• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War

Status
Not open for further replies.
pinqy said:
In reality, the senior generals get more intel than that provided to the President. If NK was about to launch missiles, the Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon and in major commands would know about it and likely before the President did. Or did you forget that DIA, NSA, and NGA are Dept of Defense agencies?
Click to expand...

CIA intel.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Those bolded "examples" are personal objections which might lead an officer to chose to diobey, but the bolded and underlined one offers a qualification that is key.

Military personnel have both a duty and a right to disobey an illegal order.

Unlawful orders (at least when I was in the service) include those that violate the laws of land warfare, the Geneva Convention, or run contrary to the Constitution.

But even then, all military personnel are subject to criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 90, 91, and 92.

Those are the consequences referred to in the bolded and underlined comment.
Click to expand...


apdst said:
The problem with disobeying sn "unlawful" order is that one better make damn sure he's right when he does so.
Click to expand...


Colonel Milburn in the OP is talking about a discourse well underway in the military about disobeying a legal order.

Such as for instance Trump ordering a nuclear strike.

The thread is about the military refusing to obey a legal order by Potus/CinC.
 
ecofarm said:
CIA intel.
Click to expand...
Is also shared with the other agencies, and, if military specific, with the Pentagon. And HUMINT sources are far slower than the SIGINT of NSA, GEOINT of NGA, and, in the case of missiles, the MASINT of DIA. If anything was actually occurring or prepping to occur, CIA would not be the first to know of the actuality...they would know about early plans.
 
Tangmo said:
Colonel Milburn in the OP is talking about a discourse well underway in the military about disobeying a legal order.

Such as for instance Trump ordering a nuclear strike.

The thread is about the military refusing to obey a legal order by Potus/CinC.
Click to expand...

Milburn is a ****ing idiot, too. Officers have no legal right, nor authority to disobey a lawful order.
 
apdst said:
The problem with the left wing is they think laws can be modified however they choose.
Click to expand...


Conservatives need to know what conserve means...


“For if the king’s cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.”
--- Attributed to a major in Frederick the Great’s German Army.


“The King gave you a commission because he thought you knew when to disobey an order.”
--- Shakespeare's Henry IV




Professional Disobedience: Loyalty and the Military
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2017/8/8/professional-disobedience-loyalty-and-the-military
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
Conservatives need to know what conserve means...


“For if the king’s cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.”
--- Attributed to a major in Frederick the Great’s German Army.


“The King gave you a commission because he thought you knew when to disobey an order.”
--- Shakespeare's Henry IV
Click to expand...

Shakespeare? Really? That's worse than quoting Sun Tsu. :lamo
 
pinqy said:
Is also shared with the other agencies, and, if military specific, with the Pentagon. And HUMINT sources are far slower than the SIGINT of NSA, GEOINT of NGA, and, in the case of missiles, the MASINT of DIA. If anything was actually occurring or prepping to occur, CIA would not be the first to know of the actuality...they would know about early plans.
Click to expand...

Then below general.
 
apdst said:
Milburn is a ****ing idiot, too. Officers have no legal right, nor authority to disobey a lawful order.
Click to expand...

He's not claiming any legal right or authority and specifically stated "accept the consequences." If you are morally opposed to a legal order, you should disobey, and then accept the subsequent Court Martial and punishment. No one is saying that those who disobey a legal order should not be punished for it (unless that's what the court determines)
 
ecofarm said:
Then below general.
Click to expand...

Then that depends on what the collection was and how it was disseminated. Anyone spots anything suggesting an imminent launch of nuclear weapons, then everyone who needs to know, including the President, will know within 15 minutes.
 
pinqy said:
He's not claiming any legal right or authority and specifically stated "accept the consequences." If you are morally opposed to a legal order, you should disobey, and then accept the subsequent Court Martial and punishment. No one is saying that those who disobey a legal order should not be punished for it (unless that's what the court determines)
Click to expand...

The thread title:

"Military Officers Right To Disobey Trump Nuclear Issues & War"
 
pinqy said:
Then that depends on what the collection was and how it was disseminated. Anyone spots anything suggesting an imminent launch of nuclear weapons, then everyone who needs to know, including the President, will know within 15 minutes.
Click to expand...

A sub or other captain wouldn't have direct access to intel required to refuse.
 
One of the only parts of Warrant Officer Candidate School in the Army that I actually enjoyed was the class on lawful vs unlawful orders. It had a very college-like atmosphere and we were all encouraged to be honest. Non-attribution policy in effect. In the end there actually wasn't a solid answer. It will always end up coming down to the individual. You can disobey any order you want to for any reason. But there will be consequences and those consequences could be determined by how a jury of your peers reads the same circumstance.
 
ecofarm said:
A sub or other captain wouldn't have direct access to intel required to refuse.
Click to expand...


We know a captain or a couple of captains (generally speaking) in a USAF silo control center would execute the launch order. Some of 'em might refuse to execute a launch order but all indicators are that very few if any would refuse.

The OP mentioned senior officers and I mentioned general officers and officer admirals. We'd need to include in specific circumstances only the captain of a boomer sub making the decision but doing so based on orders, procedures, SOP and the like. We keep in mind also USN has much or most of the nuclear arsenal and its delivery systems (missiles).

The OP spent a lot of energy talking about "officers" and the "officer" commission charge, the "officer" oath and "officer" this and that. So one can see how the focus on general officers and officer admirals, the c.o. of a boomer etc could get clouded by the OP itself.

So it isn't just "officers" but rather and in fact senior officers of flag rank along with some other senior commanders below flag rank, such as a USN captain or even a USN commander.

The OP does in fact focus on flag officers rather than "officers" as in any of 'em or even all of 'em. Not all officers and certainly few only below the rank/grade of O-4 or O-5. So the OP speaks exclusively of the most senior officers at grade of O-7 but higher yet (to include the O-6 officers in command of certain nuclear weapons systems).

It's about senior flag officers who advise Potus, SecDef etc and/or are in command of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
 
Last edited:
CMPancake said:
For better or for worse, Trump is at least lucid enough to know to defer judgement of military actions to the SecDef, and Joint Chiefs. They would advise what to do, and Trump would use his authority to perform actions.
Click to expand...

We hope.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
One of the only parts of Warrant Officer Candidate School in the Army that I actually enjoyed was the class on lawful vs unlawful orders. It had a very college-like atmosphere and we were all encouraged to be honest. Non-attribution policy in effect. In the end there actually wasn't a solid answer. It will always end up coming down to the individual. You can disobey any order you want to for any reason. But there will be consequences and those consequences could be determined by how a jury of your peers reads the same circumstance.
Click to expand...


OP and the entire school of thought focuses on officers refusing a legal order without consequence. With praise in fact.

The movement that's been underway in the military and in segments of the civilian society is that it is the professional duty and responsibility of the officer to refuse a legal order. That an officer (only) refusing a legal order would be predicated in professionalism, and that refusing a legal order needs to be recognized and accepted as such.

So this includes lawful as well as unlawful orders. That the UCMJ be changed and changed radically is a good factor to use in pointing out the OP's thesis, which is held my many others in the military and outside of it.

By way of a further illustration, that it needs to be normalized and legal for a senior military commander to say no to a Potus Trump if Trump orders a nuclear launch. This would include officers down the chain of command who would execute only. That saying no would be legal, proper, honored.

No ambiguity, no stigma, not busted; no career drama. The professional norm.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
A USMC active duty Colonel argues in the official journal of the National Defense University that officers have the moral duty and the obligation by their commission and their oath to disobey a legal order from the President/Commander in Chief.

USMC Special Operations Commander Colonel Andrew L. Milburn argued in the journal that...


A survey conducted among students at the Marine Corps War College (MCWAR) in January 2010 represents a cross section of 20 senior field-grade officers from all Services and two foreign countries. Without exception, they agreed that there are circumstances under which they would disobey a lawful order. Their criteria vary little, as these excerpts illustrate:

* "If the officer cannot live with obeying the order, then he must disobey and accept the consequences."
* "When I cannot look at myself in the mirror afterwards."
* "When I deem the order to be immoral."
* "When it is going to lead to mission failure."
* "When it will get someone injured or killed needlessly."
* "When it will cause military or institutional disaster."

These comments reflect the view that the military professional has moral obligations more fundamental than obedience and loyalty to their leaders, civilian or military. Myers and Kohn imply that the term moral is too subjective to be defendable. However, I argue that the military profession is founded on clearly defined moral principles.

I use the term military professional to apply to military officers. I make this distinction based on the nature of the officer's professional military education, which focuses on developing an abstract body of knowledge; his code of ethics, which reflect the "special trust and confidence" conferred on him by the President and Congress in his commission; and his oath of office, which differs in an important aspect from the enlisted oath. These defining characteristics of the military profession impose on him obligations beyond obedience.

https://www.army.mil/article/47175/breaking-ranks-dissent-and-the-military-professional/


Colonel Milburn earned a B.A. in Philosophy from London University and a law degree from Polytechnic of Central London. He enlisted in USMC in 1987.

Colonel Milurn's philosophy of civilian-military relations would indicate the U.S. military would be justified to refuse an order by Potus Trump to initiate "first use" of nuclear weapons. While the U.S. does maintain its policy of executing a first use ("all options are on the table"), it likely would be a bad idea for a Potus Trump to be the first to implement the first use policy (since 1945).

Ne c'est pas?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine a civilian such as yourself would find this to be a valid discussion.

Here's the, for someone given that order, you have to carry it out. You don't know if the CinC has direct information that dictated this, say we KNEW without a doubt that in 41 minutes, NK was going to launch a nuclear strike. If you refuse, you will be responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of Americans.

See, I just made this whole theory game, poppycock. This is one example, I can do this all day.
 
Renae said:
I'd imagine a civilian such as yourself would find this to be a valid discussion.

Here's the, for someone given that order, you have to carry it out. You don't know if the CinC has direct information that dictated this, say we KNEW without a doubt that in 41 minutes, NK was going to launch a nuclear strike. If you refuse, you will be responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS of Americans.

See, I just made this whole theory game, poppycock. This is one example, I can do this all day.
Click to expand...


Doing it every day all day would be up to you to decide on.

Under the thesis of the OP and the entire body of advocates, refusing a legal order is not automatic. It should be rare and thoroughly considered and respected, accepted -- the norm.

Plus we're already into discussion of who has what intelligence information and situational awareness in the decision making.
 
Last edited:
ThoughtEx. said:
Intelligence services could explain everything to him in intricate detail, doesn't mean he understands or knows it once they are done. They literally have to give him summaries with his name in each paragraph just to make sure he reads the whole page. It's not intelligence's failures he's literally to stupid to read one page.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to write "too" stupid.
 
apdst said:
Milburn is a ****ing idiot, too. Officers have no legal right, nor authority to disobey a lawful order.
Click to expand...



The military oath of office is different for enlisted and commissioned officers.

Enlisted servicemembers swear allegiance to Potus and the Constitution.

Officers do not swear allegiance to Potus – as a safeguard against a usurper commander-in-chief. They swear allegiance only to the Constitution.


The oath requires officers to support and defend the Constitution - not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. Yet, at the same time, the Constitution symbolizes the president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more. The preamble to the Constitution succinctly highlights the ideals represented by that document. 20

Because the Constitution was built on a series of checks and balances that distribute power across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, commissioned officers of the armed forces must give their allegiance to all three entities - despite the fact that the chain of command leads to the President. 21


The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

Oath of Enlistment (Enlisted Personnel)
"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).


Kindly note the differences I have highlighted in bold font.


Oath of Office (Officer)
"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 and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation 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."
(Title 5 U.S. Code)



Oath of Enlistment and Oath of Office for Officers enacted in 1789 by the 1st Congress, 1st Session. Statute 1:


Enlisted Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of officers appointed over me. (Chapter 25)


Officer Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States. (Chapter 1)


The very first law of the United States identified the requirement for government officials to take an oath or affirmation according to Article 6 of the Constitution.


Commissioned officers in the armed forces take the identical oath as do the vice-president, all U.S. Senators, all U.S. House Members, all Justices of the Supreme Court, and all judges of the federal judiciary. All of 'em have a direct, equal and straight line to the Constitution. As the Founders expressly stated, this is to protect against a usurper president.

Until now we did not know how to spell the usurper's name. But now we do know the spelling of it.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
Colonel Milburn in the OP is talking about a discourse well underway in the military about disobeying a legal order.

Such as for instance Trump ordering a nuclear strike.

The thread is about the military refusing to obey a legal order by Potus/CinC.
Click to expand...

THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL TO DISOBEY A LEGAL ORDER! That's mutiny and possibly treason.

Your only option if your "personal conscience" makes you feel that you might be getting LEGAL orders you don't wish to follow? Resign your commission and become a political commentator. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Disobeying would be stupid. An officer, even a general, is not privy to all the intelligence provided to the President. For all the officer knows, NK is about to launch nukes.

The officer balks, NK launches nukes which could have been prevented, the officer is instantly one of the worst people to ever exist.
Click to expand...

In all fairness being that our president doesn't read, he isn't privy to much of the intelligence provided to him.
 
Captain Adverse said:
THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL TO DISOBEY A LEGAL ORDER!

Your only option if your "personal conscience" makes you feel that you might be getting LEGAL orders you don't wish to follow? Resign your commission and become a political commentator. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...


Thank you for stating the obvious.

There are in fact no grounds. There never have been any grounds. Zero and zero. Everyone knows this.

Change is afoot however.

The movement in both the military and in the civilian society to affect the change is recent in history. It precedes the Potus Trump. The one thing we do know is that youse will have to stay in this fight and you'll have to stay in the fight to the bitter end.

A change will need to occur because the military is opposed to being sent out to do stupid and lethal things. Trump is but a new factor with his nuclear brain that he sits on in the Oval Office.
 
Tangmo said:
Doing it every day all day would be up to you to decide on.

Under the thesis of the OP and the entire body of advocates, refusing a legal order is not automatic. It should be rare and thoroughly considered and respected, accepted -- the norm.

Plus we're already into discussion of who has what intelligence information and situational awareness in the decision making.
Click to expand...

The Generals don't push the buttons. So yes, perhaps a General could when told to order a strike at that moment say directly to the the President, "Mr. President, I do not concur" and face the wrath and ruin that would follow. But anyone down chain? No intel, can't see, refusing to fire could be disastrous.
 
Tangmo said:
The military oath of office is different for enlisted and commissioned officers.

Enlisted servicemembers swear allegiance to Potus and the Constitution.

Officers do not swear allegiance to Potus – as a safeguard against a usurper commander-in-chief. They swear allegiance only to the Constitution.


The oath requires officers to support and defend the Constitution - not the president, not the country, not the flag, and not a particular military service. Yet, at the same time, the Constitution symbolizes the president, the country, the flag, the military, and much more. The preamble to the Constitution succinctly highlights the ideals represented by that document. 20

Because the Constitution was built on a series of checks and balances that distribute power across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, commissioned officers of the armed forces must give their allegiance to all three entities - despite the fact that the chain of command leads to the President. 21


The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

Oath of Enlistment (Enlisted Personnel)
"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).


Kindly note the differences I have highlighted in bold font.


Oath of Office (Officer)
"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 and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation 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."
(Title 5 U.S. Code)



Oath of Enlistment and Oath of Office for Officers enacted in 1789 by the 1st Congress, 1st Session. Statute 1:


Enlisted Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of officers appointed over me. (Chapter 25)


Officer Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States. (Chapter 1)


The very first law of the United States identified the requirement for government officials to take an oath or affirmation according to Article 6 of the Constitution.


Commissioned officers in the armed forces take the identical oath as do the vice-president, all U.S. Senators, all U.S. House Members, all Justices of the Supreme Court, and all judges of the federal judiciary. All of 'em have a direct, equal and straight line to the Constitution. As the Founders expressly stated, this is to protect against a usurper president.

Until now we did not know how to spell the usurper's name. But now we do know the spelling of it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the Constitution gave orders. The Chain of Command starts with the CinC, and ends, do you know where the Chain of Command ends?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom