US admiral would ‘nuke China next week’ if Trump ordered it

[Oldman1]

No admiral, you didn't take an oath to Trump. You took an oath to defend the country and its constitution and follow legal orders through the chain of command. If Trump decided one day to go off his rocker and start WW3 outside of constitutional boundaries or order you to murder someone, that order is not a legal one. Finally, even if such an insane order did arrive, you have to ask yourself if you are willing to serve in that capacity.

How about Trump gets insane? He should know the cause first. He can't resist order but he can resign immediately if the cause is unjustified. China is no Iraq and many US main cities - NY, Washington, Chicago - are on Chinese list.

i hate to see the person in this position who does not have sense to talk infront of world's audience without knowing the consequence

An intelligent Person once said that think before you speak, Some one provoked you by asking the retarded Question and you simply lost your sense & many people around the world are Amazed that you are the Admiral of world's top Army, your this behavior shows your personal strength & mentality (A word is enough to the wise)

President Trump is the Command in Chief and he has to follow his orders. If China fires first, should he fired backed that could lead the the genocide of more than a billion and a half people in a country?

 

[shahbaz baig]

President Trump is the Command in Chief and he has to follow his orders. If China fires first, should he fired backed that could lead the the genocide of more than a billion and a half people in a country?

I Respect Principles/Rules/discipline that one has to follow. But dont you think that Principles should not have any value then the humanity ? here we are not talking about who attempt first although we know who threaten first willingly or unwillingly

 

[Oldman1]

I Respect Principles/Rules/discipline that one has to follow. But dont you think that Principles should not have any value then the humanity ? here we are not talking about who attempt first although we know who threaten first willingly or unwillingly

And yet there have been cases in our human history when leaders order their generals or admirals to launch an attack on another country, should you question that? Was it for territory? Was it to destroy the threat? We don't know. But this will not be the first or last on this issue about the admiral following orders.

 

[shahbaz baig]

And yet there have been cases in our human history when leaders order their generals or admirals to launch an attack on another country, should you question that? Was it for territory? Was it to destroy the threat? We don't know. But this will not be the first or last on this issue about the admiral following orders.

yes we have full of history books in libraries around the world & we all are dumb to read and understand the differences of old and new era wars. in this new era we would not have any history because of nukes rather then sword or bullet.

 

[Oldman1]

yes we have full of history books in libraries around the world & we all are dumb to read and understand the differences of old and new era wars. in this new era we would not have any history because of nukes rather then sword or bullet.

And yet there have been cases we have gone close to nuclear war. Recent was 1995 when Russia mistaken for Norway's rocket launch for a nuclear attack, even thought it was one rocket. Weapons change, but humans stay the same. Never know, Kim of North Korea may be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. hoping to deter us from doing anything. Different leaders with different mindset.

 

[shahbaz baig]

And yet there have been cases we have gone close to nuclear war. Recent was 1995 when Russia mistaken for Norway's rocket launch for a nuclear attack, even thought it was one rocket. Weapons change, but humans stay the same. Never know, Kim of North Korea may be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. hoping to deter us from doing anything. Different leaders with different mindset.

Now i can understand the prediction of Nostradamus

some one said history repeat it self
Congratulation for the era of Stone Age.

 

[Oldman1]

Now i can understand the prediction of Nostradamus

some one said history repeat it self
Congratulation for the era of Stone Age.

Indeed, it applies to everyone.

 

[shahbaz baig]

Indeed, it applies to everyone.

unfortunately
when the bulls fight, the GRASS suffers

 

[PeaceGen]

My friend, your problem is that you do not pay attention to professional reports or take them at face value. It is not possible for me to have a meaningful discussion with you due to your mindset. However, in good faith, I will give you another chance and elaborate my point.

I am completely aware of the fact that China has developed ICBMs and is modernizing this fleet with passage of time. There is no need to educate me in this regard.

However, you need to understand that China and US have a different [perspective] of "nuclear war." Elaboration below.

Chinese strategic planners believe that a nuclear war is (absolutely) unwinnable and there is no need to develop a huge nuclear arsenal (much like US and/or Russia during the course of COLD WAR). Nonetheless, sufficient deterrence should exist which may discourage any adversary from using nuclear weapons against China. In lieu of this perspective, China believes in nuking cities "only" and is expanding its nuclear arsenal very slowly.

Conversely, American military planners believe that a nuclear war [is] winnable with sufficient preparation (good knowledge of strategic options of an adversary on the ground and appropriate [offensive and defensive] arrangements to counter them), technological capability and a massive strike package at disposal that can be unleashed on a moment's notice - they don't admit this openly but some declassified reports suggest otherwise. In lieu of this perspective, US believes in disabling strategic assets of an adversary (i.e. ICBM, military bases, storage compounds and submarines) in an overwhelming and well-coordinated 1st strike move comprising of both nuclear and conventional assets at its disposal. Such a decapitating strike is likely to diminish nuclear capability of an adversary to great extent - if that adversary is still capable of unleashing a volley of nuclear-armed missiles towards US mainland, those will be neutralized via appropriate defenses at home (systems like GMD, THAAD and others).

Do you know that American ICBM, SLBM and nuclear warheads are technologically configured to achieve precision-strikes? Intent is to take out military (and strategic) targets and not just cities. Learn more from this special report: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-...ability-the-burst-height-compensating.481707/

At present, 45 Chinese ICBM are capable of threatening US mainland (directly) as noted in several professional reports but MiRV capability will increase the number of warheads pointed towards US mainland with passage of time. However, China does not keeps them armed on 24/7 basis [like US] and Chinese ICBMs are typically fielded in its Eastern lands for increased safety. This isn't to say that China needs much time to arm them, should it be necessary.

Yes, Chinese SSBN can hit US mainland from anywhere and are a formidable threat. However, submarines can also be detected and neutralized in open waters with appropriate measures and preparations beforehand.

---

My argument is that Cold War style MAD with US is becoming less and less likely (for all states) due to considerable advances in American defenses, technological capability in general and its massive nuclear strike package that is in active mode [and configured for precision strikes on top] and US will continue on this course in coming years non-stop. Not just China but Russia also risks loosing existing form of MAD with US at some point in the future. However, technological advances are likely to produce new forms of threats and the need to counter them. So this is a virtually non-stop cycle.

Most importantly;

Theoretical possibilities and realities aside (MAD in the picture or not), a full-scale armed conflict with a powerful (and technologically advanced) nuclear-weapons state is very dangerous and a deterrence in itself because no state finds loss of cities as acceptable (even a single). Therefore, you can relax and enjoy your life. And if this make you feel more comfortable - China is also building defenses against ballistic missiles of all sorts.

this is one of the bests posts, if not *the* best post, that i've ever read.

When in doubt, nuke China


A situation in which the US military feels 'unhampered' has precedent – and, as General MacArthur's endeavors in Korea prove, it's something to be afraid of

By Pepe Escobar July 28, 2017 5:21 PM

Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral Scott Swift aboard the USS Ronald Reagan in Brisbane, Australia, July 25, 2017. Photo via Reuters
The current collapse of the unipolar world, with the inexorable emergence of a multipolar framework, has enabled a terrifying subplot to run amok – the normalization of the idea of nuclear war.

The latest exhibit comes in the form of a US admiral assuring everyone he’s ready to follow President Trump’s orders to launch a nuclear missile against China.

The DailyBrief
Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox
Forget about the fact that a 21st century nuclear war involving great powers will be The Last War. Our admiral – admirably named Swift – is simply preoccupied by democratic minutiae, as in “every member of the US military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the officers and the president of the United States as commander and chief appointed over us.”


So it’s all about loyalty to the President, and civilian control over the military – irrespective of the risk of incinerating untold masses of said civilians, Americans included (as there would be an inevitable Chinese response).

Swift, once again, to the rescue: “This is core to the American democracy and any time you have a military that is moving away from a focus and an allegiance to civilian control, then we really have a significant problem.”

It doesn’t matter that the proverbial spokesman on behalf of the US Pacific Fleet – in this case, Charlie Brown (an apt name?) – swiftly engaged in damage control, deriding the premise of the (nuclear) question as “ridiculous.” Both the question and the answer are in fact quite revealing.

MacArthur’s park is melting in the dark
To shed extra nuances on “civilian control of the military,” a flashback to September 1950 and the Korean War, with some help from Bruce Cumings and John Halliday’s Korea: The Unknown War, may be far from “ridiculous.” Especially now that factions of the War Party in Washington have been pressing the case for nuking not China but North Korea itself.

It’s key to remember that by 1950 President Truman had already issued a “civilian control of the military” order to drop two atomic bombs over Japan in 1945 – a historical first.

Truman had become Vice-President in January 1945. FDR treated him with the utmost disdain. He was clueless about the Manhattan Project. When FDR died he had been Vice-President for only 82 days, and became POTUS knowing absolutely nothing about foreign policy or the new military/nuclear equation.

Truman and MacArthur on Wake Island, 1950. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Truman had five years after bombing Japan to learn all about it, on the job. Now the action was on the Korean front. Even before an amphibious landing in Inchon, led by General MacArthur – the greatest since D-Day in Normandy, in 1944 – Truman had authorized MacArthur to advance beyond the 38th parallel. There’s substantial historical debate that MacArthur was not told exactly what to do in detail – as long as he was winning. Fine for a man who was fond of quoting Montgomery: “Generals are never given adequate directives”.

Still, MacArthur did receive a top secret memorandum from Truman stressing that any operations north of the 38th parallel were authorized only if “there was no entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist forces, no announcements of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations militarily”.

And then, MacArthur received an eyes-only message from Pentagon head George Marshall: “We want you to feel unhampered tactically and strategically to proceed north of the 38th parallel.”

MacArthur kept going. He was sure China would not intervene in Korea: “If the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter.” Well, he was wrong. US forces captured Pyongyang on October 19, 1950. Exactly the same day, no fewer than 250,000 soldiers of the 13th Army Group of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army crossed the Yalu river and entered Korean territory. US intel was clueless about what military historian S.L.A. Marshall described as “a phantom which cast no shadow”.

The North’s industry and infrastructure was totally destroyed. It’s impossible to understand the actions of the leadership in Pyongyang over these past decades without considering how this human and physical destruction is still very much alive in their minds

MacArthur progressively ran amok, including calling for nukes to be used on North Korea. He had to go. The question was how. The civilians – Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman – were for it. The Generals – Marshall, Bradly – were against it. But they were also worried that “if MacArthur were not relieved, a large segment of our people would charge that civil authorities no longer controlled the military”.

Truman had already made up his mind. MacArthur was replaced by Lt. Gen. Ridgway. But the war folly still raged, hostage to the Sino-Soviet “threat” of “communist world domination”. Over two million North Korean civilians were killed. And what General Curtis LeMay – a real- life Dr. Strangelove – later said about bombing Vietnam “back to the stone age” actually was inflicted by the US on North Korea.

The North’s industry and infrastructure was totally destroyed. It’s impossible to understand the actions of the leadership in Pyongyang over these past decades without considering how this human and physical destruction is still very much alive in their minds.

So what Admiral Swift actually said, in code, is, if a civilian order comes, the US military will start WWIII (or WWIV, if one counts the Cold War), duly applying the Pentagon’s first-strike doctrine. What Swift did not say is that President Trump also has the power to pull a Truman and fire any run-amok, aspiring MacArthur clone.

http://www.atimes.com/article/doubt-nuke-china/

First of all, this is the first time i read on what preceded the current leadership of North Korea.

Second : i think President Trump is a sane and good-hearted leader.

Third : i dont know how North Korea treats their poor, and all those under their authority who do not seek to rule North-Korea. They (ordinary civilians in N.K.) probably arent complaining too badly. (i could use an update about this, last i heard in the 2000AD-2010AD decade, they were suffering from regular food shortages - that's something that upsets me)

 

[T-72]

Could be a Trump admin choreographed move, maybe in collusion with, or, maybe it's just patriots in the US armed forces coming out in defence of their commander in chief, who is under heavy attack by the corporate mainstream media.

 

[PeaceGen]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rene Veerman <rene.veerman.netherlands@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:12 PM
Subject: the MAD-principle (Mutually Assured Destruction principle in warfare between large nations seems to be fully kept up to date
To: NOS <reacties@nos.nl>, CNN <worldnews@cnn.com>, CIA <info@cia.gov>, NSA <nsapao@nsa.gov>, info@whitehouse.gov, Mossad <info@gov.il>, info@groenlinks.nl, christenunie@tweedekamer.nl, sgp@tweedekamer.nl, info@vvd.nl, info@pvv.nl, info@50pluspartij.nl, info@sp.nl, info@pvda.nl, d66@tweedekamer.nl, Donna Marrozos <redactie@3fm.nl>, redactie@volkskrant.nl, redactie@telegraaf.nl, redactie@trouw.nl, buitenland@trouw.nl, opinie@trouwl.nl, binnenland@trouw.nl, info@nrc.nl, redactie@nrc.nl, info@parool.nl, redactie@parool.nl, "Team Nieuws.nl" <redactie@nieuws.nl>, redactie@ad.nl, gastbijdrage@sargasso.nl


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-a...f-trump-ordered-it.509232/page-4#post-9713712
{COPY-AND-PASTE of defence.pk post in forum thread listed above here, NOT INCLUDED, as usual}

the MAD-principle (Mutually Assured Destruction principle in warfare between large nations (and small ones too - intercity rivalism, soccer matches and vandalism by soccer hooligans) seems to be fully kept up to date during this yet-another-new era of anti-ICBM ( InterContinental Ballistic Missile ) weaponry, and another arms-race also seems to be prevented so far as well.

it starts with a report (not by me) that might reveal too much info for some people (especially those with responsiblity on their shoulders due to working in intelligence or military professions, but something the forum-peace-division (of which i'm only 1 member, that's also been re-proven several times at least already) do need to be that buffer between the newspaper reading citizens and the part of the citizenry that by their own nature cares about inter-state and inter-ethnic tensions and peace-promoting activities.

that report, people, really *is* the best forum post i've ever read. please don't block more like it, from getting posted.. if necessary, thrown an error message up that means something to the viewer/forum-poster-person, or blank out the words you dont want spread wider by someone, this will both be a sign of a willingness to be friends with the civilian 'bothersome forum / blogger / vlogger' person(s).

 

[master_13]

As expected, Indian is going hysteria over this report, hahahahaha. Indian really have a way of celebrating over something entirely made up.

 

[Gufi]

Anotherone that missed the point.

There is an instance, even though not that credible of an American president being drunk and discussing nuclear options.
The question I think needs to be pondered over are what are the requirements beside being elected with the power of the masses behind you which makes one able to take such an important decision. I do not want to say that Trump is an idiot with no real mental facilities in the subtle art of diplomacy or the self control to not take revenge but honestly, the man is who he is.

 

[Penguin]

There is an instance, even though not that credible of an American president being drunk and discussing nuclear options.
The question I think needs to be pondered over are what are the requirements beside being elected with the power of the masses behind you which makes one able to take such an important decision. I do not want to say that Trump is an idiot with no real mental facilities in the subtle art of diplomacy or the self control to not take revenge but honestly, the man is who he is.

Why are you quoting me here?

 

[Gufi]

Why are you quoting me here?

the question of the topic was whether the president should have the ultimate power on all things nuclear. wanted your opinion