From all of the reporting I have heard and read, the issue is actually Trump's 'ignorance' about the purpose of the US nuclear arsenal.
Ok, that right there is the problem. You are relying on some idiot "journalist" who thinks they know how the use of nuclear weapons would process. The President, does not have initial use authorization. He can't even make the call to use them without some serious mitigation not only in Congress but with the military chain of command that is on the ground in the area (all the way down to Platoon Leaders). The US will not use nuclear weapons first. That is something that come about after WWII.
Recommend you do the research the "journalist" wont do and find out the doctrine and reporting requirements for the use of US nuclear munitions. Also with that I'd recommend you look at what weapon systems can fire them. You'd be surprised to find out that they could be as close to your house as the local Reserve / National Guard post.
He can't even make the call to use them without some serious mitigation not only in Congress but with the military chain of command that is on the ground in the area (all the way down to Platoon Leaders).
So please explain exactly what authority or power the Congress or the military chain of command has to MITIGATE the POTUS' use of nuclear weapons.
Recommend you do the research the "journalist" wont do and find out the doctrine and reporting requirements for the use of US nuclear munitions.
Did the US sign onto a 'No first use doctrine' while I wasn't looking? It's well known that 'all things Obama' an now null and void, so any and every 'promise' the US made before Jan. 2017 is moot. Since Trump's 'position' is liquid, though it will undoubtedly usurp the April 2010 report, shouldn't I wait for his DOD, DOS and DOE to publish their new policy?
Also with that I'd recommend you look at what weapon systems can fire them. You'd be surprised to find out that they could be as close to your house as the local Reserve / National Guard post.
Obviously, you'll be surprised that I know my AO quite well thank you very much. Though I must say that I don't see how that has any relevance to a discussion on Trump's 'first use doctrine'.
So please explain exactly what authority or power the Congress or the military chain of command has to MITIGATE the POTUS' use of nuclear weapons.
Like I said, do some research. I"ll give you a starting point: Look up what MDMP is and how it is applied to the movement, staging and tactical use of military equipment, munitions and personnel. That will give you an overall look at how decisions like this are made at the varying levels of the military chain of command from the Sergeant to the Commander in Chief.
Obviously, you'll be surprised that I know my AO quite well thank you very much. Though I must say that I don't see how that has any relevance to a discussion on Trump's 'first use doctrine'.
I bring it up because it appears that you (and the rest of the uninformed) seem to think that these types of munitions are only attached to ICBMs. When in fact they can be fired from much smaller systems. And you don't even know it.
How about you point out wherein it cites the process for the POTUS. Let's use this version:
What page enumerates the POTUS' duties under the MDMP?
I bring it up because it appears that you (and the rest of the uninformed) seem to think that these types of munitions are only attached to ICBMs. When in fact they can be fired from much smaller systems.
Perhaps we could have a more respectful discussion if you stopped making false assumptions about me.
Secondly, no matter how 'uninformed' you think I am about the POSITION or the 'types of munitions', it's irrelevant to this discussion about Trump's 'first use doctrine'.
Actually, others decided BEFORE the fact that it was unconstitutional, it would violate the Geneva Convention AND the UCMJ. Bush found himself a couple of lawyers that oh so conveniently, turned that on it's head. Just like he had an AG who would sign off on warrantless wiretapping until that time when he couldn't.
Deal with it. Much like there are things that occurred in the past which are now considered unconstitutional.
What exactly are you telling me to deal with? What EXACT remedy do you suggest for us when it is decided that Trump's decision of 'first use' was unconstitutional?
How about you point out wherein it cites the process for the POTUS. Let's use this version:
What page enumerates the POTUS' duties under the MDMP?
Congratulations. Now research how it applies to the different levels of combat planning and execution and the different levels of command.
Perhaps we could have a more respectful discussion if you stopped making false assumptions about me.
Secondly, no matter how 'uninformed' you think I am about the POSITION or the 'types of munitions', it's irrelevant to this discussion about Trump's 'first use doctrine'.
When you keep using a tweet as doctrine I can't help but think you are uninformed. Although I was pleasantly surprised with the Fort Benning link. The US has never had nor will we every have a "first use doctrine". That was a tweet. Nothing more. The ACTUAL US doctrine can be found in FM 3-11 .
Actually, others decided BEFORE the fact that it was unconstitutional, it would violate the Geneva Convention AND the UCMJ.
It also plainly violated the Convention Against Torture, a treaty largely written by the US and signed by Reagan.
.
Bush found himself a couple of lawyers that oh so conveniently, turned that on it's head. Just like he had an AG who would sign off on warrantless wiretapping until that time when he couldn't.
I think the correct term is "consigliere". It's no wonder that the DOJ's Inspector General found that all these men had committed gross violations of legal ethics.
Now research how it applies to the different levels of combat planning and execution and the different levels of command.
Nope, you made the assertion, YOU give me the page #.
When you keep using a tweet as doctrine I can't help but think you are uninformed.
So you're one that insists that a tweet from the POTUS is irrelevant. Interesting.
Secondly, there are videos of Trump interviews in which he states his 'doctrine'. Are you suggesting that we ignore those too?
Although I was pleasantly surprised with the Fort Benning link. The US has never had nor will we every have a "first use doctrine".
Actually, the US refused to sign off on the 'NO first use doctrine', which would lead any thinking person to believe that we do indeed have a 'first use doctrine'. Of course, then there are the statements by Trump that you so desperately want me to ignore.
That was a tweet. Nothing more.
I guess it's your turn to do some research. Go review the interviews in which Trump talks about his intent to use nuclear weapons [such as against ISIS and in Europe]. Trump wants to know why do we have them if we don't intend to use them?
The ACTUAL US doctrine can be found in FM 3-11.
The FM 3-11 mentions the POTUS 16 times and NOWHERE does it cite any DUTY to consult ANYONE. In fact it is exclusively a military manual and has NO effect on the Executive branch. Nor does it say ONE WORD about standards for 'illegal' or 'legal' orders from the POTUS. The FM 3-11 is almost exclusively about deterrence, non-proliferations, emergency response and 'consequence management'.
Oh and did you note that the terms 'prevent' and 'interdiction' are used for prior to an incident and the term 'mitigate' is used for AFTER the 'incident'?
In short, the FM 3-11 isn't the 'ACTUAL US doctrine' applicable to this discussion.
col·lat·er·al dam·age NOUN unintended damage to civilian life or property during a military operation
So, this is damage done AFTER a military action, the missiles Trump wants to use, (Nuclear), would have to have been used already for collateral damage to occur, then our government would have to "mitigate" to lesson the damage, which means that Dulay is correct in his/her assessment.
It's referred to collateral damage. Read the MDMP processes. It's in there.
Except YOU said that there would be 'mitigation' by the Congress and the military chain of command BEFORE Trump could 'use them'. Here is your statement:
He can't even make the call to use them without some serious mitigation not only in Congress but with the military chain of command that is on the ground in the area (all the way down to Platoon Leaders).
So NO, neither the MDMP or FM 3-11 contain ANYTHING that comes even close to supporting your claim. Oh and BTW, the Congress isn't controlled by ANY military doctrine.
You are coming in to this late and with very little information. Read the conversation between myself and Dulay. We have already discussed the mitigation of collateral damage and when that happens as well as the actual doctrine of the US military vs a tweet.
Except YOU said that there would be 'mitigation' by the Congress and the military chain of command BEFORE Trump could 'use them'. Here is your statement:
The mitigation is done by the actual people on the ground that are responsible for that mitigation. Come on. Look at congress. They can barely get their own shoes on the correct feet most day. They have absolutely no idea what goes on in the battlefield.
So NO, neither the MDMP or FM 3-11 contain ANYTHING that comes even close to supporting your claim. Oh and BTW, the Congress isn't controlled by ANY military doctrine.
This goes to what this general is saying. If the order is against doctrine, it will be ignored. Congress cannot go against military doctrine. You are trying to split hairs and devle into something you really have no experience with.
When you are planning a military operation, you plan for every and any possible course of action. Part of that planning (MDMP) is the tedious task of risk mitigation. That includes assessing collateral damage by what is called Battle Damage Assessments (BDA) (it not only covers civilian casualties, facility and infrastructure damage but for the military (friendly and enemy) as well). I have the impression that you think this is something that only takes a few minutes to hours to do. It's not. This is something that is constantly ongoing and constantly changing. Between the link you have (Fort Benning) and the link I gave your for FM 3-11, you have access to everything that is used to conduct the MDMP. It's a matter of researching ALL the information and doing it correctly. When it comes to the use of CBRN you also have to look at the doctrine for Field Artillery, Forward Observers, Infantry, and many other pieces of the military. The whole doctrine is a combination of ALL of it. Not just that one book. FM 3-11 just covers chemical, bioloical, radiological and nuclear usage. Now you have to know how it all can be delivered (i.e. Field Artillery, Mortars, Mines, Aerosol).
It is amazing though, Trump views his tweets as actual WH communications, that being said, there was a general on MSNBC today that said he would refuse an illegal order from Trump, he is with SAC and, is a four star general, he said he would advise Trump on what would be legal after he refused the order.
It is amazing though, Trump views his tweets as actual WH communications,
And the liberal ill informed snowflakes freak out about it. Now think about why he uses twitter. 1.) He's a showman, he loves to get a reaction. Good or bad, he doesn't care. It's a reaction. And he really gets one with the liberals. 2.) He has already stated (and proved) that the US mass media is biased and can't be trusted to broadcast the truth. That was evident during Ferguson, Baltimore and the election.
that being said, there was a general on MSNBC today that said he would refuse an illegal order from Trump, he is with SAC and, is a four star general, he said he would advise Trump on what would be legal after he refused the order.
And that makes sense. I'd do it as well. There is nothing wrong with that. No different than you telling your boss that something they are doing is wrong.
In short, the FM 3-11 isn't the 'ACTUAL US doctrine' applicable to this discussion.
It is for the CBRN operations. You are neglecting the Field Artillery, Infantry, Engineers, Special Operations doctrine that deal with that as well. Not to mention the Regulations (to include the UCMJ) that covers all of the military doctrine. Each branch is slightly different and unique to that branch.
This whole thing is a perfect example of how little people understand about the military, military doctrine, military operations and the chain of command. Unless you have actually been through the process there is no real way to explain it to a civilian so that they will understand what is required.
He can't even make the call to use them without some serious mitigation not only in Congress but with the military chain of command that is on the ground in the area (all the way down to Platoon Leaders).
Now you've deflected for two days and have yet to cite even one source to support that statement. Oh you keep pretending that it's 'in there' but I've clearly refuted that it is NOT.
Prove your statement is factual by posting a link and citing which page in that document contains the standards for this 'serious mitigation' that you allege exists.
The mitigation is done by the actual people on the ground that are responsible for that mitigation.
No again. Do you need me to post your statement AGAIN?
This goes to what this general is saying.
No it does NOT. NOTHING in any of the 'doctrines' that you've cited says a word about what the General is saying. If you can refute that, be my guest and post a link and the PAGE # to do so.
If the order is against doctrine, it will be ignored.
You obviously didn't watch the hearing...
Congress cannot go against military doctrine.
Oh please DO post evidence to prove that claim.
You are trying to split hairs and devle into something you really have no experience with.
Bullshit.
You can't support your posit so you pretend that I have to have been in uniform to understand.
You can't support your posit so you pretend that I have to have been in uniform to understand.
I can support it. I've already given you the link to support it. Also told you other areas you have to know and research in regards to it. You just refuse to do the legwork and look at the link and find the information. Now that is your problem. Not mine.
But I'll give you the link to find all the doctrine on it:
Pay particular attention to EVERYTHING under the Publications tab.
NOTHING in any of the 'doctrines' that you've cited says a word about what the General is saying.
AND:
The FM 3-11 mentions the POTUS 16 times and NOWHERE does it cite any DUTY to consult ANYONE. In fact it is exclusively a military manual and has NO effect on the Executive branch. Nor does it say ONE WORD about standards for 'illegal' or 'legal' orders from the POTUS. The FM 3-11 is almost exclusively about deterrence, non-proliferations, emergency response and 'consequence management'. Oh and did you note that the terms 'prevent' and 'interdiction' are used for prior to an incident and the term 'mitigate' is used for AFTER the 'incident'?
And asked that you:
Prove your statement is factual by posting a link and citing which page in that document contains the standards for this 'serious mitigation' that you allege exists.
If you can refute that, be my guest and post a link and the PAGE # to do so.
And that is what I did. The doctrine you are looking for is broken down for each (in the link I sent you) part of the army. Engineers, Field Artillery, Ingantry, MP, Aviations. It's all in that link I posted and the tab I told you to focus on. Each branch of the military has ti broken down in the same fashion. Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard all have doctrine that they follow.
Can I point you to a specific page in a book? No. The military is more direct and to the point, but you have to know where to look. But what I did provide you is ALL the books that (at least for the Army) this doctrine is found. YOU don't want to do the leg work to find out what the doctrine is for a 155mm Field Artillery unit to fire a nuclear device then that is on YOU. Not me.
Nor can you point me to a specific ANSWER to my SPECIFIC request. Here it is again:
Prove your statement is factual by posting a link and citing which page in that document contains the standards for this 'serious mitigation' that you allege exists.
YOU don't want to do the leg work to find out what the doctrine is for a 155mm Field Artillery unit to fire a nuclear device then that is on YOU.
I don't have to do any leg work because I watched the hearing about this very issue and I have no reason to doubt the testimony of retired Gen. Robert Kehler . Unfortunately, when asked what happens after he refused to follow the order of the Commander in Chief he said 'I don't know'. If Nixon is any example of a thwarted POTUS, Trump will just work his way down the chain until he finds his Robert Bork.
Not me.
What IS on you is to support your claim about 'serious mitigation'. You've tap danced, deflected and then belittled but you STILL haven't posted ONE iota of proof to show that either the Congress or the military chain of command on the ground can have even the slightest effect on whether Trump 'makes the call' to use nuclear weapons.
Actually, it looks like I know more about the facts related to this discussion than you.
You have the information.
Why yes, YES I do and I actually READ it and cross referenced it. In doing so I found that it DOES NOT contain the 'doctrine' that you claim it does. The POTUS and the Congress are NOT controlled by ANY of the standards set in those documents. NOR do they state anything about a PPD related to either the Congress or the military having the ability to conduct 'serious mitigation'.
Read it and learn or remain ignorant and rambling.
I DID read it and learn. I pretty sure that anyone reading our 'conversation' would have to admit that I have proven myself quite intellectually competent on this issue. I haven't rambled and unlike you, I haven't tried to change the subject or deflect nor have I belittled you or tried to insult your intelligence.
It's clear to my now that you are the type that insists on being able to make proclamations without being challenged or required to back up your claims with facts.
Again, if that's how you roll, so be it, but please don't expect to be taken seriously as anything but a doddering autocrat.
You expect me to believe you read all that in such a short time and have full understanding of it?
This discussion is predicated on your first reply to me:
The President, does not have initial use authorization. He can't even make the call to use them without some serious mitigation not only in Congress but with the military chain of command that is on the ground in the area (all the way down to Platoon Leaders).
As someone who has worked as a paralegal, I'm pretty fucking good at research and that includes an understanding of how to conduct a thorough, accurate search within a document. I don't have to read ALL of anything or 'have a full understanding of it' to garner the pertinent information it contains to answer a query. Searching keywords like 'authorization', 'President', 'mitigation', 'Congress', 'nuclear', ect.; and READING those parts of the document that are highlighted allows any good researcher to wade through multipage documents full of legalese.
This is how I can FACTUALLY tell you that the 'references' that you cited do NOT contain the information you claim they do.
You demanded that I do research and you got it. So laugh it up but realize that your statement has been proven to be false.
And they won't. All they see is that President Trump is in the chain of command and go into their little childish tantrums. Usually making retarded assumptions (like this) as they go
This is just more of the screaming mindlessly that Trump might do 'something' as opposed to any real news. Every president since the invention of nuclear weapons has been in the same position as President Trump is now in. It's embarrassing that our 4th estate has nothing to do besides making up silly opinion pieces.
This is just more of the screaming mindlessly that Trump might do 'something' as opposed to any real news.
Trump has talked about using nuclear weapons against ISIS and in Europe in multiple interviews.
Every president since the invention of nuclear weapons has been in the same position as President Trump is now in.
Name another POTUS or candidate since Truman that talked about having a 'first strike doctrine'.
It's embarrassing that our 4th estate has nothing to do besides making up silly opinion pieces.
The seed is from the AP and is a REPORT about what 2 high level Generals stated in public, one in a security forum and another in a hearing with the Foreign Relations Committee. It's NOT a 'silly opinion piece'.
Oh so you think that the Generals quoted in the article should be replaced because they are trying to alieve Americans fear of a nuclear war?
They weren't trying to aleve anything, they were explaining to congress where their responsibility lies. There are sufficient citizens who are aware of how it actually works for the citizenry to not be alarmed. (except those who haven't a clue like the media)
XDm9mm said;
Oh, those generals CAN be removed and replaced, in a heart beat.
All officers in the US military serve by congressional commission. Up to the rank of colonel they are promoted by military boards of promotion. They are selected for command rank (general/admiral) by the president of the United States (usually at the advice of more senior military officers) and serve at his pleasure. He can fire/retire them for any reason or no reason at all. He can promote them at will as well through the brevet system. (except in the case of a change in permanent rank which requires the consent of congress)
The only general officer that a commander in chief could not fire/replace was general Gates during the revolutionary war, he was appointed by congress and Washington didn't have the authority to relive him. (which he desperately wanted to do and replace him with Arnold) Gates was a political appointee and a prime example of why politicians shouldn't be given command of an army in the field.
The issue was resolved during the first congress after the Constitution was formed. Congress gave the president absolute authority over the military, including officer promotions and assignment, except for permanent promotion of general/admiral grade of officers, the president has to get their consent. (which is usually a formality)
They weren't trying to aleve anything, they were explaining to congress where their responsibility lies.
Actually, Air Force Gen. John Hyten made his comments in CANADA, NOT in front of Congress.
Secondly, the hearing before Congress was all about alieving the fear about Trump's unilateral use of nuclear weapons. I suggest you actually go watch the freaking hearing before you make any more false comments about it's context and content.
I certainly hope all officials wouldn't execute an illegal order. Especially if they are an AG overseeing an investigation into the nominee of their own political party.
We know that numerous officials and military personnel followed illegal orders to invade Iraq and illegal orders to torture prisoners. The laws against those things don't mean much if there are no serious consequences for violating them, or if they're not enforced.
It serves an important purpose for our military to make it known that would object to a Trump madness induced launch order.
The purpose is letting everyone know we have an incompetent and psychologically unbalanced buffoon at the top of our command chain. Of course it is better to have this out in the open.
This whole thing stems from peoples ignorance of how the use of the US nuclear arsenal.
What 'whole thing'?
From all of the reporting I have heard and read, the issue is actually Trump's 'ignorance' about the purpose of the US nuclear arsenal.
Ok, that right there is the problem. You are relying on some idiot "journalist" who thinks they know how the use of nuclear weapons would process. The President, does not have initial use authorization. He can't even make the call to use them without some serious mitigation not only in Congress but with the military chain of command that is on the ground in the area (all the way down to Platoon Leaders). The US will not use nuclear weapons first. That is something that come about after WWII.
Recommend you do the research the "journalist" wont do and find out the doctrine and reporting requirements for the use of US nuclear munitions. Also with that I'd recommend you look at what weapon systems can fire them. You'd be surprised to find out that they could be as close to your house as the local Reserve / National Guard post.
So please explain exactly what authority or power the Congress or the military chain of command has to MITIGATE the POTUS' use of nuclear weapons.
Did the US sign onto a 'No first use doctrine' while I wasn't looking? It's well known that 'all things Obama' an now null and void, so any and every 'promise' the US made before Jan. 2017 is moot. Since Trump's 'position' is liquid, though it will undoubtedly usurp the April 2010 report, shouldn't I wait for his DOD, DOS and DOE to publish their new policy?
Obviously, you'll be surprised that I know my AO quite well thank you very much. Though I must say that I don't see how that has any relevance to a discussion on Trump's 'first use doctrine'.
Like I said, do some research. I"ll give you a starting point: Look up what MDMP is and how it is applied to the movement, staging and tactical use of military equipment, munitions and personnel. That will give you an overall look at how decisions like this are made at the varying levels of the military chain of command from the Sergeant to the Commander in Chief.
I bring it up because it appears that you (and the rest of the uninformed) seem to think that these types of munitions are only attached to ICBMs. When in fact they can be fired from much smaller systems. And you don't even know it.
Just like the illegal use of torture by the Bush Administration was discussed and 'effectively adjudicated as legal'.
How about you point out wherein it cites the process for the POTUS. Let's use this version:
What page enumerates the POTUS' duties under the MDMP?
Perhaps we could have a more respectful discussion if you stopped making false assumptions about me.
Secondly, no matter how 'uninformed' you think I am about the POSITION or the 'types of munitions', it's irrelevant to this discussion about Trump's 'first use doctrine'.
You KNOW this HOW?
Actually, others decided BEFORE the fact that it was unconstitutional, it would violate the Geneva Convention AND the UCMJ. Bush found himself a couple of lawyers that oh so conveniently, turned that on it's head. Just like he had an AG who would sign off on warrantless wiretapping until that time when he couldn't.
What exactly are you telling me to deal with? What EXACT remedy do you suggest for us when it is decided that Trump's decision of 'first use' was unconstitutional?
BTW, 'mitigate'
:to cause to become less harsh or hostile
:to make less severe or painful
What does the MDMP have to do with 'mitigating' Trump's use of nuclear weapons?
Congratulations. Now research how it applies to the different levels of combat planning and execution and the different levels of command.
When you keep using a tweet as doctrine I can't help but think you are uninformed. Although I was pleasantly surprised with the Fort Benning link. The US has never had nor will we every have a "first use doctrine". That was a tweet. Nothing more. The ACTUAL US doctrine can be found in FM 3-11 .
It's referred to collateral damage. Read the MDMP processes. It's in there.
They can't help it, they were taught by liberal teachers in the lower grades, and wacky liberal professors in higher education.
I Wonder what a conservative teacher would teach ?
It also plainly violated the Convention Against Torture, a treaty largely written by the US and signed by Reagan.
.
I think the correct term is "consigliere". It's no wonder that the DOJ's Inspector General found that all these men had committed gross violations of legal ethics.
It doesn't matter whether they did or not. WE are signatories.
Nope, you made the assertion, YOU give me the page #.
So you're one that insists that a tweet from the POTUS is irrelevant. Interesting.
Secondly, there are videos of Trump interviews in which he states his 'doctrine'. Are you suggesting that we ignore those too?
Actually, the US refused to sign off on the 'NO first use doctrine', which would lead any thinking person to believe that we do indeed have a 'first use doctrine'. Of course, then there are the statements by Trump that you so desperately want me to ignore.
I guess it's your turn to do some research. Go review the interviews in which Trump talks about his intent to use nuclear weapons [such as against ISIS and in Europe]. Trump wants to know why do we have them if we don't intend to use them?
The FM 3-11 mentions the POTUS 16 times and NOWHERE does it cite any DUTY to consult ANYONE. In fact it is exclusively a military manual and has NO effect on the Executive branch. Nor does it say ONE WORD about standards for 'illegal' or 'legal' orders from the POTUS. The FM 3-11 is almost exclusively about deterrence, non-proliferations, emergency response and 'consequence management'.
Oh and did you note that the terms 'prevent' and 'interdiction' are used for prior to an incident and the term 'mitigate' is used for AFTER the 'incident'?
In short, the FM 3-11 isn't the 'ACTUAL US doctrine' applicable to this discussion.
I await your next movement of the 'goalposts'.
col·lat·er·al dam·age
NOUN
unintended damage to civilian life or property during a military operation
So, this is damage done AFTER a military action, the missiles Trump wants to use, (Nuclear), would have to have been used already for collateral damage to occur, then our government would have to "mitigate" to lesson the damage, which means that Dulay is correct in his/her assessment.
Except YOU said that there would be 'mitigation' by the Congress and the military chain of command BEFORE Trump could 'use them'. Here is your statement:
So NO, neither the MDMP or FM 3-11 contain ANYTHING that comes even close to supporting your claim. Oh and BTW, the Congress isn't controlled by ANY military doctrine.
You are coming in to this late and with very little information. Read the conversation between myself and Dulay. We have already discussed the mitigation of collateral damage and when that happens as well as the actual doctrine of the US military vs a tweet.
The mitigation is done by the actual people on the ground that are responsible for that mitigation. Come on. Look at congress. They can barely get their own shoes on the correct feet most day. They have absolutely no idea what goes on in the battlefield.
This goes to what this general is saying. If the order is against doctrine, it will be ignored. Congress cannot go against military doctrine. You are trying to split hairs and devle into something you really have no experience with.
When you are planning a military operation, you plan for every and any possible course of action. Part of that planning (MDMP) is the tedious task of risk mitigation. That includes assessing collateral damage by what is called Battle Damage Assessments (BDA) (it not only covers civilian casualties, facility and infrastructure damage but for the military (friendly and enemy) as well). I have the impression that you think this is something that only takes a few minutes to hours to do. It's not. This is something that is constantly ongoing and constantly changing. Between the link you have (Fort Benning) and the link I gave your for FM 3-11, you have access to everything that is used to conduct the MDMP. It's a matter of researching ALL the information and doing it correctly. When it comes to the use of CBRN you also have to look at the doctrine for Field Artillery, Forward Observers, Infantry, and many other pieces of the military. The whole doctrine is a combination of ALL of it. Not just that one book. FM 3-11 just covers chemical, bioloical, radiological and nuclear usage. Now you have to know how it all can be delivered (i.e. Field Artillery, Mortars, Mines, Aerosol).
It is amazing though, Trump views his tweets as actual WH communications, that being said, there was a general on MSNBC today that said he would refuse an illegal order from Trump, he is with SAC and, is a four star general, he said he would advise Trump on what would be legal after he refused the order.
And the liberal ill informed snowflakes freak out about it. Now think about why he uses twitter. 1.) He's a showman, he loves to get a reaction. Good or bad, he doesn't care. It's a reaction. And he really gets one with the liberals. 2.) He has already stated (and proved) that the US mass media is biased and can't be trusted to broadcast the truth. That was evident during Ferguson, Baltimore and the election.
And that makes sense. I'd do it as well. There is nothing wrong with that. No different than you telling your boss that something they are doing is wrong.
It is for the CBRN operations. You are neglecting the Field Artillery, Infantry, Engineers, Special Operations doctrine that deal with that as well. Not to mention the Regulations (to include the UCMJ) that covers all of the military doctrine. Each branch is slightly different and unique to that branch.
This whole thing is a perfect example of how little people understand about the military, military doctrine, military operations and the chain of command. Unless you have actually been through the process there is no real way to explain it to a civilian so that they will understand what is required.
Which is IRRELVANT to this discussion.
Again, YOU said:
Now you've deflected for two days and have yet to cite even one source to support that statement. Oh you keep pretending that it's 'in there' but I've clearly refuted that it is NOT.
Prove your statement is factual by posting a link and citing which page in that document contains the standards for this 'serious mitigation' that you allege exists.
No again. Do you need me to post your statement AGAIN?
No it does NOT. NOTHING in any of the 'doctrines' that you've cited says a word about what the General is saying. If you can refute that, be my guest and post a link and the PAGE # to do so.
You obviously didn't watch the hearing...
Oh please DO post evidence to prove that claim.
Bullshit.
You can't support your posit so you pretend that I have to have been in uniform to understand.
Bullshit.
I can support it. I've already given you the link to support it. Also told you other areas you have to know and research in regards to it. You just refuse to do the legwork and look at the link and find the information. Now that is your problem. Not mine.
But I'll give you the link to find all the doctrine on it:
Pay particular attention to EVERYTHING under the Publications tab.
Dulay
Pay particular attention to EVERYTHING under the "Publications" tab.
Pay particular attention to what I stated:
Posting what looks like a fake link and telling me to review every freaking publication the Army publishes is bad form.
You've made claims that you have not and seem unwilling or unable to support with anything even close to empirical evidence. That too is bad form.
If that is 'how you roll' so be it, but please don't pretend to be discussing this in good faith.
Yet you haven't. Why is that?
And I've already told you that:
AND:
And asked that you:
Instead, you deflect AGAIN.
And that is what I did. The doctrine you are looking for is broken down for each (in the link I sent you) part of the army. Engineers, Field Artillery, Ingantry, MP, Aviations. It's all in that link I posted and the tab I told you to focus on. Each branch of the military has ti broken down in the same fashion. Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard all have doctrine that they follow.
Can I point you to a specific page in a book? No. The military is more direct and to the point, but you have to know where to look. But what I did provide you is ALL the books that (at least for the Army) this doctrine is found. YOU don't want to do the leg work to find out what the doctrine is for a 155mm Field Artillery unit to fire a nuclear device then that is on YOU. Not me.
Nor can you point me to a specific ANSWER to my SPECIFIC request. Here it is again:
Prove your statement is factual by posting a link and citing which page in that document contains the standards for this 'serious mitigation' that you allege exists.
I don't have to do any leg work because I watched the hearing about this very issue and I have no reason to doubt the testimony of retired Gen. Robert Kehler . Unfortunately, when asked what happens after he refused to follow the order of the Commander in Chief he said 'I don't know'. If Nixon is any example of a thwarted POTUS, Trump will just work his way down the chain until he finds his Robert Bork.
What IS on you is to support your claim about 'serious mitigation'. You've tap danced, deflected and then belittled but you STILL haven't posted ONE iota of proof to show that either the Congress or the military chain of command on the ground can have even the slightest effect on whether Trump 'makes the call' to use nuclear weapons.
So now, put up or ...
And STILL don't know what you are talking about. You have the information. Read it and learn or remain ignorant and rambling. The decision is yours.
Have a good night.
Actually, it looks like I know more about the facts related to this discussion than you.
Why yes, YES I do and I actually READ it and cross referenced it. In doing so I found that it DOES NOT contain the 'doctrine' that you claim it does. The POTUS and the Congress are NOT controlled by ANY of the standards set in those documents. NOR do they state anything about a PPD related to either the Congress or the military having the ability to conduct 'serious mitigation'.
I DID read it and learn. I pretty sure that anyone reading our 'conversation' would have to admit that I have proven myself quite intellectually competent on this issue. I haven't rambled and unlike you, I haven't tried to change the subject or deflect nor have I belittled you or tried to insult your intelligence.
It's clear to my now that you are the type that insists on being able to make proclamations without being challenged or required to back up your claims with facts.
Again, if that's how you roll, so be it, but please don't expect to be taken seriously as anything but a doddering autocrat.
You did? You expect me to believe you read all that in such a short time and have full understanding of it?
This discussion is predicated on your first reply to me:
As someone who has worked as a paralegal, I'm pretty fucking good at research and that includes an understanding of how to conduct a thorough, accurate search within a document. I don't have to read ALL of anything or 'have a full understanding of it' to garner the pertinent information it contains to answer a query. Searching keywords like 'authorization', 'President', 'mitigation', 'Congress', 'nuclear', ect.; and READING those parts of the document that are highlighted allows any good researcher to wade through multipage documents full of legalese.
This is how I can FACTUALLY tell you that the 'references' that you cited do NOT contain the information you claim they do.
You demanded that I do research and you got it. So laugh it up but realize that your statement has been proven to be false.
Yep, a little education would go a long way....
But when has that ever stopped the media.
What they really don't get is the Presidential authorization is the LAST step in the process of releasing nuclear weapons.
Not the first and definitely not on his sole authority.
And there are very few scenarios where nuclear release is considered warranted....
There is a reason for the defcon procedure....
And they won't. All they see is that President Trump is in the chain of command and go into their little childish tantrums. Usually making retarded assumptions (like this) as they go
This is just more of the screaming mindlessly that Trump might do 'something' as opposed to any real news. Every president since the invention of nuclear weapons has been in the same position as President Trump is now in. It's embarrassing that our 4th estate has nothing to do besides making up silly opinion pieces.
Just another day for them.
Trump has talked about using nuclear weapons against ISIS and in Europe in multiple interviews.
Name another POTUS or candidate since Truman that talked about having a 'first strike doctrine'.
The seed is from the AP and is a REPORT about what 2 high level Generals stated in public, one in a security forum and another in a hearing with the Foreign Relations Committee. It's NOT a 'silly opinion piece'.
Wow for a pretend expert on the military you seem to have no clue how many generals we have.
Oh so you think that the Generals quoted in the article should be replaced because they are trying to alieve Americans fear of a nuclear war?
Dulay said;
They weren't trying to aleve anything, they were explaining to congress where their responsibility lies. There are sufficient citizens who are aware of how it actually works for the citizenry to not be alarmed. (except those who haven't a clue like the media)
XDm9mm said;
All officers in the US military serve by congressional commission. Up to the rank of colonel they are promoted by military boards of promotion. They are selected for command rank (general/admiral) by the president of the United States (usually at the advice of more senior military officers) and serve at his pleasure. He can fire/retire them for any reason or no reason at all. He can promote them at will as well through the brevet system. (except in the case of a change in permanent rank which requires the consent of congress)
The only general officer that a commander in chief could not fire/replace was general Gates during the revolutionary war, he was appointed by congress and Washington didn't have the authority to relive him. (which he desperately wanted to do and replace him with Arnold) Gates was a political appointee and a prime example of why politicians shouldn't be given command of an army in the field.
The issue was resolved during the first congress after the Constitution was formed. Congress gave the president absolute authority over the military, including officer promotions and assignment, except for permanent promotion of general/admiral grade of officers, the president has to get their consent. (which is usually a formality)
Actually, Air Force Gen. John Hyten made his comments in CANADA, NOT in front of Congress.
Secondly, the hearing before Congress was all about alieving the fear about Trump's unilateral use of nuclear weapons. I suggest you actually go watch the freaking hearing before you make any more false comments about it's context and content.
BTFW, I note that neither you or XDm9mm bothered to answer my simple question.
Sorry, I don't know about XD but I do not bandy words with fools who haven't a clue what they are talking about.
I certainly hope all officials wouldn't execute an illegal order. Especially if they are an AG overseeing an investigation into the nominee of their own political party.
We know that numerous officials and military personnel followed illegal orders to invade Iraq and illegal orders to torture prisoners. The laws against those things don't mean much if there are no serious consequences for violating them, or if they're not enforced.
Invading Iraq was not a legal order. It was authorized by Congress in both parties.
Actually the invasion of Iraq was a direct violation of the UN Charter and the # 1 war crime as defined at Nuremberg.
It serves an important purpose for our military to make it known that would object to a Trump madness induced launch order.
The purpose is letting everyone know we have an incompetent and psychologically unbalanced buffoon at the top of our command chain. Of course it is better to have this out in the open.