Poll of the Day > Top Commander will DEFY Trump if he orders a NUKE Attack on North Korea!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Air Force General John Hyten, the Top US Nuclear Commander has said that if President Trump ordered a nuclear attack on North Korea, he would REFUSE!!

He told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada that he's thought a lot about what he would do and if Trump ordered a nuke attack, he considers it illegal.

He said "I think some people think we're stupid. We're not stupid people. We think about these things a lot. When you have this respnsibility, how do you not think about it?. I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do. But if he said if the command was "illegal", he would tell me so, and said that together they would come up with other options. We'll come up with options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated"

He said that they would never execute an unlawful order because of the consequences and said if someone executes an unlawful order, they will go to jail for the rest of their lives..

Do you think General Hyten is right to defy Trump if he orders a Nuke attack? let's see what people will vote

John - Defying Trump

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/18/17/467A84A200000578-5095963-image-a-3_1511026007676.jpg

Trump - War Monger

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/18/17/467A83EF00000578-5095963-image-a-5_1511026041010.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/18/17/467A842400000578-5095963-image-a-9_1511026154184.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11/18/17/467A844500000578-5095963-image-a-6_1511026049626.jpg
---

Ya, WW2 ruined the 'just following orders' defense, now people have to actually think... which is antithetical to fascist regimes.
---

Uhhh where are you getting trump wanting to nuke them from
---

The guy is a general. He doesn't blindly follow orders, but he doesn't disobey them unless there is good reason.

The generals that would fire nukes when ordered without pausing to consider what will happen as a result are the ones to worry about.
---

I seriously doubt Trump would nuke North Korea....
But yes the top commander would have every right to defy Trump IF he ordered to nuke North Korea.

An illegal strike is an illegal strike. He's just doing his job. If it's warranted, he'll allow it.
---

I think he gets paid to make decisions?
If one mad man orders a nuclear strike, it's his job to not do it, unless there was a good reason, in which case he and a bunch of other people would agree and proceed.
I seriously doubt the current president of the US would be so dumb/impulsive.

A Nuke would fuck up more than just N.Korea, Nuke's themselves being fired at other countries is a REALLY bad idea, would it be destructive and take out your enemy?, Yes, Would it affect the surrounding countries who have nothing to do with your kiddy fight?, Yes, If push came to shove and we DID end up fighting with Korea, missiles and the like would be far better options than the dangers present in a Nuclear Missile.....
---

Full Throttle posted...

Air Force General John Hyten, the Top US Nuclear Commander has said that if President Trump ordered a nuclear attack on North Korea, he would REFUSE!!

Which is literally an admission of treason. For that remark alone, he should be drummed out of the service. Quite frankly, if there's credible intelligence of an imminent threat, his idiocy could result in the deaths of countless Americans and whole swathes of land poisoned for decades. As such, he's not fit to be a general.

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think General Hyten is right to defy Trump if he orders a Nuke attack? let's see what people will vote

He issues a carte-blanche statement about an intent to block Trump, which is obviously so incredibly wrong for any number of reasons and leaving in his post is tantamount to borderline suicidal tendency. While an unprovoked or response to a non-imminent threat is an "illegal" use and should be blocked, the general's statement suggests he'd block *any* attempt to nuke NK which is a terrible policy and means he's unfit for his command.

Lokarin posted...

Ya, WW2 ruined the 'just following orders' defense, now people have to actually think... which is antithetical to fascist regimes.

He's not thinking if he's issuing a blanket ban. And, if he refused to follow an order which led to the US being nuked, if he survived the attack he would definitely be court-martialed and put to death.
---

Zeus posted...

*snip*

Lol somebody's triggered.

Wow easy there left leaning centrist

_AdjI_ posted...

Zeus posted...

*snip*

Lol somebody's triggered.

Because it's a reckless stance which could result in a massive loss of American lives and permanent disruption to our economy. If you were thinking rationally, you'd conclude the same. More importantly, a military officer announcing he has no intention of following an order from a superior has no business in the military.

Granted, if you're arguing as a purely retaliatory effort where the US is getting nuked no matter what and, at most, we'd just be striking back, then that arguably doesn't matter as much. You could let our killers get away with it and, since we'd all be dead anyway, it wouldn't necessarily matter to us.
---

Here's the thing: the President's order to launch a nuclear missile cannot be overridden. Not by anyone. The general can refuse, but he'll simply be passed over in the chain. From the time of the President giving the order to the time of missile launch would take around 11 minutes from a US base and only a few minutes longer from a submarine. No one can override it, nor would they have the time to do so.

Also, the guy didn't say he'd refuse. He said that if told to launch an illegal strike, he'd advise the President that the launch is illegal and insist on another option. He didn't directly say he'd outright refuse, mostly because, again, it wouldn't matter.

Everyone hates trump and says no to nuking NK but you all wait.. let NK be and develop mass nukes and missiles.. see what happens then. Don't go crying to your president then.

SushiSquid posted...

Also, the guy didn't say he'd refuse.

Full Throttle posted...

He told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada that he's thought a lot about what he would do and if Trump ordered a nuke attack, he considers it illegal.

Granted, Ducky could have worded it hilariously badly (because it's worded badly as is), but it certainly *sounds* like he considers Trump ordering any nuke strike on NK illegal.

And, in general, the idea that Trump would just nuke NK on a whim is absurd.
---

Trump's an idiot, so yes.
---

considering a soviet soldier refused to follow orders and didn't nuke us at one time, I feel this guy has the moral right to say no. he may lose his job and be thrown in the brig, but sometimes thats worth knowing you did what you felt was right.

I personally feel our nukes should only ever be used as a counter strike against someone launching nukes against us. deterrence theory and all that. otherwise we got some pretty big non nuclear bombs that would still do the job fairly well if our government decides NK needs to be bombed.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

considering a soviet soldier refused to follow orders and didn't nuke us at one time, I feel this guy has the moral right to say no. he may lose his job and be thrown in the brig, but sometimes thats worth knowing you did what you felt was right.

I personally feel our nukes should only ever be used as a counter strike against someone launching nukes against us. deterrence theory and all that. otherwise we got some pretty big non nuclear bombs that would still do the job fairly well if our government decides NK needs to be bombed.

Yeah, this. MAD is real. Though Churchill wasnt wrong about operation unthinkable. Eastern Europe and Germany wouldve greatly benefitted from that.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

considering a soviet soldier refused to follow orders and didn't nuke us at one time, I feel this guy has the moral right to say no. he may lose his job and be thrown in the brig, but sometimes thats worth knowing you did what you felt was right.

That was a retaliatory strike. No safety is gained during a retaliatory strike, other than maybe stopping additional attacks down the road. However, if we learned hours in advance that NK had a long-range missile which it was going to destroy most of California then a nuclear strike could prevent massive American casualties... only for the launch to be blocked because General Dickweed has beef with the president and his personal grudge is more important than millions of American lives.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

considering a soviet soldier refused to follow orders and didn't nuke us at one time, I feel this guy has the moral right to say no. he may lose his job and be thrown in the brig, but sometimes thats worth knowing you did what you felt was right.

That was a retaliatory strike. No safety is gained during a retaliatory strike, other than maybe stopping additional attacks down the road. However, if we learned hours in advance that NK had a long-range missile which it was going to destroy most of California then a nuclear strike could prevent massive American casualties... only for the launch to be blocked because General Dickweed has beef with the president and his personal grudge is more important than millions of American lives.

actually no I talk about the cuban missile crisis.(pretty sure I heard about a dude during that ordered to launch one) I think you are referring to a time they had a glitch in their system and thought we where attacking them. (I don't think these two are the same incident, but I could be wrong. history class was over a decade ago)

but a retaliatory strike would be just for proving a point. you attack us, we attack you. creating a deterrence. and that would literally be the only reason i'd agree with launching nukes if some where launched at us. the hope it would prevent anyone from having the balls to do it again should we survive.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

considering a soviet soldier refused to follow orders and didn't nuke us at one time, I feel this guy has the moral right to say no. he may lose his job and be thrown in the brig, but sometimes thats worth knowing you did what you felt was right.

That was a retaliatory strike. No safety is gained during a retaliatory strike, other than maybe stopping additional attacks down the road. However, if we learned hours in advance that NK had a long-range missile which it was going to destroy most of California then a nuclear strike could prevent massive American casualties... only for the launch to be blocked because General Dickweed has beef with the president and his personal grudge is more important than millions of American lives.

Your hypotheticals are irrelevant.

This isn't about intelligence coming out where the military itself would advise such a use of force.

This is about having the most incapable president in US history pushing congress to look into limiting the ability of presidents to order nuclear strikes.

If you read the quotes you would see the general said he would advise him and refuse any orders that were "illegal". The sorts of orders he would ignore would be "Rocket man said something mean to me on twitter bomb them".

Your bull shit defense of this authoritarian is really old.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

considering a soviet soldier refused to follow orders and didn't nuke us at one time, I feel this guy has the moral right to say no. he may lose his job and be thrown in the brig, but sometimes thats worth knowing you did what you felt was right.

That was a retaliatory strike. No safety is gained during a retaliatory strike, other than maybe stopping additional attacks down the road. However, if we learned hours in advance that NK had a long-range missile which it was going to destroy most of California then a nuclear strike could prevent massive American casualties... only for the launch to be blocked because General Dickweed has beef with the president and his personal grudge is more important than millions of American lives.

Your hypotheticals are irrelevant.

This isn't about intelligence coming out where the military itself would advise such a use of force.

This is about having the most incapable president in US history pushing congress to look into limiting the ability of presidents to order nuclear strikes.

If you read the quotes you would see the general said he would advise him and refuse any orders that were "illegal". The sorts of orders he would ignore would be "Rocket man said something mean to me on twitter bomb them".

Your bull shit defense of this authoritarian is really old.

If you read the quotes provided by Duckbear, you'd realize differently. All of his other remarks are predicated on the first, the consideration that *any* order would be illegal. And if you weren't opening wide to swallow loads of propaganda, you'd realize that any such fears -- the same dog whistles being blown and drums sounded during the entire campaign season -- are completely unfounded. No reasonable, rational person expects Trump to nuke a country over something said on Twitter. That's something only believed by gaslit goofy who have been expertly trained to panic over nothing at a moment's notice by their handlers and trainers.

And your insistence on fervently deluding yourself into believing *anything* negative about Trump -- no matter how divorced from reality it may be -- is what's really getting old. And tired. In fact, why don't you take a nap?
---

xjayguyx posted...

Everyone hates trump and says no to nuking NK but you all wait.. let NK be and develop mass nukes and missiles.. see what happens then. Don't go crying to your president then.

if you are Pro-Nuking north korea...

Are you aware what you are even saying?

You are talking about killing millions of lives all because of a corrupt few in power in that area.

Nuking should be the last option...if at all.

Dont hit me with that "Necessary Sacrifice" bs either, you should always put into account the innocent lives.

Yes im well aware the U.S. killed millions of innocents in WW2 due to the atomic bombs, im well aware the U.S. did a ton of horrible crimes that nobody teaches you in U.S. school because god forbid we look like the bad guys.

I dont agree with the nukes being used in WW2, and i dont agree with them being used now

xXsabbathXx posted...

xjayguyx posted...

Everyone hates trump and says no to nuking NK but you all wait.. let NK be and develop mass nukes and missiles.. see what happens then. Don't go crying to your president then.

if you are Pro-Nuking north korea...

Are you aware what you are even saying?

You are talking about killing millions of lives all because of a corrupt few in power in that area.

Nuking should be the last option...if at all.

Dont hit me with that "Necessary Sacrifice" bs either, you should always put into account the innocent lives.

Yes im well aware the U.S. killed millions of innocents in WW2 due to the atomic bombs, im well aware the U.S. did a ton of horrible crimes that nobody teaches you in U.S. school because god forbid we look like the bad guys.

I dont agree with the nukes being used in WW2, and i dont agree with them being used now

they may not teach all of them but they definitely go over some of the horrible things we did. trail of tears, slavery, manifest destiny, atomic bombs, and plenty of other things. but hell we don't even go over all the good things we did either. but honestly I don't care what country you are from, you are a fool if you think they are teaching you 100% the truth. hell it would almost be impossible, as the saying goes the winners write the history, so with shit way way in the past its kinda hard to confirm whats the truth.
---

It is the god-given right of the President to be able to nuke any country he sees fit without opposition. It's what the founding fathers wanted.
---