Assessing Trump's Nightmare Presidency

[Keith&Co.]

The authorization code is... *squints* Delta - Omicron - Neeta - Tango ... uh... Foxtrot - Indigo - Russia - Epsilon.

Hmm... the first letter of those words spell "Don't Fire".

On one of our inspections, they gave us a launch command that had a code Radio couldn't decode. They spent HALF AN HOUR trying to decode the term at the top and bottom of the launch message.
Sierra India Mike Uniform Lima Alpha Tango Echo

But, yeah, the same military that would tell the President that forces are massing on the border and justifying the preemptive strike would be the ones who'd carry out the preemptive strike. There'd be a bit of a 'in response to WHAT threat, sir? Show me on the map....'

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not really.

It may seem like I want to argue semantics, but that isn't the case. How Milley "was trained" is that, by inviolable rule, civilian control of the military includes the sole discretion to authorize strikes with nuclear weapons. The military--even as high up as Gen Milley, the Chairman of the JCS, serves as advisors. And advisors only.




And if on January 6th, for whatever reason, Trump had decided to strike (say, Iran) with nuclear weapons, his order to do so would not necessarily have been an unlawful order. Doubtlessly, he'd have been advised not to by every level of the Command Authority--military and civilian, but...it is both a blessing and a curse of our system that this awesome level of responsibility is given to our Commander-In-Chief. (And it was one of THE biggest reasons why Trump should have never been elected President, but...here we are.)

If he had appeared to be in control of his faculties (and, yeah, I know, insert joke here) but, seriously, if he gave the order at any point in his presidency, those orders would have been carried out. Don't kid yourself that they wouldn't have been, just because Trump was acting like an ass.
(and, FWIW, I consider that one of the least-understood, under-appreciated aspects of just how dangerous it was to have that clown in the Oval Office.)

That's all he was doing. He was protecting and defending the constitution, not blindly following orders from Orange. I don't think a hearing on the issue will be that revealing. His actions as described would constitute proper behavior, not blind obedience.

It's FAR from being that cut and dried, and so completely obvious that Milley was on firm ground to do what he did. At this point I feel almost compelled to repeat that I'm personally GLAD he at least tried to install a measure of adult sanity into what could've gone very sideways very quickly.

But, no, strictly speaking, his actions were NOT proper behavior. The Chairman of the JCS is not a "decider" on the decision tree to use nuclear weapons, he (or she) is an "advisor."

Milley is exposed in a bit of grey-area, here--again, which he doubtless knows, and accepts, and would do it that way again. But, to be clear, he most certainly was not simply following the rule book here.

I don't want another Godwin award here, I've got enough already.

But you seem to be saying there is no difference between the authority and power that Hitler had and the authority and power that Orange had. Is that correct? Forget elections, democracy, dictatorships, politics and all that. What exactly would be the difference between how those two men's "attack" or "launch" orders would be received and carried out?

I had plenty of conversations with friends who actually worried that Orange would go full retard and that the military would simply follow any and all orders. I told them that's not how it works. But you seem to think that's exactly how it does work. Do you have experience like Keith&Co.'s?

My experience with an RA commission only lasted six years but we did receive training on what constituted lawful orders.

 

[Keith&Co.]

IIRC, LoAmmo was Artillery.
So, probably very similar lectures.

I wasn't going by my experience, really, i was never qwite in the circle of people that would have been Nuremburgified.

-except-

I certainly read the news articles when the Nuke War officer explained the safeties in place, and they made sense based on my experiences.

 

[funinspace]

Official Officer Ignorance

IIRC, LoAmmo was Artillery.
So, probably very similar lectures.

I wasn't going by my experience, really, i was never qwite in the circle of people that would have been Nuremburgified.

-except-

I certainly read the news articles when the Nuke War officer explained the safeties in place, and they made sense based on my experiences.

Kind of reminds me of the USS SorrySara exercise blasting a hole in a Turkish ship with the Sea Sparrow (NSSMS) some 3 decades ago, proving the oft laughed at Surface Mode to be fully functional.
TAO: Prepare to fire missile on target
Enlisted FC: Arm and Tune missile
TAO: Launch missile
Enlisted FC: Sir, are you ordering the firing of a live missile?
TAO: Fire the fucking missile (colorful language mine)
....boom...4 dead Turks...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Enlisted FC: Sir, are you ordering the firing of a live missile?
TAO: Fire the fucking missile (colorful language mine)
....boom...4 dead Turks...

John Larroquette, Stripes, 1981

Captain Stillman : Soldier, the army has spent a lot of money teaching you to fire that thing. Now set it and fire it.
Soldier with Mortar : Sir, we don't know where the shell's gonna...
Captain Stillman : Soldier. The only way to learn anything is to do it. Now fire the weapon.

 

[LoAmmo]

I don't want another Godwin award here, I've got enough already.

But you seem to be saying there is no difference between the authority and power that Hitler had and the authority and power that Orange had. Is that correct? Forget elections, democracy, dictatorships, politics and all that. What exactly would be the difference between how those two men's "attack" or "launch" orders would be received and carried out?

Not saying anything about Hitler at all. (Other than, I think I said earlier that I thought Trump's presidency probably represented the single biggest existential threat to America since, probably, Hitler's Germany of World War Two.)

I had plenty of conversations with friends who actually worried that Orange would go full retard and that the military would simply follow any and all orders. I told them that's not how it works. But you seem to think that's exactly how it does work. Do you have experience like Keith&Co.'s?

I have different experience than Keith. I was an Air Force nuclear weapons officer and spent almost my entire time in Strategic Air Command. The one who owned all the ICBM's and the manned nuclear bombers like the B-52 and B-1B. I have deep and extensive experience with nuclear weapons, including gravity bombs, ICBMs, and nuclear cruise missiles, at both the unit and command level. I actually taught, in a classroom setting, nuclear procedures, including National Command Authority procedures, the custody chain of nuclear weapons, SIOP (and non-SIOP) options for the President. Held two specialized security clearances in addition to Top Secret: CNWDI and SCI. I literally wrote the test used throughout SAC to initially certify (and update as refresher training annually) understanding of the Nuclear Surety Procedures (including the National Command Authority component, which is what we're talking about here.) I worked with the DIA on nuclear-related matters, reviewed/approved SAC's regulations for ICPN (Integrated Combat Procedures Nuclear), it really goes on and on but, in short, it's not that "I seem to think that's exactly how it does work."

It's that I know exactly how the fuck it does work.

But, this is the internet, and no one ever has to be wrong. Which is fine with me.

I never said the President has the capability to launch a nuclear strike unilaterally, which *seems* to maybe be the tripping point for some here (?) To be sure, the President can't open the lower left desk drawer, push a big red button, and send ICBMs into Moscow. Or anywhere.

BUT

he by definition retains the ability to, all on his own, DECIDE he wants to do a nuclear strike, and initiate sequences that cause other people to start doing the things that result in a nuclear strike being carried out. As long as it's not a clearly illegal war order, the military will carry it out, and if you don't think so, you're very simply wrong about that.

If it's illegal, and believe me, this is something officers in SAC constantly talked about and were very aware of, the orders would be subverted. At the very LEAST they would be subject to additional layers of review and consent, depending on the tactical situation being faced, and (hopefully) cooler heads would prevail.

But that isn't what Gen Milley did. At all. And if you don't understand that, it isn't my problem. (I don't mean "you, Moogly," I mean, "you, reader."
What Milley did was attempt to say, "Check with me if Trump decides to toss a nuke." Trump was never under any obligation to "check with Milley" and Milley knows this. Milley is a country mile out of bounds here. For some reasons I've stated, and some I haven't.

Put it this way: IF Trump had initiated an EWO strike order, and wasn't clearly/visibly drunk, or under the influence of drugs, for example, Gen Milley could have (and would have) said, "Mr. President, I don't concur with this, we can't do this because of a, b, c, d, and part of e."

What many of you don't seem to want to believe is that, in that scenario, Trump could politely thank the nice General for his views, completely disregard his advice, and issue a valid strike order through the NCA. You're kidding yourselves--and I get why, and you're not alone, probably as a result of one too many movies that are long on drama and short on actual policies. It's scary, but, by design, there are no real safeguards on the President's use of nuclear weapons (again, save them being obviously unlawful.) If Trump had said, "I want Tehran wiped off the map, because, um, stolen election!" he would have received pushback, obviously. That probably constitutes an unlawful order. (Especially in the absence of, in this case, an Iranian launch inbound, or some other dangerous act of war.)

But the system places ALMOST unfettered capability on a sitting President to unleash a nuclear war. That...is just a fact.
(And, if I was forced to give Trump credit for ONE single thing he did in four years of clown show, it would be, "Not nuking anybody."

Because he sure as fuck could have.

 

[ideologyhunter]

His crazy war of words with "Rocket Man" could have led to an exchange of nukes. No one to this day knows how stable Kim is -- and Trump, like the juvenile he is, egged the situation to the max. (He also repeatedly told his inner circle that he wanted to pull service spouses and families out of South Korea, which would have looked to the North like an acceleration to full-out war.) Trump lacks the brains and judgment to run the country, and beyond question if he got in again he'd surround himself from the start with sycophants who wouldn't challenge any of his irresponsible, brainless impulses.

 

[funinspace]

What many of you don't seem to want to believe is that, in that scenario, Trump could politely thank the nice General for his views, completely disregard his advice, and issue a valid strike order through the NCA. You're kidding yourselves--and I get why, and you're not alone, probably as a result of one too many movies that are long on drama and short on actual policies. It's scary, but, by design, there are no real safeguards on the President's use of nuclear weapons (again, save them being obviously unlawful.) If Trump had said, "I want Tehran wiped off the map, because, um, stolen election!" he would have received pushback, obviously. That probably constitutes an unlawful order. (Especially in the absence of, in this case, an Iranian launch inbound, or some other dangerous act of war.)

But the system places ALMOST unfettered capability on a sitting President to unleash a nuclear war. That...is just a fact.
(And, if I was forced to give Trump credit for ONE single thing he did in four years of clown show, it would be, "Not nuking anybody."

Because he sure as fuck could have.

Not that I know enough, but using your example of Iran, I'd hope the generals/admirals would consider nuking Iran (1,3,5 nuke, don't care) to be a crime against humanity and hopefully unlawful. I don't care if Iran just managed to kill 100 US soldiers in Iraq or such. That would be insane, and added grounds to consider FFvC qualifying for the funny farm. Keep resigning ones commission if nothing else...

IMPOV, any such first strike on a truly non threating capable (WMD) nation, should be outlawed w/o further consent within our body politic, giving our generals legal wiggle room...oh never mind with our batch of Congressional Critters...

 

[LoAmmo]

His crazy war of words with "Rocket Man" could have led to an exchange of nukes. No one to this day knows how stable Kim is -- and Trump, like the juvenile he is, egged the situation to the max. (He also repeatedly told his inner circle that he wanted to pull service spouses and families out of South Korea, which would have looked to the North like an acceleration to full-out war.) Trump lacks the brains and judgment to run the country, and beyond question if he got in again he'd surround himself from the start with sycophants who wouldn't challenge any of his irresponsible, brainless impulses.

The best way (IF there was sufficient warning time to get everybody on board to execute it,) would have been (should have been) to exercise the 25th Amendment.

That would've (ostensibly) put Pence and a consensus more or less competent adults in charge of the nuclear keys.

 

[LoAmmo]

What many of you don't seem to want to believe is that, in that scenario, Trump could politely thank the nice General for his views, completely disregard his advice, and issue a valid strike order through the NCA. You're kidding yourselves--and I get why, and you're not alone, probably as a result of one too many movies that are long on drama and short on actual policies. It's scary, but, by design, there are no real safeguards on the President's use of nuclear weapons (again, save them being obviously unlawful.) If Trump had said, "I want Tehran wiped off the map, because, um, stolen election!" he would have received pushback, obviously. That probably constitutes an unlawful order. (Especially in the absence of, in this case, an Iranian launch inbound, or some other dangerous act of war.)

But the system places ALMOST unfettered capability on a sitting President to unleash a nuclear war. That...is just a fact.
(And, if I was forced to give Trump credit for ONE single thing he did in four years of clown show, it would be, "Not nuking anybody."

Because he sure as fuck could have.

Not that I know enough, but using your example of Iran, I'd hope the generals/admirals would consider nuking Iran (1,3,5 nuke, don't care) to be a crime against humanity and hopefully unlawful. I don't care if Iran just managed to kill 100 US soldiers in Iraq or such. That would be insane, and added grounds to consider FFvC qualifying for the funny farm. Keep resigning ones commission if nothing else...

IMPOV, any such first strike on a truly non threating capable (WMD) nation, should be outlawed w/o further consent within our body politic, giving our generals legal wiggle room...oh never mind with our batch of Congressional Critters...

Yes--the Generals and Admirals in that scenario would almost undoubtedly counter Trump with what's called the Proportionality argument. (Nuking Tehran would be so crazily disproportionately severe compared to [whatever bad thing the Iranians did].

But here's the biggest single problem with that, funinspace: the short version is: our system, again with intentionality and by design, is, really, really, really built for speed.

Everyone's heard of "the Football" and has a general idea what's in it. Aside from some authentification goodies, there is a literal book in there (used to be a binder, no idea if that's changed) that contains a multitude of strike options that are, and this is the key bit:

Pre-reviewed and approved by military operators, the respective Chiefs of Staff, STRATCOM Commander, etc...AND, importantly: legal.
That's right--legal scholars who've reviewed the options in that book through a lens of treaty agreements, international law, and...whatever else legal, I guess. (That part wasn't my concern--my contributions were on the operations end.)

My only point is that those SIOP options (SIOP= "Single Integrated Operational Plan") in the book, are, by definition, legal. And believe me, there's a ton of them. If Trump picked from that menu, I guarantee you a nuclear strike would follow, in short order, and I know how.

There also exists a thing called, wait for it, NON-SIOP options, which I am not going to talk about, but from the name you can probably infer
that, if anything, it (potentially) gives a President additional flexibility.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't want another Godwin award here, I've got enough already.

But you seem to be saying there is no difference between the authority and power that Hitler had and the authority and power that Orange had. Is that correct? Forget elections, democracy, dictatorships, politics and all that. What exactly would be the difference between how those two men's "attack" or "launch" orders would be received and carried out?

Not saying anything about Hitler at all. (Other than, I think I said earlier that I thought Trump's presidency probably represented the single biggest existential threat to America since, probably, Hitler's Germany of World War Two.)

I had plenty of conversations with friends who actually worried that Orange would go full retard and that the military would simply follow any and all orders. I told them that's not how it works. But you seem to think that's exactly how it does work. Do you have experience like Keith&Co.'s?

I have different experience than Keith. I was an Air Force nuclear weapons officer and spent almost my entire time in Strategic Air Command. The one who owned all the ICBM's and the manned nuclear bombers like the B-52 and B-1B. I have deep and extensive experience with nuclear weapons, including gravity bombs, ICBMs, and nuclear cruise missiles, at both the unit and command level. I actually taught, in a classroom setting, nuclear procedures, including National Command Authority procedures, the custody chain of nuclear weapons, SIOP (and non-SIOP) options for the President. Held two specialized security clearances in addition to Top Secret: CNWDI and SCI. I literally wrote the test used throughout SAC to initially certify (and update as refresher training annually) understanding of the Nuclear Surety Procedures (including the National Command Authority component, which is what we're talking about here.) I worked with the DIA on nuclear-related matters, reviewed/approved SAC's regulations for ICPN (Integrated Combat Procedures Nuclear), it really goes on and on but, in short, it's not that "I seem to think that's exactly how it does work."

Crap. Are you the guy that came up with the Intent Word?

 

[LoAmmo]

That absolutely, positively, wasn't me. :-D

 

[Keith&Co.]

That absolutely, positively, wasn't me. :-D

Okay....GOD i hate the IWA.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IIRC, LoAmmo was Artillery.
So, probably very similar lectures.

I wasn't going by my experience, really, i was never qwite in the circle of people that would have been Nuremburgified.

-except-

I certainly read the news articles when the Nuke War officer explained the safeties in place, and they made sense based on my experiences.

Kind of reminds me of the USS SorrySara exercise blasting a hole in a Turkish ship with the Sea Sparrow (NSSMS) some 3 decades ago, proving the oft laughed at Surface Mode to be fully functional.
TAO: Prepare to fire missile on target
Enlisted FC: Arm and Tune missile
TAO: Launch missile
Enlisted FC: Sir, are you ordering the firing of a live missile?
TAO: Fire the fucking missile (colorful language mine)
....boom...4 dead Turks...

Note that the hit didn't do all that much--yes, they can engage a surface target, doesn't mean they can stop it.

 

[Swammerdami]

The rules of boxing prohibit a punch to the testicles, bu they don't actually prevent it. You can call the ref, but you're still going to be in much pain.

It's that I know exactly how the fuck it does work.
...
[The President] by definition retains the ability to, all on his own, DECIDE he wants to do a nuclear strike, and initiate sequences that cause other people to start doing the things that result in a nuclear strike being carried out. As long as it's not a clearly illegal war order, the military will carry it out, and if you don't think so, you're very simply wrong about that.

You probably know the answer to a question I've been curious about.

How many officers and soldiers would be involved with implementing an order to, say, launch an armed ICBM at Teheran? Of that number, how large a subset would need to resist the order to prevent the launching? (Never mind whether any actually would resist the order, but in a hypothetical how much resistance would it take to stop the launch?)

ETA: For that matter, consider the OPPOSITE question. How many would it take to launch an armed ICBM without Presidential authorization? (I suppose at least one would need to be involved with the procedure that creates and disseminates launch codes.)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The rules of boxing prohibit a punch to the testicles, bu they don't actually prevent it. You can call the ref, but you're still going to be in much pain.

It's that I know exactly how the fuck it does work.
...
[The President] by definition retains the ability to, all on his own, DECIDE he wants to do a nuclear strike, and initiate sequences that cause other people to start doing the things that result in a nuclear strike being carried out. As long as it's not a clearly illegal war order, the military will carry it out, and if you don't think so, you're very simply wrong about that.

You probably know the answer to a question I've been curious about.

How many officers and soldiers would be involved with implementing an order to, say, launch an armed ICBM at Teheran? Of that number, how large a subset would need to resist the order to prevent the launching? (Never mind whether any actually would resist the order, but in a hypothetical how much resistance would it take to stop the launch?)

ETA: For that matter, consider the OPPOSITE question. How many would it take to launch an armed ICBM without Presidential authorization? (I suppose at least one would need to be involved with the procedure that creates and disseminates launch codes.)

"As long as it's not a clearly illegal war order."

The actual nightmare isn't that one person retains such power but rather that enough people would sign off on its execution to allow it to happen. I submit that it isn't myself but rather LoAmmo and others that have watched too many movies.

Is Orange unhinged? Definitely. Are there enough people in the chain equally unhinged to allow such a catastrophe? Definitely not. The classic case is the Cuban missile crisis. Absent Kennedy's presence we may have experienced a nuclear exchange if the Hawks at the time had had their way. But they didn't have their way.

It's even debatable whether Hitler would have used nuclear weapons had he possessed them. I'm certainly glad we didn't have to find out.

 

[Elixir]

His crazy war of words with "Rocket Man" could have led to an exchange of nukes. No one to this day knows how stable Kim is -- and Trump, like the juvenile he is, egged the situation to the max. (He also repeatedly told his inner circle that he wanted to pull service spouses and families out of South Korea, which would have looked to the North like an acceleration to full-out war.) Trump lacks the brains and judgment to run the country, and beyond question if he got in again he'd surround himself from the start with sycophants who wouldn't challenge any of his irresponsible, brainless impulses.

The best way (IF there was sufficient warning time to get everybody on board to execute it,) would have been (should have been) to exercise the 25th Amendment.

That would've (ostensibly) put Pence and a consensus more or less competent adults in charge of the nuclear keys.

Oh shit. God only knows what God might have whispered in Pence's ear...
IMO, the only thing worse than an emotional incompetent atheist moron like Trump would be a fervent religious twat like Pence.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Trump isn't an atheist. He worships the True GOD, the Orangeness, which consists of a Trinity: fat orange ass, scanty orange junk, moldy orange combover. (Seriously, Trump lacks the smarts and especially the versatility with philosophic concepts to be an atheist. Anarchist maybe, like many an infant is an instinctive anarchist.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump isn't an atheist. He worships the True GOD, the Orangeness, which consists of a Trinity: fat orange ass, scanty orange junk, moldy orange combover. (Seriously, Trump lacks the smarts and especially the versatility with philosophic concepts to be an atheist. Anarchist maybe, like many an infant is an instinctive anarchist.)

I think Trump's ideology is more like Winston's reply at his Ghostbuster's application: Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

Sort of a highest-bidder-theism.

 

[TomC]

Trump isn't an atheist. He worships the True GOD, the Orangeness, which consists of a Trinity: fat orange ass, scanty orange junk, moldy orange combover. (Seriously, Trump lacks the smarts and especially the versatility with philosophic concepts to be an atheist. Anarchist maybe, like many an infant is an instinctive anarchist.)

I see him as The High Priest of Mammon.

Mammon is the God of Wealth and Sex and conspicuous consumption and public adulation and earthly power. He has been his whole life.

How he managed to rebrand himself as a conservative Christian I don't understand. But he did. The guy is brilliant, at least in some ways.
Tom