a bill in which congress had to vote before a nuclear strike was allowed.  Republicans voted "no"

Now that the Dems are back in office, I've seen no rush to bring the bill back up.  Guess it was only important when a Republican was President - politicians are ridiculous., as is anyone who makes decisions based solely on party lines.

 

Im really confused by your second statement.

What has he done to threaten the long term survival of human civilization?

Not exactly sure how he has hurt you so badly - and you dont have to get into it.  It is odd to me to hate someone so much, that you would allow them to change your way of thinking (throwing out due process for example).

 

I also noticed you ignored my highlighted "What if" - so I'll repost it 

 

Once again, he did not order a strike yet the defense of this General is "what if?" 

Is that a defense you would allow of the police for arresting you when you have committed no crime? 

 

 

 

Edited 18 September 2021 by marbles

[st albans fox]

He allegedly told the Chinese general that the "American government is stable" and reassured Gen Li that the US would not attack. If they did so, the Chinese would be warned first, the extract quotes him as saying. 
 

The book also said that Gen Milley had told his staff that if Mr Trump ordered a nuclear strike, then he would have to confirm it before it was carried out. 
 

not sure that either of these are quite how it’s been debated above. 
 

[marbles]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

He allegedly told the Chinese general that the "American government is stable" and reassured Gen Li that the US would not attack. If they did so, the Chinese would be warned first, the extract quotes him as saying. 
 

The book also said that Gen Milley had told his staff that if Mr Trump ordered a nuclear strike, then he would have to confirm it before it was carried out. 
 

not sure that either of these are quite how it’s been debated above. 
 

The first part would be treason - how is it not treason to warn the Chinese that an attack was coming? 

 

I dont have a problem with the second part 

Edited 18 September 2021 by marbles

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, marbles said:

There is nothing in place when it comes to the US

A few years ago, Democrats introduced a bill in which congress had to vote before a nuclear strike was allowed.  Republicans voted "no"

Now that the Dems are back in office, I've seen no rush to bring the bill back up.  Guess it was only important when a Republican was President - politicians are ridiculous., as is anyone who makes decisions based solely on party lines.

 

Im really confused by your second statement.

What has he done to threaten the long term survival of human civilization?

Not exactly sure how he has hurt you so badly - and you dont have to get into it.  It is odd to me to hate someone so much, that you would allow them to change your way of thinking (throwing out due process for example).

 

I also noticed you ignored my highlighted "What if" - so I'll repost it 

 

Once again, he did not order a strike yet the defense of this General is "what if?" 

Is that a defense you would allow of the police for arresting you when you have committed no crime? 

 

 

 

Environmental policy. That's reasonably obvious IMO.

 

I ignored the "what if" scenario because I believe that it had little analogy to the actual situation, but I'll respond: police are often called to stand by and warn someone who may commit a crime not to do so and to possible guard against it (domestic incidents, for one). Taking that kind of cautious line (and for emphasis, the general was speaking theoretically rather than practically here so no "arresting" was going on) is no bad thing when millions of lives are potentially at stake.

 

Edit: it seems there is certainly provision for US soldiers when it comes to "unlawful" orders. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/military-orders-3332819

Edited 18 September 2021 by leicsmac

[marbles]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Environmental policy. That's reasonably obvious IMO.

 

I ignored the "what if" scenario because I believe that it had little analogy to the actual situation, but I'll respond: police are often called to stand by and warn someone who may commit a crime not to do so and to possible guard against it (domestic incidents, for one). Taking that kind of cautious line (and for emphasis, the general was speaking theoretically rather than practically here so no "arresting" was going on) is no bad thing when millions of lives are potentially at stake.

"Environmental Policy" - Ill give ya that.

 

 

I've enjoyed discussing this with you - hopefully you haven't taken it any other way.

 

Like I sorta mentioned though.

Its hard to have these discussions when someone has such a deep seated hatred for Trump.

Me? I dont care either way.  Like every President, he has done some good and bad.  He's gone, I've moved on.  Hopefully you will be able to do the same.

 

Its hard to have these discussions, because I find that its impossible for anti-Trumpers to take Trump out of the equation. 

If they are not willing to be objective (which they are not) - then its not a conversation/discussion.  Its a battle.

 

Anyways - have a great weekend.  

 

 

[Guest SO1]

18 minutes ago, marbles said:

There is nothing in place when it comes to the US

A few years ago, Democrats introduced a bill in which congress had to vote before a nuclear strike was allowed.  Republicans voted "no"

Now that the Dems are back in office, I've seen no rush to bring the bill back up.  Guess it was only important when a Republican was President - politicians are ridiculous., as is anyone who makes decisions based solely on party lines.

 

Im really confused by your second statement.

What has he done to threaten the long term survival of human civilization?

Not exactly sure how he has hurt you so badly - and you dont have to get into it.  It is odd to me to hate someone so much, that you would allow them to change your way of thinking (throwing out due process for example).

 

I also noticed you ignored my highlighted "What if" - so I'll repost it 

 

Once again, he did not order a strike yet the defense of this General is "what if?" 

Is that a defense you would allow of the police for arresting you when you have committed no crime? 

 

 

 

I owe you for that. Thank you. An absolute diamond.