Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused

Potus is not in the officer oath. No one or official is in the military officer oath.

The officer oath is directly to the Constitution, i.e., The People. The proscribed oath originated with George Washington who was motivated to protect the republic against a tyrant sovereign ruler. Washington did not mention Caligula but in the present time and circumstance Caligula comes immediately to mind.



Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused






National Security
Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.


Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.5402ac826635


Better never than late or too late.

Tangmo said:

Potus is not in the officer oath. No one or official is in the military officer oath.

The officer oath is directly to the Constitution, i.e., The People. The proscribed oath originated with George Washington who was motivated to protect the republic against a tyrant sovereign ruler. Washington did not mention Caligula but in the present time and circumstance Caligula comes immediately to mind.



Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused






National Security
Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.


Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.5402ac826635


Better never than late or too late.

Click to expand...

If it can be refused, we must change it. It is a political call to say, what is proportional.

Claude selected the wrong profession.

We attacked Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. and they are/were all illegal. I don't think there can be a single collective conscience among the entire Command level Offiere Corps. Any of those could and should have been refused.
.

Just more of we are really, really pissed off, mad, upset, disappointed, unhappy, disturbed, unsettled, crazed, berserk, frantic about
Donald Trump winning the election!

Of course they can refuse. That's never really been a question, or should be a question. A member of the military may always refuse what they think is an unlawful order.

Here's the flip side of that issue though.

They can be removed from their position and someone new ordered to do the same thing if they do that. AND, if it's found that the order was NOT unlawful, then they can find themselves suffering the punishment for refusing a direct order from a superior.

So basically it creates a system and situation where they should not be disobeying an order unless they are absolutely positive doing so is illegal and unconstitutional.

Tangmo said:

Potus is not in the officer oath. No one or official is in the military officer oath.

The officer oath is directly to the Constitution, i.e., The People. The proscribed oath originated with George Washington who was motivated to protect the republic against a tyrant sovereign ruler. Washington did not mention Caligula but in the present time and circumstance Caligula comes immediately to mind.



Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused






National Security
Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.


Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.5402ac826635


Better never than late or too late.

Click to expand...

*sigh*


Officers are commissioned under the authority of the POTUS with advice and consent of the senate.

Tangmo said:

Potus is not in the officer oath. No one or official is in the military officer oath.

The officer oath is directly to the Constitution, i.e., The People. The proscribed oath originated with George Washington who was motivated to protect the republic against a tyrant sovereign ruler. Washington did not mention Caligula but in the present time and circumstance Caligula comes immediately to mind.



Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused






National Security
Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.


Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.5402ac826635


Better never than late or too late.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump starts WWIII on twitter. This is probably the reason for all these exceptions to the standard talking point that the President has access to the launch codes.

Tangmo said:

Potus is not in the officer oath. No one or official is in the military officer oath.

The officer oath is directly to the Constitution, i.e., The People. The proscribed oath originated with George Washington who was motivated to protect the republic against a tyrant sovereign ruler. Washington did not mention Caligula but in the present time and circumstance Caligula comes immediately to mind.



Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused






National Security
Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.


Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.5402ac826635


Better never than late or too late.

Click to expand...

Strange to my knowledge this hasn't come up until Trump became president. This makes me wonder if all of this isn't politically motivated as the Democrats set out to destroy Trump the day after the election. Of course Trump has given them a helping hand in some of his foot in mouth disease and a persona that sucks to a majority of Americans.

Most folks in the military are apolitical or non-political and concentrate on doing their jobs. Us retired military are far more political than those on active duty. With an all volunteer force, those who do go into the military do so because they think it is very important to protect and defend this country. If the order came down to launch, with the proper authentication I don't think many, if any would question that. They would do their job. It's all part of the training, to get the authentication and to act fast. They have no idea that it may be just seconds before they themselves are blown away and a bit of hesitation may be all that.

Who is president, CINC, means little to nothing to most. Doing their job means everything. Having said all of this, personally I didn't think either Trump or Clinton belonged within a million miles of the Oval Office. That when it comes to the nuclear codes, that I trust or distrust Trump about as much as I would trust or distrust Hillary Clinton. Two peas in a pod are those two when it comes to distrust by a vast majority of Americans.

Perotista said:

Strange to my knowledge this hasn't come up until Trump became president. This makes me wonder if all of this isn't politically motivated as the Democrats set out to destroy Trump the day after the election. Of course Trump has given them a helping hand in some of his foot in mouth disease and a persona that sucks to a majority of Americans.

Most folks in the military are apolitical or non-political and concentrate on doing their jobs. Us retired military are far more political than those on active duty. With an all volunteer force, those who do go into the military do so because they think it is very important to protect and defend this country. If the order came down to launch, with the proper authentication I don't think many, if any would question that. They would do their job. It's all part of the training, to get the authentication and to act fast. They have no idea that it may be just seconds before they themselves are blown away and a bit of hesitation may be all that.

Who is president, CINC, means little to nothing to most. Doing their job means everything. Having said all of this, personally I didn't think either Trump or Clinton belonged within a million miles of the Oval Office. That when it comes to the nuclear codes, that I trust or distrust Trump about as much as I would trust or distrust Hillary Clinton. Two peas in a pod are those two when it comes to distrust by a vast majority of Americans.

Click to expand...

We're talking about four-star command officers at the top of the nuclear chain of command. And the SecDef....


Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, left, is welcomed at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, by Gen. John E. Hyten, the head of the Strategic Command on Thursday, Sept. 14, 2017. Mattis will be receiving classified briefings at StratCom, which will help him in his "nuclear posture review," a top-to-bottom reassessment of U.S. nuclear weapons policy


Defense Secretary James Mattis arrived Thursday morning at Offutt Air Force Base for a day of meetings with senior leaders at U.S. Strategic Command, his first visit to the unit charged with preparing for nuclear war and other large-scale threats.

Mattis greeted StratCom Commander Gen. John Hyten with a warm handshake in the circular drive in front of StratCom headquarters. Neither took questions from reporters. Hyten has known Mattis, who is a retired Marine Corps general, for many years. In an interview last February with The World-Herald, Hyten described Mattis as “larger than life...I like Secretary Mattis,” Hyten said at the time. “I hear from him at least once a week.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis arrives at StratCom; North Korean threat, U.S. nuclear arsenal expected to be discussed | Military | omaha.com

Who knows, the two are probably negating nuclear launch orders given a dozen times already by Caligula, er, Trump. There is anyway every indication from each of 'em they're in this together for better or for worse.



As I was saying, we are talking about the general in the War Room at the Pentagon who gets the confirmation from SecDef that it is Potus initiating the launch order. And the four-star at Strategic Command inside a mountain in Nebraska who gets the code from Potus and the verification transmission from SecDef that it was in fact Potus who initiated the launch code.

The junior officers in the launch rooms of the silos get the launch code and verification it wuz Potus at the same instant as the four-star commander of Strategic Command gets it. The captains and lieutenants are trained and screened to execute the manual launch procedure instantly on receiving the launch code. These officers don't wait to hear anything more from anyone. According to Bruce Blair quoted in the OP and who was a launch silo captain it's six minutes at the most from Potus activating the code to launch. We can recall the bombers in flight but there's no recalling the ICBMs.

Which is why Sen. Corker convened the Foreign Relations Committee of which he is chairman to have the extraordinary hearing reported in the OP. Extraordinary.

Tangmo said:

Potus is not in the officer oath. No one or official is in the military officer oath.

The officer oath is directly to the Constitution, i.e., The People. The proscribed oath originated with George Washington who was motivated to protect the republic against a tyrant sovereign ruler. Washington did not mention Caligula but in the present time and circumstance Caligula comes immediately to mind.



Ex-General: Nuclear Launch Order Can be Refused






National Security
Retired US general says nuclear launch order can be refused

WASHINGTON — A retired Air Force general told the Senate on Tuesday that an order from President Donald Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons can be refused by the top officer at U.S. Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal.

During testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, retired Gen. Robert Kehler said the U.S. armed forces are obligated to follow legal orders, not illegal ones. Kehler, who served as the head of Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013, said the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use. The command would control nuclear forces in a war.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s top ranking Democrat, asked Kehler if that means Strategic Command can deny the president’s order if it fails the test of proportionality and legality.

“Yes,” Kehler responded, adding such a situation would lead to a “very difficult conversation.” It might prompt a president to put a new general in charge to carry out his order, said Brian McKeon, a former acting undersecretary of defense for policy during the Obama administration, who testified alongside Kehler.


Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.

“But it would be too late,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a10ed11ecf5_story.html?utm_term=.5402ac826635


Better never than late or too late.

Click to expand...

This is just more butthurt from Hillary supporters who just cant come to terms with losing a election loss. Unbelievable. The Trump win exposed the childlike mentality of millions of American voters, who for one reason or another thought they were owed a victory.

These are the same people that supported Obama for 8 years, and made excuses for a highly irresponsible foreign policy that destabilized the ME and North Africa and led to a refugee crisis. Now they obsess over Trumps ability and authority to defend the Nation. It was old 6 months ago

Zyphlin said:

Of course they can refuse. That's never really been a question, or should be a question. A member of the military may always refuse what they think is an unlawful order.

Here's the flip side of that issue though.

They can be removed from their position and someone new ordered to do the same thing if they do that. AND, if it's found that the order was NOT unlawful, then they can find themselves suffering the punishment for refusing a direct order from a superior.

So basically it creates a system and situation where they should not be disobeying an order unless they are absolutely positive doing so is illegal and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Deleted by Tangmo.

Fenton said:

This is just more butthurt from Hillary supporters who just cant come to terms with losing a election loss. Unbelievable. The Trump win exposed the childlike mentality of millions of American voters, who for one reason or another thought they were owed a victory.

These are the same people that supported Obama for 8 years, and made excuses for a highly irresponsible foreign policy that destabilized the ME and North Africa and led to a refugee crisis. Now they obsess over Trumps ability and authority to defend the Nation. It was old 6 months ago

Click to expand...

Oh my, it's another sore winner.

Tangmo said:

Oh my, it's another sore winner.

Click to expand...

The sudden concern over exucutive authority is just too transparent not to call BS on

ReverendHellh0und said:

*sigh*


Officers are commissioned under the authority of the POTUS with advice and consent of the senate.

Click to expand...

Cute tweet thx.

Meanwhile....



There is an important difference to understand when reading the Officers' Oath of Enlistment compared to the Oath of Office.

Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.

Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office.”

Why are the two oaths different and what does it mean that officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.

Officers, especially at higher ranks, have a unique position of authority and influence within the organization that could be taken advantage of for political gain. Swearing loyalty to the Constitution instead of the president or any other person means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators.

The intent is to ensure our military fights in defense of the people and their way of life instead of being misused for political gain. Article 90 of the UCMJ allows for legal disobedience of unlawful orders for both enlisted and officers.

The officer’s oath acts as another safeguard against power corruption by not swearing obedience to the president or other officials, but rather to the Constitution. As a result of these two, our military is capable of having people who can correct situations where the military is being misused without fear of punishment for their actions.

The difference between Oath of Office, Oath of Enlistment > Marine Corps Base Quantico > News Article Display


The officer oath is a vow to "We the people." The enlisted oath is to this, that and the other thing....


Enlisted Oath (POTUS & Constitution)

“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.”


Officer Oath (Constitution only)

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _______(branch of service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”


Screw Potus if need be. He could be a tyrant. The officer oath is to the Constitution directly and exclusively. We the people. Potus is head of one branch of the government yet there is equally the head of each of the three branches of the government. Many citizens might be surprised to find out how quickly the chief justice can find a Potus order illegal or unconstitutional when a four-star officer of the armed forces might ring the chief's phone over in the Scotus building.


Military officers take the identical oath taken by the vice president, senators, members of the House, Supreme Court Justices and all judges of the federal judiciary; and by all employees of the Government of the United States and of each state. The only people in the USA who take the Enlisted oath of service are the enlisted personnel of the armed forces, to include of course NCO.

I sure hope it's legal to ignore illegal orders.

Fenton said:

The sudden concern over exucutive authority is just too transparent not to call BS on

Click to expand...

Things did not work out well for the original Caligula or for the republic for a while there until Caligula and his horse consul were disposed of. Two horse's asses dislodged and hauled out through the gate.

Donald Trump faces his exit with far less consequence but with serious and severe consequence nonetheless. When Donald Trump closes the door behind him he can and will take Kelly with him too thx.

Trump is playing chicken with himself but he's driving straight on to right off the proverbial ledge.

Tangmo said:

We're talking about four-star command officers at the top of the nuclear chain of command. And the SecDef....

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, left, is welcomed at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, by Gen. John E. Hyten, the head of the Strategic Command on Thursday, Sept. 14, 2017. Mattis will be receiving classified briefings at StratCom, which will help him in his "nuclear posture review," a top-to-bottom reassessment of U.S. nuclear weapons policy


Defense Secretary James Mattis arrived Thursday morning at Offutt Air Force Base for a day of meetings with senior leaders at U.S. Strategic Command, his first visit to the unit charged with preparing for nuclear war and other large-scale threats.

Mattis greeted StratCom Commander Gen. John Hyten with a warm handshake in the circular drive in front of StratCom headquarters. Neither took questions from reporters. Hyten has known Mattis, who is a retired Marine Corps general, for many years. In an interview last February with The World-Herald, Hyten described Mattis as “larger than life...I like Secretary Mattis,” Hyten said at the time. “I hear from him at least once a week.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis arrives at StratCom; North Korean threat, U.S. nuclear arsenal expected to be discussed | Military | omaha.com

Who knows, the two are probably negating nuclear launch orders given a dozen times already by Caligula, er, Trump. There is anyway every indication from each of 'em they're in this together for better or for worse.



As I was saying, we are talking about the general in the War Room at the Pentagon who gets the confirmation from SecDef that it is Potus initiating the launch order. And the four-star at Strategic Command inside a mountain in Nebraska who gets the code from Potus and the verification transmission from SecDef that it was in fact Potus who initiated the launch code.

The junior officers in the launch rooms of the silos get the launch code and verification it wuz Potus at the same instant as the four-star commander of Strategic Command gets it. The captains and lieutenants are trained and screened to execute the manual launch procedure instantly on receiving the launch code. These officers don't wait to hear anything more from anyone. According to Bruce Blair quoted in the OP and who was a launch silo captain it's six minutes at the most from Potus activating the code to launch. We can recall the bombers in flight but there's no recalling the ICBMs.

Which is why Sen. Corker convened the Foreign Relations Committee of which he is chairman to have the extraordinary hearing reported in the OP. Extraordinary.

Click to expand...

All I know is being part of NRAS if the proper authentication is received, there is no questions asked. Politically, I distrust Trump as much as I distrusted Hillary Clinton. So we have whom we have and what we have as a lot of others were in the same boat as I.

Zyphlin said:

Of course they can refuse. That's never really been a question, or should be a question. A member of the military may always refuse what they think is an unlawful order.

Here's the flip side of that issue though.

They can be removed from their position and someone new ordered to do the same thing if they do that. AND, if it's found that the order was NOT unlawful, then they can find themselves suffering the punishment for refusing a direct order from a superior.

So basically it creates a system and situation where they should not be disobeying an order unless they are absolutely positive doing so is illegal and unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Or they believe that the order-giver (yes I'm going with that) is incompetent mentally or in their ability to make a rational, competent decision at that time (Meaning they may not have all the info, may not have the education or ability or background to correctly assess the information, etc.)

joG said:

If it can be refused, we must change it. It is a political call to say, what is proportional.

Click to expand...

The general refers to the laws of war. He refers to the laws of war the USA has and to which the U.S. subscribes by treaty in numerous instances.

The general is talking about the rule of law rather than the rule of men. Underlying the general's points is the officer oath to the Constitution which is the enduring source of the rule of law. The retired General Kehler is not the only four-star officer of the armed forces to know his oath either, to include both retired and active general officers and admirals.

Trump as Potus has brought focus to what always was, and Trump has ignited precepts that had long been dormant because they had been presumed as either given or commonly understood. Almost all of this is a big shock to the conservatives in the society who'd thought they knew the Constitution and of the relationship between the military and the civilian society.

It is not a matter of the individual or personal conscience of the senior officer, or of his moral opinion. The standard is professionalism, the law, the Constitution. It's all encoded and it is nothing personal on their part. Nothing political either.

Taylor said:

I sure hope it's legal to ignore illegal orders.

Click to expand...

Or more to the point its ILLEGAL to follow them, people have been hanged for doing so. Im amazed this even warrants a thread

A nuclear launch authorization follows the "two man rule". The President and SecDef have to jointly authenticate the launch order. Such an order then goes to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and from there to the US Strategic Command.

If the SecDef refuses to co-authenticate, the president can then fire him/her. The SecDef can agree with the launch decision, but cannot veto a president's launch decision.

However, the Vice President and a Cabinet majority and majority of Congress at the time can declare a president physically/mentally unfit to fulfill his/her duties.

Perotista said:

All I know is being part of NRAS if the proper authentication is received, there is no questions asked. Politically, I distrust Trump as much as I distrusted Hillary Clinton. So we have whom we have and what we have as a lot of others were in the same boat as I.

Click to expand...

Launch can only occur if SecDef confirms it is Potus who activated the launch code. No confirmation by SecDef, no launch. Absent SecDef, Potus would have to find somebody else who is an authorized civilian at the Pentagon. The confirmation protocol is strict and absolute. Nobody does anything without a confirmation by SecDef that it was in fact Potus who activated the launch code that goes directly to the War Room general on duty at the Pentagon. Absent confirmation by SecDef or an authorized alternative official, the launch activation order never gets out of the War Room and nothing moves out there.

SecDef must confirm. Period. After all, it could be Putin activating the launch code of Potus that Putin got by cyber theft, espionage in the White House or by a journal editor who used to work in the White House, or by some other equally imaginable means. Or it could have been stolen by some 400 pound hacker nutcase spread on a cardboard in a basement across from Trump Tower.

Seriously. While only Potus activates his launch code of the day, nothing happens unless and until SecDef transmits confirmation it was Potus himself who activated the code aka: the "biscut." We've never had the situation to our knowledge but who knows, SecDef could be in the shower for an hour or more and not know he needs to confirm it....or be somewhere somehow doing whatever. For some reason. Or purpose.

Yes, if SecDef refuses to confirm then Potus can turn to the authorized chain of command of civilians at the Pentagon -- only. If Potus can't find the SecDef then Potus can wrangle with the authorized Pentagon civilians as he might well have to and by hook or by crook. The argument is that Potus can always find some authorized person, but how long might that take. And what if someone else finds Potus first. The guy is all chaos to begin with and nothing but.

Red_Dave said:

Or more to the point its ILLEGAL to follow them, people have been hanged for doing so. Im amazed this even warrants a thread

Click to expand...

The people that were hanged lost the war, so...

Rogue Valley said:

A nuclear launch authorization follows the "two man rule". The President and SecDef have to jointly authenticate the launch order. Such an order then goes to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and from there to the US Strategic Command.

If the SecDef refuses to co-authenticate, the president can then fire him/her. The SecDef can agree with the launch decision, but cannot veto a president's launch decision.

However, the Vice President and a Cabinet majority and majority of Congress at the time can declare a president physically/mentally unfit to fulfill his/her duties.

Click to expand...

The SECDEF isn't the only member of the cabinet that can co-authorize a launch.