Originally posted by |King Joker|
And, ironically, guess which source the Wiki article used? Lmfao.
14 sources where one of them was Vox, as opposed to you using vox as your only source? Lmfao indeed 😂
So it looks like we're in agreement King Joker has no idea what he's talking about. That was fun...
Originally posted by MS WarehouseK, lmao
I quoted wikipedia because it seems like you have no earthly idea what you're talking about when it comes to US policy.
Originally posted by MS WarehouseThey're legally obligated to follow the order, which is what all the current articles are claiming. I'll take that over a Wiki article.
Sorry, but "it is argued" isn't a policy. The Secretary can indeed deny it.
Adding a dimension to other answers, Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
If the Vice President and the majority of the Cabinet are of the opinion that the President has lost her/his rational faculties and is acting unpredictably & erratically, the sitting President can be temporarily removed from office.
More practically, though (as observed in other answers), if the President were to randomly walk into the Situation Room and unexpectedly order a nuclear strike, the Commander of USSTRATCOM would almost certainly hold the order and demand clarification.
However, before any of this got to that point, cooler heads around the President would probably prevail and they would have the Secret Service "guard" the President until his/her personal physician was brought in to ensure that the President wasn't suffering from 'exhaustion" or wasn't experiencing a psychotic break. If the President resisted, then it's likely that firmer measures (such as restraints) would be employed to prevent him/her from harming themselves or others.
So no, it's a safe presumption to believe that if the President decided to launch one or more nuclear weapons on a whim, that his/her decision would probably be quietly disobeyed and he or she would probably be restrained until such time as it could be proven that they are thinking and acting rationally.
Presumably, by the time the POTUS got into that position, they gained the scruples not to launch a needless nuclear annihilation of another nation. That said, there's a chain of command that involves the Secretary of Defense who could refuse to relay the order (his codes —or those of the Asst. Sec. Defense in his absence— are required to launch) and then quickly call the Cabinet and Congress to report that the POTUS had gone crazy. The Cabinet can declare the President unfit in a letter to Congress.Furthermore, there's a "must notify" part of the nuclear protocol that requires the DoD and whomever else inside the White House to notify senior leaders of the US government in the event of a nuclear launch. These leaders would include (and presumably not be limited to), Speaker of the House, President Pro Temp of the Senate, Majority/Minority Leaders of both houses of Congress, the Chairperson of the various oversight committees that are tied to war (Appropriations, Defense, Intelligence, Energy). The chain of command, that requires the Secretary of Defense and others to relay such an order is robust enough to handle such a statistically-impossible scenario of a "rogue president" ordering a launch.
Although the Constitution does not elaborate on the President’s exact powers, one thing is clear: The President does not have the authority to declare war without congressional approval, since Article I, Section 8 grants the legislature this power.
Forgive me if I find that hard to believe considering how far Trump has got in election race. mmm
However that wasn't my point, my point is its ridiculous to tell yourself that everything will be all right cause they'll just ask the President to lie down, when a likely situation in which Trump orders a nuclear launch isn't going to be him "randomly walk[ing] into the Situation Room and unexpectedly order[ing] a nuclear strike".
Realistically we'd be dealing with a high pressure situation in which a nuclear strike could be justified but doing so would in fact result in a disaster if cooler heads failed to prevail. Under those circumstances you can't rely on the ability of the government to prove Trump insane, when his actions might have a scrap of logic to them. And heck relying on the common sense of the Secretary of Defense in general when as far as I'm aware they'll be appointed by Trump himself. In short, these are poor fail safes when we're talking about averting nuclear catastrophe.
I mean do you have any idea what the implications of a nuclear launch could mean? Worse case scenario, the world ends. Under those circumstances electing a wacko like Trump is not remotely worth the risk, and if you acknowledge him as such (as you should) it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Forgive me if I find that hard to believe considering how far Trump has got in election race.
However that wasn't my point, my point is its ridiculous to tell yourself that everything will be all right cause they'll just ask the President to lie down, when a likely situation in which Trump orders a nuclear launch isn't going to be him "randomly walk[ing] into the Situation Room and unexpectedly order[ing] a nuclear strike".
Under those circumstances you can't rely on the ability of the government to prove Trump insane, when his actions might have a scrap of logic to them. And heck relying on the common sense of the Secretary of Defense in general when as far as I'm aware they'll be appointed by Trump himself. In short, these are poor fail safes when we're talking about averting nuclear catastrophe.
I mean do you have any idea what the implications of a nuclear launch could mean? Worse case scenario, the world ends. Under those circumstances electing a wacko like Trump is not remotely worth the risk, and if you acknowledge him as such (as you should) it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Edit: I don't trust Trump anymore than Hilary to pull any kind of a trigger but if that was really my concern, I'll just put on a tin foil hat and start a protest about banning nuclear weapons.
We're not talking so much the law friend as loopholes, technically speaking Trump can launch a nuclear strike whenever he so pleases as long as he is legally sane. But more to the point is that giving someone like Trump access to nuclear codes is reckless. And when we're dealing with something as serious as a nuclear catastrophe one needs absolutes, which is not what you've presented.
And my main concern for a Trump presidency his incompetence, this being one of many presidential responsibilities he is not fit for.
Originally posted by Beniboyblingyou're not going to get absolutes, especially in the case of nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what you're looking for exists.
We're not talking so much the law friend as loopholes, technically speaking Trump can launch a nuclear strike whenever he so pleases as long as he is legally sane. But more to the point is that giving someone like Trump access to nuclear codes is reckless. And when we're dealing with something as serious as a nuclear catastrophe one needs absolutes, which is not what you've presented.And my main concern for a Trump presidency his incompetence, this being one of many presidential responsibilities he is not fit for.
Originally posted by Petrus
I can't wait to see Vader fighting in Rogue One. Is it gonna be more like PT or OT?
Far better tech these days, so Vader should be more flexible yet still ridiculously strong. It'd be nice to see him stomp a few skilled fighters, to reinforce the obvious fact that he's toying with Luke in RotS. Shockingly, people still don't believe that's the case.