Top general says he would resist "illegal" nuke order from Trump

CBS .com ^ | 11/18/17 | KATHRYN WATSON

[ex91B10]

The top U.S. nuclear commander said Saturday he would push back against President Trump if he ordered a nuclear launch the general believed to be "illegal," saying he would hope to find another solution.

[Robert DeLong]

Okay I stand corrected, however, what if the order is determined not to be illegal after the fact? Then I assume the General would face court martial?

I assume this is all of a result of belonging to the Geneva Convention, however, what if the order is given against a nation that is a non signatory to the Geneva Convention? Is it still applicable?

[RJS1950]

What part of illegal don’t you understand?

All service members are required to not follow an illegal order.

There are specific nuclear release guidelines that have been in place for years. We practiced them constantly. There are safeguards in place. They are very restrictive and the president is not the sole decision maker; he is the final decision maker. He has specific options to be implemented only after a threat is imminent and verified.

Now, not following a legal order is another thing and is grounds for courts martial and immediate removal.

The general is just stating the rules; only legal orders are valid and to be followed.

[Lazamataz]

OK, troll...List something that you think would be illegal!

A nuclear first strike against England would be illegal. It would violate many of our treaties, NATO being the foremost of them.

[The Deplorable Miss Lemon]

I can’t help but feel that anyone appointed to any position by Obama is a suspected traitor. There may be some good people there, but I doubt it.

[Lazamataz]

I assume this is all of a result of belonging to the Geneva Convention, however, what if the order is given against a nation that is a non signatory to the Geneva Convention? Is it still applicable?

Sans treaty, Geneva included, a strike (conventional or otherwise) is officially legal. However, I suspect many up and down the chain of command would issue strong opinions on a nuclear strike against, say, Botswana.

[stockpirate]

I would guess that there are safeguards in place thst require several people to validate a launch, thereby making it a legal launch, but POTUSgives the lainch command.

[Lockbox]

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

https://www.thebalance.com/military-orders-3332819

[Mr.Unique]

The commander of a combatant command is responsible to the President and to the Secretary of Defense for the performance of missions assigned to that command by the President or by the Secretary with the approval of the President

The JCS is not in a Combatant Commander's chain of command.

[RJS1950]

Sorry but there is. Stop looking and talking like fools. The president does not have the sole authority to release nuclear weapons on a whim. The rules and procedures were put into place and fine tuned over many years to prevent any president or general or other defense official in the National Command Authority from instigating a renegade act.

[RJS1950]

No, that’s never been the way it works. Stop acting like nitwits.

[BenLurkin]

How does it work?

[Political Junkie Too]

I stand corrected.

-PJ

[Robert DeLong]

See my post # 121. I already admitted I was wrong.

[anton]

Firing squad.

[tumblindice]

This guy must be a ring-knocker. I've known some stoops but never any ROTC regular Army that stoopid.

[RJS1950]

So, you want the military to carry through ILLEGAL orders given by a president?

[SuperLuminal]

"A nuclear first strike against England would be illegal. It would violate many of our treaties, NATO being the foremost of them."

Yep! So would a first strike against the Mustang Ranch outside Reno be illegal. It would violate many of our treats.

[lodi90]

The general is just stating the rules; only legal orders are valid and to be followed.

---

The general was just being a willing tool at a Never Trump “security conference.” Fixed it for you.

[tumblindice]

Correction: He’s a wingnut. That explains it.

[Leaning Right]

> People should read the article. The headline from CBS is truly horrible, biased and misleading. <

Yep! The general answered as if he were quoting (correctly) from the manual. His remarks were bland, and generic. The headline makes it look like he was specifically bashing Trump.