Say Trump orders insane military action. What next?

aelf

Ashen One
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
17,590
Location
Tir ná Lia
Let's say Trump decided to launch a pre-emptive strike on North Korea (or Iran or whoever), nuclear or otherwise. He may or may not tweet about it beforehand, it doesn't matter, but let's say his sane advisors disagreed with the decision and the military only reluctantly carried out the order.

What then? What would sane members of Congress do? What can be done about what he did? Or to diffuse the situation? Would liberals (and moderate Republicans) raise a hue and cry without being able to accomplish much, as has been the case till now?
 
I fear that nothing will happen, cause the US is ludicrously war-mongering anyway. Consider that apparently a good percentage of democrat voters also love bombing stuff.
It only seems to change when things get real and there is a draft, cause armchair general is one thing, cowardice is quite another.
 
If it's truly insane, Congress will eventually override him, impeach him and begin peace and reparations negotiations. I think we'd need to actually define insane though.

A pre-emptive nuclear strike is against international law, any unjustified pre-emptive strike is actually against the UN charter but that doesn't seem all that well enforced. He could launch without congressional approval. All he needs is his SoD's approval but if he did it there would be an after math he'd need to deal with. Congress would be forced to impeach him or be viewed as supporting a war criminal. I know many of them are warmongers but only because they see profit in our wars. If the US falls into rogue nation status and starts having sanctions levied against it globally that profit disappears. They don't want that. That's why 'Murica's warmongering has primarily been limited to small "controlled" wars where we can basically bully the opponent. Anything outside of that "small, controlled" realm would probably be considered insane.

For the most part this constant fear-mongering against Russia, DPRK, Iran, etc is really just to justify Pentagon budget increases. They don't want a true major conflict but without that fear the public will start to question why the military has a 600 plus billion dollar budget when "free community college" would cost 70 billion and we spend more on military than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the UK and Japan combined. The Cold War, especially the increased spending in the 80s, really kicked this off. Weapons manufacturers have actually become one of the biggest lobbying groups in Washington. All of this hinges on relatively small conflicts and the fear of greater conflicts. Any action by Trump that takes the US outside of that would be considered insane even by the warmongers in the Senate and the House.
 
All he needs is his SoD's approval but if he did it there would be an after math he'd need to deal with.
Actually, not really. There is no requirement for any involvement by the Secretary of Defense.

First, I found perhaps the only piece of military doctrine that actually explained, in a clear and concise fashion, how a nuclear order would be carried out. And it’s not some ancient Cold War archival document… it’s from 2015! On the website of the USAF’s (appropriately named) Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, one can find ANNEX 3-72 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, last updated in May 2015. It states, in a clarity that (after reading a lot of DOD doctrine) makes me want to weep with joy, despite the message:

The President may direct the use of nuclear weapons through an execute order via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the combatant commanders and, ultimately, to the forces in the field exercising direct control of the weapons.

Which seems pretty definitive. The order jumps immediately from the President to the military, in the form of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from there percolates through the system of command, control, and communication to the various people who actually turn the keys and put the “birds” into the air.

Could the doctrine be wrong? Presumably such things are carefully screened before being offered up as official doctrine, and it seems about as clear as can be, but it's always possible that something got mangled. But one other useful piece of evidence is that we asked Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, at point blank whether the Secretary of Defense was in the chain of command. The answer was a clear “no.” Perry explained that while, presumably the Secretary of Defense would express opinions and given counsel, the President was under no legal obligation to take such counsel, and the objection of the Secretary of Defense had no bearing either legally or practically.

I don’t know what your standard of evidence about such a question might be, but personally I find the testimony of a former Secretary of Defense, combined with a reasonably up-to-date piece of Air Force doctrine, to settle the case for me (at least, pending more evidence). No other assertions about the nuclear chain of command that I’ve seen have quite that kind of weight behind them.
.......
.......
Now, obviously conditions would dictate varying responses. I have faith that an “obviously bonkers” order would be somehow avoided (e.g., a frothing, “nuke them all, ha ha ha,” sort of thing). I’m not worried about that situation (it’s not outside the realm of human possibility — all humans are fallible, many develop various forms of mental illness, etc.), but I am worried about what I consider to be “ill-advised” orders, or “bad idea” orders, or “spur of the moment” orders that are considerably less apocalyptic (at least on their surface) than, say, a full nuclear exchange.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/04/10/president-bomb-iii/
Once the President makes the order to launch nuclear weapons, the only check is whether or not people in the military chain -who are trained to not question orders- elect to question orders.
 
Woo boy, it's worse than I thought then.
 
Give a man the authority to trigger a nuclear weapon, and the temptation to do so is going to be strong.

Especially if you're a man with a funny blonde wig. And tiny hands.
 
Give a man the authority to trigger a nuclear weapon, and the temptation to do so is going to be strong.

Especially if you're a man with a funny blonde wig. And tiny hands.
And a man who likes button pushing. Because buttons are fun to push.
 
A lot of people die and the economy goes to hell. Hopefully more Americans learn it's unwise to elect unstable characters as a "screw you" to the establishment.
 
What happens?

North Korea becomes a wasteland.

As does...
America,
Russia,
China,
Canada,
Most of Europe
South Korea,
Japan...

I could go on, but you get the idea.
 
What happens?

North Korea becomes a wasteland.

As does...
America,
Russia,
China,
Canada,
Most of Europe
South Korea,
Japan...

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I dont think this would lead to global nuclear war. it will be localised to the to the pacific countries.
 
Well, the OP is asking about what will be done politically. We all know bad things will happen to the world if Trump orders a nuclear strike. But what are y'all gonna do about it afterwards?

If it's truly insane, Congress will eventually override him, impeach him and begin peace and reparations negotiations. I think we'd need to actually define insane though.

That's a good question. A nuclear first strike would probably qualify as insane in most people's minds. But how about boots on the ground? Inserting special forces to kill heads of government? Once Congress or the public learns what's going on, what would be considered unacceptable enough to raise a huge stink? And what kind of stink would be raised?
 
Say Trump orders insane military action. What next?

Well my guess is as follows:

(a) If President Donald Trump himself just gives an order completely out of the blue, it will likely be simply ignored.

(b) But if he and his war council orders (or has ordered) the US military to get ready for the pre-emptive strike (they will
already have several such options, prepared and war gamed), and the North Koreans continue launching ICBMs,
and the war council of Donald Trump, Michael Penge, John F Kelly, admiral this, and general that, give the go order,
the US military will follow through that subsequent order for a pre-emptive strike, even if forum members think it insane.

(c) And the US congress and the world will likely do very little about Donald Trump or the USA action.

(d) Remember George Bush II and Tony Blair remain free men despite their pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
And afterall North Korea will have had the nukes and ICBMs that Iraq was accused of, but did not have.

(e) China would likely send its army across the border as a peace keeping and relief exercise to establish
a buffer zone, under strict instructions not to engage with any South Korean or US units airlifted in to
North Korea to check that all the ICBMs and nuke capability had been destroyed by the pre-emptive strike.

(f) A bilateral China-USA agreement would likely be reached that both China and the USA would in due
course stage their military withdrawal from a neutral united Korea that would trade with both countries.



 
Give a man the authority to trigger a nuclear weapon, and the temptation to do so is going to be strong.

Especially if you're a man with a funny blonde wig. And tiny hands.
Well, the OP is asking about what will be done politically. We all know bad things will happen to the world if Trump orders a nuclear strike. But what are y'all gonna do about it afterwards?



That's a good question. A nuclear first strike would probably qualify as insane in most people's minds. But how about boots on the ground? Inserting special forces to kill heads of government? Once Congress or the public learns what's going on, what would be considered unacceptable enough to raise a huge stink? And what kind of stink would be raised?

I doubt that there aren't many people in the US who would support even a pre-emptive nuclear strike. From the british recent elections we saw a number of morons who yelled that the pm should be ready to order EXACTLY a pre-emptive nuke strike, and if not then they should use nukes if hit by non-nuke stuff. Oh, and the comedy "North Korea realistically has plans to nuke the UK"; as if anyone in NK cares about the UK.
 
From the british recent elections we saw a number of morons who yelled that the pm should be ready to order EXACTLY a pre-emptive nuke strike, and if not then they should use nukes if hit by non-nuke stuff.

Which spectacularly failed to wrong foot Jeremy Corbyn.

Oh, and the comedy "North Korea realistically has plans to nuke the UK"; as if anyone in NK cares about the UK.

Not our continent. Time to let someone else fight the land war for a change.
 
Which spectacularly failed to wrong foot Jeremy Corbyn.



Not our continent. Time to let someone else fight the land war for a change.

It did fail on the election, but that mindset lives on. It does seem that the UK has all-around become far more of a right or far-right wing society. And smears against Corbyn are always on the rise. I would have hoped he would purge labour from the blue-labour already, but apparently he moves the other way, and who knows what the result will be.
 
What would sane members of Congress do?

There's a lot Congress can do. The main thing they can do is refuse to pay for the war. You can't fight a war without money. The president may be the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, but Congress controls the budget. Congress also has the power to declare war, not the president and the president can only carry out military action without Congressional approval for a limited time. After that time limit is up (90 days) the president must go to Congress and either ask for an extension on the military action or to formally declare war.

If Congress denied the president's request for an extension and refused to formally declare war, the president would be forced to immediately recall the troops he deployed and cease the military action. If he does not, that would be an impeachable offense. And as far as I'm aware, the president has no way of overriding or sidestepping Congress's decision on the matter. Even Bush had to continually seek Congressional approval to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
I dont think this would lead to global nuclear war. it will be localised to the to the pacific countries.
Canada and the U.S. ARE Pacific countries. We, the Koreas, Japan, China, etc. all share the same ocean. And since the Earth is curved, if any of them over there decides to launch something at the U.S., chances are that we in Canada may be watching it fly overhead.

Not our continent. Time to let someone else fight the land war for a change.
Check your history. There's a reason why there are Canadian military cemeteries in Europe, and there's a very large monument at Vimy. You're welcome.
 
Check your history. There's a reason why there are Canadian military cemeteries in Europe, and there's a very large monument at Vimy. You're welcome.

I don't mean to undermine the sacrifice of north american soldiers but the number of deaths are really different. As an example France lost over 4% of its population during WW1 and 1.44% in WW2. Canada has it at under 1% for WW1 and 0.38% for WW2. The US even less. For once I agree with EnglishEdward
 
We didn't cause the eff ups of WWI and WWII. Yet the new world did eventually step forth*, to turn a famous phrase, even if it was hella reluctant to do so. As would the old eventually so do if called.

The alliances are deeper than 2017 would have us believe.

*And the Russians did far more yet.
 
Top Bottom