Removing nuclear launch powers from President Biden would be 'wildly unconstitutional': Mike Lee

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   No, I am not offering a court defense or justifying actions. I am telling you a fact. The President authorizes the launch, Pentagon confirms, officers follow orders.

 

   The end sequence requires 2 officers (out of 5) in order to launch. You are imagining a scenario where 4 out of 5 officers would have to not follow orders. It would not likely ever happen in reality.

I am not trying to be obtuse here just making a statement in regards to that is what the defendants said at Nuremburg as well and they got hanged for it. The President authorizes a launch, it gets signed off by a high ranking cabinet member before it gets sent over to the Pentagon.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

I am not trying to be obtuse here just making a statement in regards to that is what the defendants said at Nuremburg as well and they got hanged for it. The President authorizes a launch, it gets signed off by a high ranking cabinet member before it gets sent over to the Pentagon.

  Nuremburg was a war crimes trial. We are not talking about court.

  You said any step in the chain can say no they don’t want to follow the order. Is that how the military usually works? 

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  You said any step in the chain can say no they don’t want to follow the order. Is that how the military usually works? 

yes

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  Nuremburg was a war crimes trial. We are not talking about court.

  You said any step in the chain can say no they don’t want to follow the order. Is that how the military usually works? 

You are always taught that if a order is construed to be a illegal order then it can be disobeyed. But if later that order was found to be legal then expect to face a court martial. So if a President tries to do a nuclear strike against another country just because then expect it to be disobeyed. But if there is a legitimate threat or retaliation then it should be fine.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Cyberfx1024

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Cyberfx1024 said:

You are always taught that if a order is construed to be a illegal order then it can be disobeyed. But if later that order was found to be legal then expect to face a court martial. So if a President tries to do a nuclear strike against another country just because then expect it to be disobeyed. But if there is a legitimate threat or retaliation then it should be fine.

 

  Right that's what I am saying. It's unlikely an order is going to be executed by the President, approved by the secretary of defense and verified by the Pentagon and then have officers not follow orders. I mean I know it's possible. I would say if someone was going to challenge the launch order, it would likely be the secretary of defense (or whover is the second authorization). It's hard to see a realistic scenario where it gets further down the chain of command and then ignored.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Right that's what I am saying. It's unlikely an order is going to be executed by the President, approved by the secretary of defense and verified by the Pentagon and then have officers not follow orders. I mean I know it's possible. I would say if someone was going to challenge the launch order, it would likely be the secretary of defense (or whover is the second authorization). It's hard to see a realistic scenario where it gets further down the chain of command and then ignored.

watch the movie "crimson tide" for good example of this