He has become the latest in a long line of generals to be lionized by the anti-Trump #resistance. Speaking over the weekend, Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, which is responsible for nuclear deterrence, revealed what he would do if he were ordered to carry out a nuclear strike.
“I provide advice to the president,” Hyten told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’” Hyten continued: “Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”
At first glance, Hyten’s statement may sound comforting to those who stay awake at night, worrying about Trump’s small hands hovering over the nuclear button. Last week, for the first time for more than 40 years, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the president’s authority to launch nuclear weapons. “We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile … that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at the hearing.
Senior members of Trump’s inner circle seem to share those concerns. In October, Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman reported that “one former official even speculated that [chief of staff John] Kelly and Secretary of Defense James Mattis have discussed what they would do in the event Trump ordered a nuclear first strike. ‘Would they tackle him?’ the person said.”
In comparison to physically restraining the commander-in-chief, Hyten’s proposed course of action — “Mr. President, that’s illegal” — seems a more reasonable and realistic solution to the problem of a belligerent Trump having untramelled access to the nation’s nuclear codes.
Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, left, poses for a handshake at Offutt Air Force Base with Gen. John E. Hyten, head of Strategic Command, in Bellevue, Neb. on Sept. 14, 2017.
Photo: Nati Harnik/AP
Hyten’s remarks do nothing to reassure me, however. First, why does he assume that this president’s response to being told a nuclear strike might be “illegal” would be to ask: “What would be legal?” Does Trump, who rails against “so-called” judges, strike you as the kind of leader who is bothered by the rule of law? Why wouldn’t he just fire Hyten and replace him with a more compliant general?
Second, the STRATCOM chief said in Canada that he and his fellow generals were “not stupid” and were aware of the risks of breaking the law: “If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.” How then does he explain the number of top U.S. generals who happily participated in George W Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq? Or those who helped Barack Obama conduct his illegal bombing of Libya? Where were the dissenting four-star voices in 2003 or 2011, telling Bush or Obama: “Mr. President, that’s illegal”? So why should we have confidence in Hyten and other officers in 2017?
But perhaps, above all else, does the general really believe the launching of nuclear weapons is “not that complicated,” in terms of the law? Does Hyten, who graduated from Harvard not with a J.D. but with a bachelor’s degree in engineering and applied sciences, think it is that easy to distinguish a “legal” nuclear strike from an “illegal” one?
There are plenty of international lawyers, campaigners, and activists who would disagree, who, in fact, believe a nuclear strike under any circumstances would be a violation of international humanitarian law. They would argue that the criteria for a legitimate strike — necessity, distinction, proportionality, unnecessary suffering — as laid out in the U.S. Law of Armed Conflict Deskbook and grandly cited by Hyten in Nova Scotia, can never be met in the case of nuclear weapons.
Listen to Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October. “Nuclear weapons are illegal,” she said after receiving her award in October. “Threatening to use nuclear weapons is illegal. Having nuclear weapons, possessing nuclear weapons, developing nuclear weapons is illegal, and they need to stop.”
Consider the view of Rabinder Singh, a leading British human rights lawyer, and Christine Chinkin, an international law professor and former United Nations adviser, who co-authored an opinion in 2005 stating that the deployment of Britain’s nuclear deterrent “would breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the ‘intransgressible’ [principles of international customary law] requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants.”
There is a long list of laws going back a century-and-a-half that an attack with nuclear weapons — whether “first strike” or not — would seem to violate. As Newsweek’s Ryan Bort summarized in October:
There’s the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg (illegal because the loss of civilian life wouldn’t be minimized), the 1907 Hague Convention (illegal because there would be “no guarantee of the inviolability of neutral nations”), the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (illegal because the resultant radiation would interfere with the health of innocent people), the 1949 Geneva Convention (illegal because protection of health workers, expectant mothers and the sick would not be ensured) and the 1977 Geneva Convention protocol (illegal because of the loss of civilian life and damage to the environment).
In 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion, which stated that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” It also said that “states must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.”
Sounds pretty clear, right? Nukes are illegal. Not quite. The court also pointed out that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such,” and the 15 ICJ judges said they could not “reach a definitive conclusion as to the legality or illegality of the use of nuclear weapons by a State in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which its very survival would be at stake.”
But does North Korea’s nuclear weapons capability really threaten the “survival” of the United States today? Was imperial Japan an existential threat to the U.S. in August 1945, when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the dying days of the war?
It has always struck me as odd that incinerating millions of people — the vast majority of them noncombatants — in a nuclear strike could be deemed anything other than a war crime. It has always seemed bizarre to me that an atomic bomb that continues to take lives decades after it is dropped could be considered anything other than disproportionate. And I never cease to be amazed by the fact that there are explicit legal bans on the use of chemical and biological weapons, on landmines and cluster bombs, and yet no such equivalent prohibition on the possession or use of nukes, which have a destructive power far greater than all of those other banned weapons put together.
For Gen. John Hyten, however, “it’s not that complicated.” He plans to save us from an illegal nuclear strike. But who will save us from a legal one?
Top photo: The Priscilla nuclear test, part of Operation Plumbbob in 1957 in Nye County, Nev.
I disagree quite strongly with nuclear disarmament, and in fact with anything that would impede the capability for a swift and decisive nuclear strike. President Trump might not be the best one could hope for this to put it lightly but the capability is what has kept an 80 year nuclear peace, it is crucial for MAD.
I don’t understand the qualms over it being a war crime, that didn’t stop fascist italy from using chemical weapons in africa, deterrence from a nation capable of retaliating in kind is usually what keeps this in place, making it illegal would just be a formality as long as it doesn’t interfere with the MAD status quo.
As for the bombing of Japan, of course it was a war crime, for that matter the dresden bombing was a war crime too, it is extremely unusual that the victor in a war is prosecuted of war crimes, injustice is just a comparatively small part of the general shitiness of a total war, the bombing itself is lost against the general background of suffering. It also happened during the brief period of time where retaliation in kind was not available, all things considered it could be worse.
I don’t trust Russia to keep the world peace in the absence of nuclear weapons, and I sure as heck don’t trust the american government for that either with how many posturing war hawks we have there. I like not having a total war thank you very much.
I don’t think we’ll need to worry about Mutually Assured Destruction any time soon. The secret good ole boys club is much more sadistic and will want to get real NAZI first. Let’s worry about that
Don’t worry, be happy !
While I agree with much of this article, it seems to me that the threat that North Korea poses to us now is very different from the threat that Japan posed in August 1945. Does North Korea pose an existential threat to the entire U.S.? No, not at the moment. Does North Korea pose an existential threat to Honolulu? Yes. Does North Korea pose an existential threat to Los Angeles? Yes, most likely. San Francisco? Just as likely. Portland? Just as likely. Seattle? Just as likely. Millions of U.S. citizens live in cities that could potentially be targeted in a nuclear attack.
And part of the argument in the National Interest article was that their missiles aren’t sophisticated enough to evade our missile defense. On the other hand, our missile defense tests from earlier this year were hit or miss if I remember correctly. Sometimes we hit the (unarmed) missiles that we were firing, missiles where we knew the precise coordinates they’d be coming to, and sometimes we didn’t. We won’t necessarily know where exactly a North Korean missile is coming from, or it’s precise coordinate for coordinate trajectory.
I point this out not to undermine the general argument of this article, but because underestimating N. Korea’s capabilities could weaken that argument. If, on the other hand, Mehdi Hasan were to say that North Korea is capable of causing great damage, and that this is all the more reason to engage them diplomatically, or that by keeping the Secretary of State from having a back channel to Kim Trump is putting us all in danger, that would probably be more accurate. Or pointing out that we should probably stop conducting joint U.S. -South Korean military exercises since China and North Korea have promised to stop testing nukes in exchange for an end to these exercises. And arguing that we need to do this precisely because the alternative to diffusing tension with Pyongyang is dangerous. I mean to say, I know this article isn’t mainly about North Korea, but in any argument for nuclear disarmament, it’s important not to be or look naive about the obstacles; that’s exactly what the other side will say, and it isn’t true. Our position is not inherently naive, in fact it’s probably more naive to think that humankind can survive a world armed to the teeth with ICBM’s.
I’m very optimistic that within a few hundred thousand years, the human species will evolve to a point where it will consider ALL methods of killing other human beings as war crimes, not just nuclear, and will learn to resolve its disputes through peaceful means.
It may have to migrate to another planet though……… unless that planet is ruled by someone who doesn’t want immigrants.
Very optimistic to assume there’ll be a human species much longer with this rapidly declining empire armed to the teeth with nukes.
Like happened with the USSR?
If after a few hundred thousand years, our species still remains so extraordinarily anthropocentric to consider all methods of killing only human beings as war crimes and not other species as crimes against life, then there will have been no ‘evolution’ at all. Waking up to truth involves unity…which first begins with our own heart and souls, then and only then do we begin to see inner and outer as one.
It is amazing that you are giving the human species a few hundred thousand years.
All it will take is just one Solar flare to destroy all of the Nuclear Power Plants. Just imagine Fukishima X 5000.
One country’s crime is another’s heroic event
I think these comments on legality are awfully optimistic. I mean, if one single nuke from North Korea goes off in Washington, I don’t for one minute believe it will be one slender nuke going off over the civilians and embassies and hospitals of Pyongyang. It will be hundreds of nukes all over that country, explained as necessary to stop further nuclear launches or construction, and above all, their biological counterattack. The U.S. will be so afraid of biological weapons that if they saw the Pope taking a boat with a mother and child out of the harbor they would shoot first the Pope, then the child, then the mother. You can never be too careful where world-ending plagues are concerned. Meanwhile, Trump would be hanging up the red phone on Xi Jinping’s angry diatribe about fallout and retaliation, though he might possibly wisely omit the “Bring it on!” part. So there’s plenty of room to repeat the whole thing with Russia vis-a-vis China a few minutes later. I bet those silly dismounted warheads were already rigged to robots that can do a complete nuclear reassembly in ten seconds or less back in the Clinton era. You don’t want to run out, after all.
Given that the concept of ‘legality’ is extremely fluid and that humans are rationalizing animals (not rational), almost any situation could be conveniently massaged to make it appear ‘legal’–just look at the way the U.S. justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq..
Why don’t you just admit that you are an anti-American, dude? How else do you suppose the U.S. could’ve prevented the imminent deaths of millions of Muslims at the hands of Saddam?
You must be obsessed by me to use a similar nickname.
Why don’t you just admit that you are a warmonger, dude?
What a beautiful picture. Let the countdown begin !
I’m not political, but it seems that our government knows that NK is building weapons of mass destruction and not doing anything about it. I can’t help to think that if Bill Clinton was still president, we would already have wiped them off the planet. Yeah, it may cause problems with other countries but we handle this situation one at a time. So I say, we should already have boots on the ground and bomber’s in the sky. But what do I know. I’m just a simpleton, that has no agenda.
Let the President do his job
Mr. Hasan
Since and including WWII, millions upon millions of civilians have been illegally targeted and killed by conventional weapons. Hell, machetes were used in Rwanda to help murder 800,000 mostly innocent people. The nuclear devastation wrought at Nagasaki and Hiroshima was the last phase of a war where 40-50 million people died. Civilians were targeted throughout the war from both sides – almost all with conventional weapons. Conventional weapons are by far the biggest threat to civilians. Chemical weapons have been rarely used since WWI. Even in Syria, chemical weapons are responsible for a negligible percentage of the civilian deaths. If Hitler had developed nukes first, WWII would have had a different ending. The same goes for Japan.
Nuclear weapons are capable of killing a huge amount of people in a very short time which is why no one has used them since WWII. MAD was a deterrent to war between the US and the USSR. Nuclear weapons serve almost exclusively as a deterrent to war between states (like Pakistan and India). The little dicktator from North Korea is not going to nuke anyone while the US has a far bigger arsenal. Russia and the US are not going to get in a nuclear war. Trump is not going to nuke anyone. It’s ridiculous to suggest he will – or even might. Killing a few at a time with conventional weapons just seems to be the acceptable way to commit war crimes today.
What you say is true, but some people still feel that Mr. Trump will find deploying the biggest bomb ever created to be too tempting to resist. He is not going to be satisfied playing second fiddle to Mr. Truman.
Trump has a long way to go to pass Truman on the international stage. Truman was a neocon when being a neocon wasn’t cool:
“Boys and their toys” as we said during Vietnam. Oh, Benito, once again I fear your analysis is spot on.
You’re too modest, craig. Casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan alone run well over a million people. Not including casualties from spinoffs like ISIS and other assorted terrorist groups in Syria, north Africa and Yemen.
Of course, it’s debatable if any of those countless lost souls would consider it acceptable.
*it doesn’t matter if you believe “Trump is not going to nuke anyone”
. .. he does.
Fair points Bah. Thanks.
I see that we haven’t invaded any countries that have nukes. Maybe that Korean dude isn’t so stupid after all. So if Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan had possessed nukes, they wouldn’t have been invaded either? Does that mean the US would have saved the $5.2 trillion we spend invading those countries if they had possessed deterrents? How many US families wouldn’t be first on the block to bring their kid home in a box?
Yeah, time for hot war has come. Just do it !
Destroy the enemy completely while he is asleep and dominate the world.
USA , the Messiah has come…
Is that what the Pakistanis told you?
Dude, you are just an anti-American. Get a life.
This is that awkward moment when you realize that the troll has found the gold mine.
Dude, I present facts, and expose people’s hypocrisy!
ROFL!
He uses the words ‘facts’ and ‘hypocrisy’ as if he actually knows what they mean and not as if he were merely a casualty and victim of both.
Dude, swisscheese knows facts and what hypocrisy is. Do you have anything related to the article to post?
A perfect example of hypocrisy. Or that irony? As for the facts that swiss.cheese/swisscheese is so knowledgeable of, let’s just say that I’ll believe them when I see them.
PS: Are you suffering from split personality disorder or do you think that everyone is so stupid as not to notice your double trolling? Get a life already, dude!
The talk about Trump and the use of nuclear weapons is not one of legality and morality, but about using them on acceptable targets. Trump critics rightly attack him for being insane and belligerent when speaking about North Korea, but then want that same belligerence used against Russia. Otherwise, of course he is a traitor.
In terms of an actual nuclear exchange happening it will be with Russia, an acceptable target. If those who resist are truly worried about nuclear war, then this shit from the Trump resistance is utter bullshit. The Trump “Resistance” and the whole Russia-gate hysteria is the actual movement and people who are inching us toward nuclear war, not Trump pounding his chest against North Korea.
As Stephen Cohen rightly noted, democrats and the media are going to put Trump in such a political straight jacket that neocons and generals who have taken control of foreign policy will have little choice but to engage Russia militarily if some incendiary incident occurred. Maybe just maybe, writers should be MORE worried about cries for war coming from the democrats and media with nuclear armed Russia.
“Legal One”…are you serious?
This argument seems similar to the arguments on whether the POTUS can be indicted while serving AND whether POTUS can pardon him/herself.
Causing “severe or long-term damage to the environment” seems clear-cut to me, regardless of the fact that there is no outright ban on nukes.
As far as indicting a sitting POTUS, it also seems clear that as no man is above the law. If you have acted so egregiously as to cause the assemblage of a SP and a grand jury, who then determines that crimes have been committed, it seems a sitting POTUS should/must be held accountable.
As far as the self-pardon theory, I think the founders would roll over in their graves.
If POTUS needed to be – and was – impeached, it is because the first branch deemed an impeachable offensive. Not electing a monarch, the US decided on a constitutional republic/democracy. None is above the law; therefore, if the conduct is so egregious that impeachment is the remedy, then the last thing the Constitution intended was for the shamed POTUS to be able to wipe the slate clean.
Seriously? Do you live in a cave without a modem or modern communications? “No man is above the law.”
To wit: George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. The list is long and multi-generational.
Carry on with your delusions.
If our hope lies in the generals, we are truly screwed.
“I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.” ? George S. McGovern
Too true. I sense a worrying frustration from them at repeat failures to win conventional wars. I wouldn’t bank on the generals restraining any politician from using nuclear weapons.
Agreed. The MIC is out of control…hell, the entire so-called leadership of this country is out of control. And so is the population. It’s collective madness or mass hysteria.
Don’t forget that the Orange Clown has surrounded himself with the generals (he probably think it makes his penis look bigger) and given them cart blanche to do whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want to do it. One day – probably too late – they’ll realize that he who lives by the sword also dies by the sword.
Excuse me the generals have been the ones trying to get presidents to nuke countries like a couple quick examples come to mind Korea, Vietnam hell false flag operation 1967 when IDF failed sink with all hands on deck our intelligence ship the liberty. President Johnson forced recall unknown most we the poeple nuke of Cairo,Egypt.MIC been total absolutely out of control since Herst discovered he could lie us in attacking Spanish empire and ever since. All wars we been sadly and easily lied into.9/11 classic example in what world can three intact jumbo jet entire airliners continue flight nose to tails leaving no debris fields.Hell the hole the pentagon way to small fit wingspan a 757 jumbo jet airliner. What struck the pentagon a missile of course. They had kill the audit workers and their data because day before Rumsfeld announced google it a fact 2.3 trillion missing.Dick Cheney war room never bothered change stand down order in effect due scheduled exercises and he permitted a tracked plane enter restricted airspace.
As far as this: “. . .states must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.”
That’s been obsolete since about halfway through World War II – Hitler fire-bombing London, Britain & the US fire-bombing Hamburg and Dresden, the U.S. fire-bombing of Tokyo – all examples of the deliberate targeting of civilians in ‘shock and awe’ campaigns designed to force a surrender. The Korean War, in which crops and dams were heavily targeted by the U.S. in its ‘population-centric’ (aka ‘genocidal’) military campaign, was an extension of this; it was further expanded during the Vietnam War with the use of Agent Orange and the deliberate destruction of peasant villages and the use of ‘free-fire zones’ (aka ‘kill anything that moves’) by the US military (under orders from the civilian leadership) – and we can even see it today with Saudi Arabia’s blockade of food and medical aid to Yemen, again an approach that targets the civilian population. There are many more examples (indiscriminate U.S. drone strikes that kill more civilians than ‘legitimate targets’, etc.)
Yes, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are intended to be used against civilian populations; but this is also true of large-scale conventional warfare, especially aerial bombardment. Recall Rumsfeld and Cheney posturing about their great ‘shock and awe’ campaign across Iraq in 2003 that was supposed to terrify the Iraqi population into compliant obedience to their new overlords?
Incidentally, let’s recall for a moment the threat that Hillary Clinton posed in terms of starting a nuclear war with Russia over Syria. Here’s how that could have happened:
1) Hillary Clinton orders a no-fly zone over Aleppo in Syria, with French and British support, after authorizing transfer of surface-to-air missiles to Al Qaeda & ISIS forces in Syria.
2) Several Russian jets are shot down, and in response, Russia threatens all U.S. forces operating over Syria and northern Iraq with retaliation.
3) The U.S., in response to Russian threats, prepares for cruise missile strikes on Syrian airbases and government centers from warships in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Russian and American warplanes start locking their radars on each other.
4) Russian ships and American ships in the Mediterranean enter into direct conflict; several ships are destroyed, hundreds of Russian and American naval personnel are killed, and military tensions all across the planet reach maximum levels as an air war rages over Syria.
5) Nuclear missiles on Russian and American submarines are placed on highest alert; nuclear retaliation protocols go into effect; the response time is just as little as 10 minutes for submarine nuclear launches. Under such conditions, nuclear launch controllers just have a few minutes to respond to launch warnings.
6) Simultaneously, Russia launches attacks on all missile sites and military bases in eastern Europe, as the U.S. destroys Russian military bases in Crimea. Soon after, a major Russian or American city is vaporized by a nuclear weapon. Nuclear retaliation follows nuclear retaliation in a matter of minutes, and civilization as we know it goes up in radioactive explosions.
Implausible? Hardly.
Nice, plausible story, but you never see the round that kills you coming. The real deal if IT happens will be so strange as to be implausible and surreal, only believable because it happened and became history. Nuclear war, the unknown and unexpected are more scary and likely than the plausible which might be predicted and avoided. Play with “danger close” or “MAD” long enough and something bad is going to happen.
Searching for parameters of Legality in a discussion of nuclear war seems a little beside the point. Incinerating millions of people will always have legal arguments against it.
“How then does he explain the number of top U.S. generals who happily participated in George W Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq? Or those who helped Barack Obama conduct his illegal bombing of Libya? Where were the dissenting four-star voices in 2003 or 2011, telling Bush or Obama: “Mr. President, that’s illegal”? So why should we have confidence in Hyten and other officers in 2017?”
Hasan is always playing stupid games. Soldiers are not following an illegal order by invading another country. They follow an illegal order by targeting and killing civilians or committing atrocities while invading another country. That would constitute war crime. That is why prisoners of wars who only kill enemy combatants must be released after the war while soldiers who target and kill civilians are prosecuted. Crimes against the peace is a leadership offense committed by those who control the political and military action of a state. GW and the civilian leadership controlled military action in the US. Members of the US military did not take it upon themselves to invade Iraq. Maybe you should review the Nuremberg Trials.
I wonder how comfortable would you feel if all Western powers would dismantle their nuclear weapons leaving only Russia, China and North Korea with nukes.
“He plans to save us from an illegal nuclear strike. But who will save us from a legal one?”
That is another stupid question. You are not in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or India. Muslims extremists are more likely to use nukes against their own people if they get to Pakistan nukes. The North Korea and Hiroshima argument is just another anti American point of view. You don’t need that much brain power to understand that the US will not attack NK with nuclear weapons.
swischeese, who created the stupid nazi robot that you are?
This troll has been brought to you by Conservative Astroturfing, Inc.
“Soldiers are not following an illegal order by invading another country. ”
Really!!! Ever hear of the Nuremberg conclusion?
What’s a war of aggression, then? (See wiki)
What was the Iraq War? A war of aggression aimed at controlling the output of Iraqi oilfields, expanding the US military footprint in the Middle East, for the purpose of further wars of aggression against Iran and Syria, ultimately (along with Afghanistan) the goal was to create a U.S. protectorate stretching from Central Asia through the Middle East to North Africa – the PNAC “Project for A New American Century” game plan.
That’s why GW Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair – plus their henchmen and apparatchiks – are all candidates for war crimes trials in the Hague, who deserve long prison sentences for their crimes, at the very least.
Dude, you do not even understand what your read. Your comments are nothing but a bunch of nonsensical anti American babbles.
Swisscheese, I think of all discussants for this article, you are the dumbest of all. The writer isn’t saying that the west should all drop their nukes, rather nukes should be abolished universally. And for your brother in the WH, he is unpredictable like a lunatic, so it is better to remove him from that happy-trigger position before the likes of you are put under six feet of mud.
Swisscheese, I think of all discussants for this article, you are the dumbest of all.”
Attack the argument, not the commenter.
“The writer isn’t saying that the west should all drop their nukes, rather nukes should be abolished universally.”
Are you sure? These are the countries with nuclear weapons:
USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea. Yet, the writer’s article is about one nuclear state: USA as if the abolition of nuclear weapons depends on that country. There is absolutely no indication that the other countries would dismantle their nukes if the US would destroy its nukes tomorrow.
“And for your brother in the WH, he is unpredictable like a lunatic,”
1) Brother?
2) was the only president who used nuclear weapons a “lunatic”?
3) Based on what we know about North Korea, its leaders and what they have done in the past and in the present not only to their neighbors, but also to their own people, would you consider them “lunatics” that should be removed?
Swiss, eh? Still sitting on a hoard of Nazi gold extracted from Holocaust victim’s teeth, are we? Got a basement full of art treasures looted from Jewish families? Trying to justify it all somehow? Ah, the Swiss – you have to put up that front of respectable law-abiding obedience, to hide all that dirty history. . .
Oh yeah! When unable to argue with facts, resort to personal attacks.
Way to go, dude!
Am I supposed to be offended? Or pretended that you succeeded in hurting my feelings?
You’re nothing but an anti-American. Admit it.
“You don’t need that much brain power to understand that the US will not attack NK with nuclear weapons.”
Speaking of not needing that much brain power…
Interesting enough, the only country to have ever used a nuclear weapon against the civilian population of a foreign country has been the United States. The world is not worried about scary Muslums bearing nukes, however, the world has a genuine concern with a rogue empire in posession of a stockpile of nukes capable of blowing up the entire planet and with a leader who is not only a bottle short of a six pack but who is also certifiably insane.
You are an anti-West, admit it.
I’ll admit I’m an (gasp!) anti-West if you admit you’re an idiot (not that an admission is necessary). You could keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re an idiot, instead, you choose to open it and remove all doubt.
warmonger
“The world is not worried about scary Muslums bearing nukes”
Is that what the Pakistanis told you?
Nope, it’s what history shows. Not that you would know anything about history, of course. Your knowledge of history is clearly limited to the contents in the pop-up books FOX News give out at rallies.
History shows what? That the world is not worried about scary Muslims bearing nukes?
(Hint: read the history of Pakistan and India (two countries located on planet Earth) regarding their concerns about Pakistan nukes that could be obtained by Muslim extremists)
Thats not all true is it. You could make a pol in India and ask about it. Or Israel and ask about Iran.
“You don’t need that much brain power to understand that the US will not attack NK with nuclear weapons.”
—
Just like you don’t need that much battery power to run a swiss cheese bot.
the threat of “a legal one” has kept the whole World safe ever since WWII. Let it remain that way. Don’t fix what’s not broken
The whole world’s been kept safe since ww2? That will be news to much of the world.
I think Alex means safe from a nuclear bomb.
The very strategy of Nuclear deterrence relies upon the perception that the American President has the unwavering will to launch an attack if the need should ever arise. Of course, ones target must be 100% neutralized via a massive first strike… If trump were to approach the problem of deterrence rationally then he might conclude that a surgical display of force is sufficient to the task. The artificial islands surrounding Sohae Satellite Launching Station would be the perfect choice given the nurtured perception that they posed a clear and present danger…
I’m actually looking to Ivanka to be the one to tell daddy not to launch the big bad meanie mean nukluyar bombs, because the fallout might affect her fashion line’s production facilities in nearby Asian factories and cause a massive global shortage, and we can’t have that. In fact the Trumps are so heavily invested in Asia that they’d stand to lose an enormous amount of money should nuclear war break out there, which more than anything is what’s probably keeping the old man from ordering a launch. Seriously, think about it. His own self-interest is likely what restrains him, not a regard for human life, international and US law or sound policy, which he can’t even begin to fathom or care about.
As for the generals, admirals and others in the nuclear chain of command, well, I’m guessing that they’ve been working out both a formal and informal process for blocking or stalling any such orders, with all sorts of beaurocratese and legalese put in their way, knowing that his very short attention span and mood swings might lead to a change of heart if he has to wait more than 15 minutes for his orders to be carried out. And they get to stroke his ego by telling him “I’m sure you’ve made the right decision by calling off your strike order, Mr. President”, which he will of course fall for, being an infantile moron.
I get the argument that we shouldn’t rely on the sorts of people who didn’t stand in the way of previous illegal orders to save us from nuclear war, but this is different. Not only would a nuclear strike kill way more people and lead to some VERY bad other consequences, but it’s just seen, rightly or wrongly, as fundamentally and profoundly different from all other strikes, however horrific they are (and many clearly are).
And I suspect that they’ve already determined not to allow this piece of shit to vent his mercurial rage that’s usually triggered by the most petty and ridiculous of perceived slights, or his need to feel like one of the big boys, or his plain old sadistic urges, via nuclear strike. They do not like or respect him, for the most part, given his actions, words and character, and, I believe, will do all that they can to block him should he give such an order. I’m not saying that it’s fail-safe, but, especially at this point, I think we’re safer that I’d previously feared we were.
Baby’s been put in a corner. For now at least. It’s a day by day thing and who knows what the future holds.
Here is an analysis of what is happening in the United States nuclear modernization program and which companies are benefitting:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/09/the-renuclearization-of-america.html
Given the political power that lies in the military-industrial complex, it’s not terribly surprising to see that hundreds of billions of dollars will be flowing into the coffers of the main players in America’s defense industry.
Well, as J P Morgan said, “Well, I don’t know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I cannot do. I hire him to tell how to do what I want to do”. There will always be a John Yoo to find a way. Mr. Trump and the Generals will all want the full protection of the law before they launch a nuclear strike.
Well, it sure wasn’t Mr. Trump who said “walk softly and carry a big stick” . .. a view ostensibly confirmed and codified in U.S. law by John Yoo legal analysis:
As far as I’m concerned, there are no more pressing concerns around the world today, whether from ‘rouge nukes’, the global war on ‘terror’, climate change and/or a host of other critical matters, that will not require (now, and more so in the future), the intense, collective cooperation of all the worlds nation-states to overcome.
To the extent Yoo’s legal analysis, elevating Unitary Executive Authority above U.S. treaty obligations (as well as clear u.s. constitutional restrictions) remains in force, the peace and composure of every people, government and nation ~ the unity of the whole wide world ~ will be contingent solely upon the whims and proclivities of the Unitary Executive Authority . .. Putin/Russia installs*. *according to recently revealed classified NSA documents @ TI.
Thank you very much for your article, Mr. Hasan!
Whenever *we’ve* nuked or napalmed civilians it’s been in order to save lives and bring democracy, check virtually any history book you like. It’ll be the same whenever *we* do it again.
We are the tools of destruction we’ve been waiting for! Change is on the way! Entropy is the highest law pertaining to human reason. Make no effort toward beneficial order in your actions or judgments. That’s now illegal, ’cause, freedom!