@EvilSandmich @h4890 well, technically, he can absolutely pull it off. And that's a fact, not a speculation - he can literally order a nuclear strike on Iran right now and in a few days when the dust settles there would be no one to oppose him over there. It shouldn't even be a question because the US law allows him to do that and the US absolutely has the capability to glass the whole damn Iranian shithole. Not that I'm saying he should do that, of course, but, ya know, I'm just sayin'

He definitely cannot unilaterally order a nuclear strike on iran under US law.

@Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich actually, yes, he can. Absofuckinlutely. And to make it even funnier, nobody can veto him. Look up what the "sole authority" means.

Okay, foreigner. No he cannot. But keep believing he can.

@Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich mate, look it up. Seriously. You are not right here at the slightest. Now, I do realize it's hard to grasp and all, not laughing at you for believing it should be somewhat reasonable, as in, there should be some checks there, but believe me (or don't - look it up), the us president does have the legal authority to nuke anything he feels like, and short of a coup d'etat, nothing can stop him if he chooses to issue those orders.

>short of a coup d'etat

This isnt a Jack Ryan novel, nigger. No one is going to nuke an entire country because a president tells them to.

> he doesn't know about the crews of Boxcar Racer and Enola Gay
😏

Setting aside legality (regardless of whether a president legally can or can't) just for a moment, there's another layer to the can or can't: the people who would physically carry out the order.

I'm not at all going to argue that not one of them would (some would, especially the culture of ego-ed pilots). However, from processes witnessed, I'd share two hurdles that are not prohibitive, but hurdles still--diminishing the 'can':

1) No one person can carry out the order alone, fulfill a launch. It takes at least two (for the easiest, go-go-now, meant-for-response-to-others'-nukes launch). More people are involved for nukes involving planes (whether air-launched or bombs). So one hurdle.
And that's giving the very doubtful assumption that a president either sends the SIPRNet message himself or picks up the red phone himself to directly contact, skipping over all in the chain of command on the way to the specific lowlies with keys.

2) A regular screening question to weed out the eager or the knee-jerk suck-ups is exactly the question being asked here. "Would you turn the key and flip the switch if [condition]? Would you if [slightly altered condition]? Would you if [again slightly altered]?"
I have seen people whisked away and out of the program for answering 'yes' rather than asking a question in response. (Maybe not something you want in a chain-of-command, but there it is.)

The U.S. isn't incapable of having a president get a nuke off by his order alone, but it's not as easy as him tapping the diet coke button on his desk. It's possible as are many things, but unlikely.

Could happen one day--ever more so as the proportion of nons in the military grows and as jews get closer and confident and salivating and wild for a finish.

awright xenophon on dat track cuh he bout to lay down them fiyah ass bars nigga fuhreal he be real hood n sheit, he awl BOUT dat gangsta-ass zebra cake bullshit muhfuggih BITCH.

@Ash_Kvetchum @h4890 @Xenophon @EvilSandmich @LordOfTheKangs well, yeah, of course. And this is exactly why I've said "short of coup d'etat", because if all the people who could carry out the order were to refuse to carry it out (even though they're trained to carry out orders without thinking about the moral implications - that's why the deterrence works), it would literally be a coup

It isnt a coup you dumb nigger. No one is going to carpet nuke an entire country or kill millions of civilians over nothing. WW2 is not today, and if it werez we wouldnt have nuked japan. He has the authority to gice all sorts of commands that are ignored. You keep talking like its a jewish wet dream concocted in hollywood

@Xenophon @h4890 @Ash_Kvetchum @EvilSandmich @LordOfTheKangs so you're essentially just said that I'm right and you're still trying to argue? What kind of retard are you, boy?

You dont know what "can" means.

@Xenophon @h4890 @Ash_Kvetchum @EvilSandmich @LordOfTheKangs yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what it means. You see, unlike you, I know how to read and I also know what the dictionary is for, lad ;)

No you dont, gramps. Can means he is capable of executing. He cannot nuke iran, because he doesnt have the ability to manifest this wish into a reality.

@Xenophon @h4890 @Ash_Kvetchum @EvilSandmich @LordOfTheKangs he doesn't need to manifest anything, lad. All he needs to do is to make a call to the STRATCOM, properly authenticate himself using whatever protocol they use, say "launch 5 warheads at Teheran" and that's it. The man's by the very nature of the US military structure the highest commanding officer. That's literally what commander in chief is. Dictionary, lad, dictionary. Words do have meaning, ya know

Some tangential but similar enough examples would be when all the signals of needing to launch retalitory nuclear strikes have gone off. By order, one is supposed to follow through. You're probably familiar with at least one of the tales of when that order was disobeyed.

When I think 'coup', I think 'replaced outside of the designs of a system'.

Of course, it's not unlikely a president giving some order to strike first (a signal not more strong than the trained order of retalitory strikes) would receive political push-back and perhaps fallout (hue hue hue) should the attempted order be ignored *and also* leaked. That president may even be successfully impeached (or not). That's not exactly a coup, so that's why I'm saying these things.

@Ash_Kvetchum @h4890 @Xenophon @EvilSandmich @LordOfTheKangs there actual order for a nuclear strike was only issued twice in the recorded history - once for Hiroshima and once for Nagasaki. Both times it was carried out without question. Now, if you're talking about cold war stuff, like Stanislav Petrov's story, the launch order was never issued there. If it was, the missiles would be fuckin' flying, my man - that's how the system is engineered. Would be much of a deterrent otherwise

The two back-to-back orders were also given years deep in a real world war (not before a war that's "not a war, just an excursion") and given before the set up of the system I've been describing, whose purpose is deterrence, in part.

The examples of retalitory strikes not being followed through are examples of orders that are to be carried out immediately--not waiting or mulling over--and against one who has already begun to strike with nukes first, as the signals indicated.

This is far stronger impetus for orders to be carried out than a presidential order against somewhere from which there aren't nuclear attacks (or screens hallucinating attacks).

I do think it is only a matter of time until the jenga tower of deterrence falls--mostly as thinking White men fill less and less of the deterrence. I'm of the mind some order will be more likely (but still not probable yet) to overcome the in-built hurdles as the U.S. falls apart.

As the U.S. becomes more turbulent and authority tries to centralize, I find a single U.S. domestic nuclear strike "to end" an already-years-deep civil war at some point more likely than a nuclear strike on anywhere else.
I don't find that strike likely at all either.

U.S. nukes seem fated to rot as threats, like the body that threatens its fists but becomes less and less able to even stand, let alone throw one and remain stable. Possible at best: the wild swing as the body falls.

There was a rumor early in the war where some ship captains were told to [do something stupid] and the captains were like "sure, I'll [do something stupid], but I just need to verify these orders have been properly vetted by the chain of command so if you could give me some signed orders that'd be great" and then when it came time for people to have to actually attach their names to [do something stupid] they all up and vanished.

I'm not sure if that's how it works or if that was just some troll job but it makes some modicum of sense in my mind.

@EvilSandmich @h4890 @Ash_Kvetchum @Xenophon @LordOfTheKangs it wouldn't surprise me if that kind of situation did happen. But if the order comes directly from the president and it's properly authenticated, there's no this kind of discussion because there literally is no one higher up in the chain of command - you either do what you're ordered to do or you're disobeying orders

@Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich boy, go look it up. I mean, literally. I highly recommend you do before you'll make a fool out of yourself even more than you already have.
Or don't. Whatever. Free country, mostly ;)

You talk like a fag

@Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich well, I'm pointing out your ignorance while giving you a way out without completely embarrassing yourself, so yeah, I can see why you'd say something like that right now, boy.
But don't worry, your balls will drop eventually.

You keep talking like a fag, boomer.

@Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich yeah, boy. And do you happen to have some actual arguments to support your nonsense? Some laws to quote, perhaps? C'mon, lad, work with me here. I'm trying to give you a chance

Boomers have the worst banter. Youre a dumb nigger.

@Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich well, I'm not quite old enough to be a boomer, but if I was, I should probably bitchslap you right now, because I'd be the reason why you have what you have and why you can be here on the interwebz exposing your ignorance instead of working for a living like a normal decent human being ;)

@Xenophon @h4890 @ThatCrazyDude @EvilSandmich

I think it's important to point out that his shit may also be, all retarded.

@ThatCrazyDude @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich

You are saying the US president, under US law has the legal right to nuke a country we are not at war with, and potentially one that has no capacity to threaten the the US directly?

@guy @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He absolutely has that legal authority as far as the US legislation works

@ThatCrazyDude @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich

There's an argument he has that right on the congress.gov website. There is no legislation. It argues that is implied in his authority under the constitution.

Presenting arguments isn't the same thing as legal authorization.

If he did something to prevent the significant damage to US soil he would probably be excused.

But if for example Donald Trump nuked Iran, he would be impeached or much worse.

Congress has not declared war on Iran.

@ThatCrazyDude @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich

So it took me 30 seconds to verify you don't know what you are talking about.

@guy @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich no, boy. You basically found an argument against president's right to order a strike "just because", but crucially you found no conclusive legislation saying that he can't do that. And in the light of the fact that the us president already orders nuclear strike twice and it was never challenged, you're just reaching for the conclusion you want. In short, you're talking out of your ass, and I think you do realize that. Either that or you're just retarded.

@ThatCrazyDude @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich

It was on the US legislature's website.

They would cite legislation they enacted, if it existed.

@guy @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich omg you're still at it....
Here - straight from the US congress: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10521
The key point for you to understand (verbatim) "The President, however, does not need the concurrence of either his military leaders or the U.S. Congress to order the launch of nuclear weapons. Neither the military nor Congress can overrule these orders."

@guy @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich besides, even without any sources, how do you imagine the strategic nuclear deterrent could possibly work if the order to launch would need to be approved by anyone between the president and the STRATCOM? You have, like 20 minutes to launch, and what? You'll have a session of Congress to approve it? You'll have the subs surface to have a conference call and talk about it? Get real, man

@ThatCrazyDude @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich

Earlier I mentioned if it's a good strategic call he will be excused. If it's unprovoked or disproportionate cooking of hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians, he'll probably be impeached or worse.

The founders didn't contemplate nukes and the legislature hasn't decided to outline those powers. As far as i can see it's a gray area, so if he has broad support it will probably be excused. If not it will be processed as illegal.

@ThatCrazyDude @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich

As far as international law (which is not what we're discussing), it's an inherent war crime because it's indiscriminate by it's nature.

So war crime that US needed is probably ok in US. War crime that the broader citizenry of US didn't want or need, probably treated as US crime. That's what I think.

In any case, it's not stated to be legal by legislation.

@guy @Xenophon @h4890 @EvilSandmich you're right. But then again, the US doesn't give a flying fuck about war crimes. Not about its own war crimes, that is. That kind of stuff would be prosecuted by the ICC, and the US isn't a member, which means that (as far as the US is concerned - the court kinda debates it) the US doesn't fall under its jurisdiction.

@ThatCrazyDude @EvilSandmich He could, but at what cost? It would turn the rest of the world against the US, and would make China and Russia seem like princes of peace. And now we're talking massive nukes naturally, not some kind of surgical strike, which we actually might see in the coming weeks.

@h4890 @EvilSandmich all true. But can you honestly say that Trump cares about that stuff at this point? I mean, he had no issues going full blasphemy with his Jesus pics on truth social even though the vast majority of his electorate is Christina. Not that I personally feel offended, of course, being non-american and an atheist on top of that, but still.

@ThatCrazyDude @EvilSandmich Yes, you do have a point. Maybe this is a sign that he has given up?

@EvilSandmich @ThatCrazyDude Yes... he likes high risk, high reward scenarios. A bit too much for my taste.