Admiral Says He Would Obey Trump Order to Nuke China

[Johnboy60]

The US Pacific Fleet commander said Thursday he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Trump ordered it, and warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from its commander in chief. Adm. Scott Swift was responding to a hypothetical question at an Australian National University security conference following a major joint US-Australian military exercise off the Australian coast, the AP reports.



Admiral Says He Would Obey Trump Order to Nuke China

 

[Tree of Life]

The US Pacific Fleet commander said Thursday he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Trump ordered it, and warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from its commander in chief. Adm. Scott Swift was responding to a hypothetical question at an Australian National University security conference following a major joint US-Australian military exercise off the Australian coast, the AP reports.



Admiral Says He Would Obey Trump Order to Nuke China

What makes this news?

 

[Desk trauma]

Maybe the distrust of Trump will get this power taken out of the presidents hands.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Do nuclear strikes have to be approved by someone other than the President or is it solely at his discretion if and when to use a nuke?

 

[Desk trauma]

Do nuclear strikes have to be approved by someone other than the President or is it solely at his discretion if and when to use a nuke?

It's all on the president.

 

[Earatha]

As scary and unpleasant as it is to admit, this is how the law is written. The general is correct to say he would do this legally.

There are one or two safegaurds to try and stop this but, legally, if the president wants to nuke someone he is the one who makes the call.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's all on the president.

Wonderful.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

As scary and unpleasant as it is to admit, this is how the law is written. The general is correct to say he would do this legally.

There are one or two safegaurds to try and stop this but, legally, if the president wants to nuke someone he is the one who makes the call.

Yeah, I don't really see what the problem is with what he said. It is his job to follow a lawful order from the Commander-in-Chief.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Hmm if the president can nuke anyone he wants, I wonder why congress wanted him to confirm even those syria strikes before doing it. Doesn't seem he has to.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Breaking story: military official agrees to obey his commanding officer.

 

[Desk trauma]

Hmm if the president can nuke anyone he wants, I wonder why congress wanted him to confirm even those syria strikes before doing it. Doesn't seem he has to.

It's traditional to at least go through the motions of getting congressional approval for military action but the president largely has a free hand. Congress could cut off funding for interventions in an attempt to stop them but then they became the commies not supporting the troops.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

It's traditional to at least go through the motions of getting congressional approval for military action but the president largely has a free hand. Congress could cut off funding for interventions in an attempt to stop them but then they became the commies not supporting the troops.

Trump seems like the type of president who is going to just act and not go through the hassle of waiting for congressional approval. Plus it sounds like you are saying it is unlikely for them to ever say no you can't do that anyways.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Trump, in the first general election debate, expressly pledged no first strike, which neither Hillary Clinton nor even Obama ever did. Which means the only case that this would happen would be if China had already used nuclear weapons against the US or a country friendly to the US.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Trump seems like the type of president who is going to just act and not go through the hassle of waiting for congressional approval. Plus it sounds like you are saying it is unlikely for them to ever say no you can't do that anyways.

President Obama demonstrated that there was no need for him to go through the tedious act of getting congressional approval before his military actions in Libya. In fact, he barely saw the need to keep congress informed of what he was doing, even two months after the fact. Congress, for its part, made sure to not even give the impression that they were challenging his actions in any way and so conceded their role in approving military action entirely.

This was far from the first time that a president took unilateral military action without the approval of congress, but it was by far the most blatant, and demonstrated that even though constitutionally congress needs to be involved in the declaration of war, from a realistic political decision their input is optional and unnecessary. That's without even getting into the laws which explicitly give the president power to declare war in emergency situations.

 

[Earatha]

Hmm if the president can nuke anyone he wants, I wonder why congress wanted him to confirm even those syria strikes before doing it. Doesn't seem he has to.

So this is where it gets sticky.

Congress has the sole authority to declare war. The president cannot declare war on his own. But a few years ago he was granted the power to take emergency action. It's limited but he can drop bombs, deploy troops, or send out nukes if he deems it necessary.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not sure that the willy nilly tossing around of hypotheticals like this against a super power, or anyone for that matter, are a good idea at all.

 

[MoonlessNight]

So this is where it gets sticky.

Congress has the sole authority to declare war. The president cannot declare war on his own. But a few years ago he was granted the power to take emergency action. It's limited but he can drop bombs, deploy troops, or send out nukes if he deems it necessary.

Under the War Powers Act the president can do pretty much whatever he wants for 60 days. After that point he is theoretically supposed to have gained the support of congress, with full removal of US forces happening in the next 30 days if he does not get it, but in reality we have seen that nothing really happens if the president should fail to receive authorization from congress.

Generally when presidents use the War Powers Act they will try to limit the scope of the engagement, but this is largely for political purposes and not because of any limitation opposed on them by the act. For example, when President Obama made a point of not putting "boots on the ground" in Libya, this was not because he was prohibited from doing so, but rather because it would have looked bad on the nightly news if he had (since we have seen that Americans largely don't mind being involved in foreign wars, but quickly change their minds when soldiers start coming back in body bags.)

 

[Sif]

It is my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) that the National Command Authority (President and Sec. of Defense or Vice president and Deputy Sec. of Defense) have to work together. The Sec. of Defense has to confirm a launch order before any missiles and/or bombers start flying. He (or she) cannot veto the order of the President but can refuse to confirm it. Of course President Trump could fire Secretary Mattis if he refused to confirm such an order.

 

[Desk trauma]

Trump seems like the type of president who is going to just act and not go through the hassle of waiting for congressional approval.

Which may well work in the favor of people looking to rein in the ever expanding powers of the executive. It's easy to ignore theoretical powers or powers used in a restrained manner. If an impetuous, irrational president is handed them and abuses them congress may reassert their authority.

I'm not very optimistic.

 

[Desk trauma]

Trump, in the first general election debate, expressly pledged no first strike, which neither Hillary Clinton nor even Obama ever did. Which means the only case that this would happen would be if China had already used nuclear weapons against the US or a country friendly to the US.

I see no reason to believe him. His sifting position on a whim and his constant lies make it impossible for me to take his word for anything.