dagblog - Comments for "The Madman With Nuclear Weapons is Donald Trump, Not Kim Jong-un"

This is the way it's supposed

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:46:48 +0000

In reply to P.S. Though I didn't fully

This is the way it's supposed to work, Congress is supposed to be listening to the military in committee and supposed to step in, McCain today: “The thousands of Americans putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan deserve better from their commander in chief.”

The military is not supposed to be directly answering theoretical questions from the media about when they might disobey orders. If you are gonna talk "theoretically", well, theoretically, both they and the president are supposed to go to Congress.

We all know that in reality the theoretically might not work out that way. But I also think treasonous is not an extreme word for oceankat to use, precisely because it is a theoretical question you would be asking of the militlary. They are supposed to say: no, I wouldn't do that. When pragmatically in some real life instances they might be, it is is the theory they can't state. And absolutely counterproductive because the ones more amenable to reality over ideal would be goners if they said otherwise.

My fault for limiting the

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:49:20 +0000

In reply to I think long before it came

My fault for limiting the maniacally stupid range of ways that Trump, on his orders alone, could very likely start a horrible conflict in North Korea. The first strike need not be nuclear. I said, echoing Trump's words, that he could rain nuclear fire on NK but an attack as limited as a drone or cruise missile strike intended to take out the leadership would almost certainly result in a retaliatory strike. N. Korea could land 100,000 artillery rounds on Seoul in the first hour. I am sure that you could name any number of times that a President has ordered such a strike on some country and neither Congress nor the Constitution has been any impediment to that power so far.

I think long before it came

ocean-kat — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 05:38:46 +0000

In reply to I agree with your first

I think long before it came down to an individual soldier high ranking cabinet figures and military leaders would take action. Mattis, Kelly etc. do not want to be remembered by history as the men would stood by and allowed Trump to unleash nukes as a first strike. I think that whatever the political differences most of our military and political class are mostly honorable and would not allow that degree of craziness. As I briefly mention, I've read that during Nixon's final days he became unstable. Kissinger talked to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they agreed to consult with each other if Nixon ordered some military action before following the order.

eta: I'm not saying there's no reason to raise public concern. What I'm saying is that asking every significant military or national defense official and politician is not the way to do it. At best it's a waste of time and likely counter productive.

I agree with your first

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 04:03:58 +0000

In reply to There's only one possible

I agree with your first sentence as it agrees with my third. I think you are mistaken that treason would be the applicable charge for disobeying an order and I am sure that it would not be treason for a soldier to answer a hypothetical that in the future he would not follow some particular order in some particular situation. Regardless all that, your intended point is taken. So, we can only hope that an honorable soldier who has taken an oath, and would affirm that oath anytime asked, would in fact violate that oath if it involved a circumstance in which we would hope he would do so. And we can assume that various high ranking soldiers are discussing when they would violate that oath. And we can hope that the ones that would come to the right answer are in the right position if and when the time comes. Cool! No need to raise public concern.

here's ten oldies but goodies

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:34:07 +0000

In reply to Kim's minion propagandists

here's ten oldies but goodies, seen them all before, they are older, all Bush or Clinton years

my personal favorite is #1 of the Capitol, but then #6 of the Red Soldier smashing it with his fist is also good.

But I've got to admit that #3: "Americans Throw Babies Down Wells" is one that would really get a Trump type if he was on the other side. He's a sucker for the little babies thing.

The DOD funded shelter is

NCD — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:31:35 +0000

In reply to Kim's minion propagandists

The DOD funded shelter is gratis for platinum level. 'Platinum bunker' food service has a $95 per meal per member service charge, above room service prices.

Survivors are eligible for a free MAGA hat on egress, while supplies last.

Kim's minion propagandists

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:21:26 +0000

In reply to To complete the absurdity Kim

Kim's minion propagandists may think of that soon, this is all I could find so far, from Feb.:

https://www.nknews.org/2017/02/n-korean-leaflets-found-again-in-seoul-one-of-which-targets-donald-trump/

Would the platinum fallout shelter include some of that delicious chocolate cake? Or not? Gives bad taste now?

To complete the absurdity Kim

NCD — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 02:03:38 +0000

In reply to The Madman With Nuclear Weapons is Donald Trump, Not Kim Jong-un

To complete the absurdity Kim Jong should threaten Mar-a-Lago. The military guys on TV could calculate trajectories, blast damage radii, and Trump might demand a fallout shelter for platinum club members paid for out of the defense budget.

P.S. Though I didn't fully

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 01:36:33 +0000

In reply to Great point well put. Set my

P.S. Though I didn't fully realize it at the time, this problem is why this story drew my eye last night:

GOP senator: Trump needs Congress to approve strike on North Korea

By Olivia Beavers @ TheHill.com, 08/08/17 10:15 PM EDT

Great point well put. Set my

artappraiser — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:58:20 +0000

In reply to There's only one possible

Great point well put. Set my mind straight after being intially tempted by Lulu's proposition.

He's not their problem, actually, he's ours, and our elected representatives! They are supposed to follow the commander's orders unless we remove the commander. Unless they are asked to do something Unconstitutional, that comes above the commander. Army Oath of Enlistment: I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Actually, expecting that they might go against orders in order to save us from someone "we" elected would mean that we have already given up on democracy. Maybe some have, but that what it means.