Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I love how they phrase it "the deaths of millions may be one tiny tantrum away". The sad part is it probably isn't hyperbola.
There still safe guards. There is still trained officers who work the system whocan prevent a rogue launch.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
There still safe guards. There is still trained officers who work the system whocan prevent a rogue launch.
A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
We're not talking about terrorists taking over a silo and trying hotwire a nuke.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
BaronIveagh wrote: A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
That's not true. There was a thing recently, a retired officer who used to be part of strategic command man a nuclear facility was asked about a launch order from the president. He said that strategic command could reject an order to fire a nuke if it failed to meet the standards of proportionality and military necessity.
How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
BaronIveagh wrote: A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
That's not true. There was a thing recently, a retired officer who used to be part of strategic command man a nuclear facility was asked about a launch order from the president. He said that strategic command could reject an order to fire a nuke if it failed to meet the standards of proportionality and military necessity.
How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question.
I am pretty sure one of those officers, somewhere (Somewhere, being within the nuclear tripod of subs, silos, and bombers) would comply. All it takes is one to be launched for there to be a big problem.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
You’re asking that nuclear war is averted only by people in the chain of command refusing to comply with an order given. That’s a big ask, some will, some won’t.
I'm pretty sure that its a long chain of individuals, regulations, and standards that all have to be met before any missile can be launched. Hollywood and the movies make it seem like the President orders a nuclear strike, and it just happens. There has to be checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing from happening.
Kara Sloan shoots through Time and Design Space for a Negative Play Experience
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Tamwulf wrote: I'm pretty sure that its a long chain of individuals, regulations, and standards that all have to be met before any missile can be launched. Hollywood and the movies make it seem like the President orders a nuclear strike, and it just happens. There has to be checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing from happening.
Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here. The reason was that, say in the event of Russia launching first, you wouldn't have time to get a bunch of people on the phone to give the OK. Nuclear launches by necessity had to have a single person be able to give the order.
All that gets done with the nuclear launch codes is a chain of verification of the code itself to make sure its authentic. Not to verify that there is a 'legitimate' reason to launch.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
There can’t be too many ways to disrupt the order given by the president otherwise it would be too delayed or prone to break down during a war preventing retaliatory strike.
The circumstances under which nuclear launches are made against another nation should be absolute last resort in desperate situations, and won’t undergo a series of people giving the nod or committee gathering to decide whether to follow the instruction.
In the UK our nuclear subs have a letter to open when the country has been attacked, which give instructions. The crew can refuse to obey, but the orders are there to be followed and no one else is involved in the decision. What is in that letter is only known to the PM.
Are we sure that nuclear launches are a "one man decides" affair? I would assume that they are far too dangerous and deadly an affair to have that choice down to one person in the whole country alone.
Sure during times of war or rising hostilities like the Cold War they might well have already made the choice to use them IF others were launched; ergo that the committee had made a choice and that all was needed was a trigger. But currently I can't imagine that the USA is in a state of heightened alert to use its nuclear weapons. The only country rattling the nuclear cage is N Korea and chances are they won't have dozens of them to launch; it would be one or two. Plus the country is tiny and impoverished; you'd not need a nuclear retaliation.
Granted Trump is a wildcard; but I can't imagine that the US military has left the choice to launch or not only in his hands.
history often ascribes many actions to an individual, but many times that's only the short history books that record it as such; whilst in reality they only achieve their end goals via committee/multiple agreeing parties. Even Kings of old still had to have alliances and agreements with lords and the like in order to undertake their orders.
BaronIveagh wrote: A rogue launch, sure, but in both the US and North Korea if the supreme leader orders it, those all shut off and those officers (in theory) obey the Legal Order to End Mankind. Because for the US President, ordering all missiles fire is, in fact, a legal order that those men are bound to follow, personal feelings aside.
That's not true. There was a thing recently, a retired officer who used to be part of strategic command man a nuclear facility was asked about a launch order from the president. He said that strategic command could reject an order to fire a nuke if it failed to meet the standards of proportionality and military necessity.
How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question.
I don't know about now, but they didn't have that luxury during the height of the Cold War. If you got the go-codes to launch/scramble, you did it. You didn't take the time to decide if it was "militarily necessary" or "proportionally correct".
They had enough failsafes and procedures to ensure that it would be legit if the balloon went up. So, the idea that somebody in the U.S. command structure (including the President) going rogue, or that there was a high-risk of accidental nuclear war, is mostly the fear fodder of anti-nuclear activists and Hollywood.
I doubt a Dr. Strangelove scenario could play out today, as we no longer live under the Cold War era fear of nuclear attack hanging over our heads as a means of influencing the thinking of the various commanding officers overseeing the "buttons". As long as those officers are more like Stanislav Petrov and less like General Jack Ripper, we should be good.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
We have weapons that make Nukes obsolete, but go on ahead to your patented Vaut tec designated vault.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
Easy E wrote: I am pretty sure one of those officers, somewhere (Somewhere, being within the nuclear tripod of subs, silos, and bombers) would comply. All it takes is one to be launched for there to be a big problem.
Howard A Treesong wrote: You’re asking that nuclear war is averted only by people in the chain of command refusing to comply with an order given. That’s a big ask, some will, some won’t.
Yeah, I agree with both of you, hoping that an officer will refuse an order coming from the president is an unreliable control at best. I was just pointing out that such additional steps exist, and it isn't as simple as "the president says launch so everyone else in the chain just pushes the necessary buttons". Which is an unfortunately common position.
Grey Templar wrote: Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here.
This is complete junk of the junkiest junk. And it gets posted even after it's been explained that its complete junk.
So no, Grey Templar, the officers in strategic command are not just button pushers who can apply no judgement to any order coming from the president. That's pure tosh. Those have an explicit legal requirement to refuse any order which fails proportionality and military necessity. I not only posted this above, I gave a link to an interview with an officer who previously worked in missile command said that exact thing.
The reason was that, say in the event of Russia launching first, you wouldn't have time to get a bunch of people on the phone to give the OK. Nuclear launches by necessity had to have a single person be able to give the order.
This justification relies on believing in a world where the President would be aware of Russian missile launches, but missile command would be totally in the dark. It doesn't work like. Nothing works like. Nothing could ever work like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: There can’t be too many ways to disrupt the order given by the president otherwise it would be too delayed or prone to break down during a war preventing retaliatory strike.
The circumstances under which nuclear launches are made against another nation should be absolute last resort in desperate situations, and won’t undergo a series of people giving the nod or committee gathering to decide whether to follow the instruction.
It's not a committee decision. Did you read the article I posted above? The president decides, and the recipients of that order are expected to follow it, but also trained that like all orders this must meet the standard of proportionality and military necessity, and if it doesn't they should refuse. So if the great orange one sent through an order saying 'I'm sick of Kim calling me a dotard, nuke the whole country', then missile command would not only be expected to refuse the order, they would be legally required to do so and protected afterwards from any punitive action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Are we sure that nuclear launches are a "one man decides" affair?
One man makes the order, but military personnel given that order have an obligation to only follow that order if it is lawful.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 04:48:33
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Grey Templar wrote: Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here.
This is complete junk of the junkiest junk. And it gets posted even after it's been explained that its complete junk.
So no, Grey Templar, the officers in strategic command are not just button pushers who can apply no judgement to any order coming from the president. That's pure tosh. Those have an explicit legal requirement to refuse any order which fails proportionality and military necessity. I not only posted this above, I gave a link to an interview with an officer who previously worked in missile command said that exact thing.
The generals could object to and refuse to carry out the order, but such a decision would just result in them being relieved of duty and having a replacement put in place, who would push the button. And the ultimate decision is STILL the Presidents to make.
And even if a general does object, or even try to countermand the order, he cannot successfully do that.
Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said. “But it would be too late,” he said.
Ultimately, the generals can only advise the president on the use of the weapons, but he has the final call.
But if a President's order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal, there's no one who can stop him.
Not the Congress. Not his Secretary of Defence. And by design, not the military officers who would be duty-bound to execute the order.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 05:10:22
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: You clearly didn't read the article you posted very carefully.
No, I read the article. I understand it. The problem here is that you came in and posted something that was completely wrong, and now as part of your backtracking you are trying to re-invent my argument in to something that'll give you space to cover your own mistake.
The generals could object to and refuse to carry out the order, but such a decision would just result in them being relieved of duty and having a replacement put in place, who would push the button. And the ultimate decision is STILL the Presidents to make.
And even if a general does object, or even try to countermand the order, he cannot successfully do that.
Here's me saying stuff;
"How that would actually play out is a big question - whether officers could see that order come through and refuse to comply is a big question."
"...hoping that an officer will refuse an order coming from the president is an unreliable control at best. I was just pointing out that such additional steps exist, and it isn't as simple as "the president says launch so everyone else in the chain just pushes the necessary buttons"."
I was explaining that there are controls in place beyond 'if the president says push the button you push the button'. Because a lot of people seemed to think that's all there was to it. This doesn't mean the US has a system that will certainly stop any foolish order to launch. But it does mean people claiming there is no system are totally wrong.
But if a President's order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal, there's no one who can stop him.
This is my favourite bit of your post. You included it to try and rebut my point, but what it actually says is a clear rebuttal of your own original nonsense. Let's go back and get your original claim;
"Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here."
Then look at the quote from the article;
"But if a President's order to fire nuclear weapons, even pre-emptively, is determined to be sound and legal..."
"If". "determined to be sound and legal". Oh well you look at that, a process of review to see if the president's order is legal. Huh. A check on the president's order, one of those things you said there was none of it. Fancy that.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Except who determines if it is "Sound and Legal"? Not Congress, not the military. The President is the one who makes that call. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the one carrying the launch codes around.
Maybe there is a secret checklist of things which determine that that we civilians have no knowledge of, but that's pure speculation.
Just to use North Korea as an example, we are technically at war with them. Launching Nukes against them would be very much legal. And "Sound" is a matter of interpretation.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 07:13:39
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Except who determines if it is "Sound and Legal"? Not Congress, not the military. The President is the one who makes that call. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the one carrying the launch codes around.
"can be refused by the top officer at US Strategic Command if that order is determined to be illegal" And yes, it is that officer who is making the determination.
Maybe there is a secret checklist of things which determine that that we civilians have no knowledge of, but that's pure speculation.
"the legal principles of military necessity, distinction and proportionality also apply to decisions about nuclear weapons use"
Just to use North Korea as an example, we are technically at war with them. Launching Nukes against them would be very much legal. And "Sound" is a matter of interpretation.
The legality of the order isn't determined based on a formal declaration of war. If a country the US is not at war with starts launching missiles, the US doesn't need a declaration of war from congress before responding. What it needs is for the order to show military necessity and proportionality'.
So, for instance, "NK has fired an ICBM at Hawaii that might be carrying a nuke, and is believed to be prepping another one so nuke the place in to nothing"... lawful order, there is military necessity and the response is proportionate.
Whereas "Kim called me a dotard again, so nuke in to nothing"... not a lawful order, as there is no military necessity, and nukes are not a proportionate response to rude words.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I think the difference here is the one between having legal authority and exercising it and whether or not having authority is meaningful if your exercise of it is easily circumvented.
Of course I think that article is needlessly sensational. I doubt anyone can predict how that scenario will play out who or it happen. There are too many variables.
Edit wow feth
autocorrect. Bargirls? How did it get that from articles?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 09:02:56
Tamwulf wrote: I'm pretty sure that its a long chain of individuals, regulations, and standards that all have to be met before any missile can be launched. Hollywood and the movies make it seem like the President orders a nuclear strike, and it just happens. There has to be checks and balances in place to prevent just such a thing from happening.
Except, legally speaking, 100% of nuclear authority is given to the president. There is no checks and balances here. The reason was that, say in the event of Russia launching first, you wouldn't have time to get a bunch of people on the phone to give the OK. Nuclear launches by necessity had to have a single person be able to give the order.
All that gets done with the nuclear launch codes is a chain of verification of the code itself to make sure its authentic. Not to verify that there is a 'legitimate' reason to launch.
Couldn't they have invented checks against first strike orders? One thing launching retaliatory. Another making first strike.
Ah well. If they have nothing then odds of world end within 3 years is pretty high. Trump might not be able to order first strike with conventional but if he can with nukes then oh dear oh dear.
So no, Grey Templar, the officers in strategic command are not just button pushers who can apply no judgement to any order coming from the president. That's pure tosh. Those have an explicit legal requirement to refuse any order which fails proportionality and military necessity. I not only posted this above, I gave a link to an interview with an officer who previously worked in missile command said that exact thing./quote]
Of course said article said also:
Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer and a co-founder of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.
“But it would be too late,” he said.
So guess we are hoping if Trump goes nuts he doesn't phrase it well enough that SOME launch crew would decide to follow. He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably. Especially if he's aware of this law. Ensures better odds of at least one following orders and then rest would follow as more nukes would be heading US's way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 09:48:45
Grey Templar wrote: Except who determines if it is "Sound and Legal"? Not Congress, not the military. The President is the one who makes that call. Otherwise, he wouldn't be the one carrying the launch codes around.
Maybe there is a secret checklist of things which determine that that we civilians have no knowledge of, but that's pure speculation.
Just to use North Korea as an example, we are technically at war with them. Launching Nukes against them would be very much legal. And "Sound" is a matter of interpretation.
Nukes are not an option with North Korea. We have better things to use if they want to keep playing chicken with ICBM's.
Three reasons why-
China.
South Korea.
The targeting.
For china- China is a major trade partner, there is a very good ongoing diplomatic effort going on. and not just between the US and China. IIRC, Kim does this every year, roughly around the same time. He can be equated to that crazy old man that shouts at the imaginary cats, or yells at the kid to get off his lawn. Except THIS time, this president isn't playing by the same playbook as the "Pay them, and they will go away" of the past.
South Korea- South Korea has it's own issues going on, and in the EAST, Face is everything. THEY have to be where the rubber hits the road. We can go in there, but I can tell you that it is in a ... different roll then you think it is. I won't go into it, because you need to go do your homework on the issue. Add that to a new SK president, who needs to step up and show his leadership, or lose face, and lose the party. IE Politics... Trust me, the South Koreans can hold their own.
The Targeting- The space of Korea is on par witht he east coast of the united states. IIRC, they said once that the country was as big as The east coast of Florida and Georgia. You can't drop a nuke on that, or you get to shoot your own foot. It doesn't work that way. Like I said elsewhere- there are plenty of fun and interesting things to use on a mass army/ lacking technology, and the development of 1960-1970. These people are messed up. A far better option would be to get them to the table and develop a left and right limit, with a harder lined diplomatic effort then has been going on in the past.
Notice my red for effect. The answer to your question is Yes. Yes there is.
There are of course 3 deal breakers. Non Negotiable. If you do one of these three things, you will ride the White line. Other then that, NK is not capable of the three.
Secondly, Nuking these poor things is on par with kicking the crap out of a fat kid. The leadership of NK is already doing the heavy lifting for us. WHY double down on their misery.
Third. You have to consider the source of your... "Information". If no one has told you- That entire story is garbage. Whoever wrote it is full of crap, and has done zero in terms of homework, aside from make up their version of facts. As for legality- Nukes are a military option. NSC is on hand to develop the options for the president to work with. there are a lot of options on the table, and plenty of departments and sections, subsections, and personnel that work in the business that the "I'm a crazy mofo and I'm gonna nuke ya, cause you piss me off!!!" option is not one of them. Just like everything else in the hollowed halls of .gov, there is a procedure for everything.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
The other aspect is to consider that the USA would gain nothing using a Nuclear weapon(s) on North Korea. Sure it would cause a lot of damage, but the fallout could easily spread onto China and S. Korea and other neighbouring countries; so suddenly you've harmed allies/trading partners/your own forces in S.Korea.
Then you've also irradiated a block of land in N.Korea; and chances are the way that country is setup you've likely hit the capitol or one of the fewer major urban areas; so you've basically decimated a key area if you were then to follow up the strike with invasion.
Then you've also lost face internationally in a major way. This isn't the end of WW2 where there was a huge deep-seated hatred of the enemy. If anything using a nuclear weapon now would have the USA torn with protests at the action. The political "fallout" would likely be catastrophic both internally and externally.
Also the USA has access to many other weapons that they can use to result in similar levels of destruction and "shock and awe" to N.Korea; but which wouldn't have the huge baggage that using a nuclear weapon would have.
tneva82 wrote: So guess we are hoping if Trump goes nuts he doesn't phrase it well enough that SOME launch crew would decide to follow. He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably. Especially if he's aware of this law. Ensures better odds of at least one following orders and then rest would follow as more nukes would be heading US's way.
We're hoping Trump doesn't go nuts. Anything after that is a 6+ save at best.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Overread wrote: The other aspect is to consider that the USA would gain nothing using a Nuclear weapon(s) on North Korea. Sure it would cause a lot of damage, but the fallout could easily spread onto China and S. Korea and other neighbouring countries; so suddenly you've harmed allies/trading partners/your own forces in S.Korea.
Then you've also irradiated a block of land in N.Korea; and chances are the way that country is setup you've likely hit the capitol or one of the fewer major urban areas; so you've basically decimated a key area if you were then to follow up the strike with invasion.
Then you've also lost face internationally in a major way. This isn't the end of WW2 where there was a huge deep-seated hatred of the enemy. If anything using a nuclear weapon now would have the USA torn with protests at the action. The political "fallout" would likely be catastrophic both internally and externally.
Also the USA has access to many other weapons that they can use to result in similar levels of destruction and "shock and awe" to N.Korea; but which wouldn't have the huge baggage that using a nuclear weapon would have.
Not to mention that North Korea is very, very close to China and Russia and that they would get very very nervous when their early warning systems pick up missiles heading in their direction. Would they risk being too late by waiting with retaliation until they have certainty that the strike is not aimed at them? I don't know. But certainly launching nuclear weapons into that area is an incredible risk.
Also, if there is a war, I do not think South Korea will allow the US to use very destructive weapons. After all, once the North Korean regime would be gone, the area would become the South Korean government's responsibility. In light of reunification they probably want to limit damage to infrastructure and people as much as possible. The costs of reunification would already be high enough without a destructive war. Either way, the US has much more to gain from precision strikes than from nukes or other highly destructive weapons. The goal of a war would be to remove the North Korean regime from power, not to destroy North Korea.
That is why I do not fear that a nuclear war is about to break out. I don't see anyone who would benefit from using nuclear weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably.
IDK. With how fond he is of hyperbole and grand, dramatic statements, Trump really seems like the kind of guy to be a fan of "no kill like overkill".
'Commander, I order you to launch our nukes at North Korea. I want the TOTAL ANNIHILATION of North Korea. Total. We have many nukes, the most nukes. We need to use all of our nukes to show the amazing power of our great nukes to the world. Those who say that launching all our nukes would leave us vulnerable are LIARS. Other countries will be too afraid of our fire and fury to do anything against us.'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 14:46:49
Overread wrote: The other aspect is to consider that the USA would gain nothing using a Nuclear weapon(s) on North Korea. Sure it would cause a lot of damage, but the fallout could easily spread onto China and S. Korea and other neighbouring countries; so suddenly you've harmed allies/trading partners/your own forces in S.Korea.
Then you've also irradiated a block of land in N.Korea; and chances are the way that country is setup you've likely hit the capitol or one of the fewer major urban areas; so you've basically decimated a key area if you were then to follow up the strike with invasion.
Then you've also lost face internationally in a major way. This isn't the end of WW2 where there was a huge deep-seated hatred of the enemy. If anything using a nuclear weapon now would have the USA torn with protests at the action. The political "fallout" would likely be catastrophic both internally and externally.
Also the USA has access to many other weapons that they can use to result in similar levels of destruction and "shock and awe" to N.Korea; but which wouldn't have the huge baggage that using a nuclear weapon would have.
Not to mention that North Korea is very, very close to China and Russia and that they would get very very nervous when their early warning systems pick up missiles heading in their direction. Would they risk being too late by waiting with retaliation until they have certainty that the strike is not aimed at them? I don't know. But certainly launching nuclear weapons into that area is an incredible risk.
Also, if there is a war, I do not think South Korea will allow the US to use very destructive weapons. After all, once the North Korean regime would be gone, the area would become the South Korean government's responsibility. In light of reunification they probably want to limit damage to infrastructure and people as much as possible. The costs of reunification would already be high enough without a destructive war. Either way, the US has much more to gain from precision strikes than from nukes or other highly destructive weapons. The goal of a war would be to remove the North Korean regime from power, not to destroy North Korea.
That is why I do not fear that a nuclear war is about to break out. I don't see anyone who would benefit from using nuclear weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: He might not order all nukes(well okay he wouldn't. Even he has to know it's stupid to waste entire nuke arsenal on one country) but more than 1 launch platform probably.
IDK. With how fond he is of hyperbole and grand, dramatic statements, Trump really seems like the kind of guy to be a fan of "no kill like overkill".
'Commander, I order you to launch our nukes at North Korea. I want the TOTAL ANNIHILATION of North Korea. Total. We have many nukes, the most nukes. We need to use all of our nukes to show the amazing power of our great nukes to the world. Those who say that launching all our nukes would leave us vulnerable are LIARS. Other countries will be too afraid of our fire and fury to do anything against us.'
Maybe tactical strikes?
Not city busters but some targets may be too well dug in for regular ordience and require nuclear anti bunker and regular tactical nuclear missiles aka cruise and such.
A precision volley of tactical nukes could obliterate a entire army, or raise a entire facility to ruins in a matter of hours from firing to impact.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
It's been real enough that Congress is having hearings on whether to revoke the Presidents authority to do it.
Her's the kicker, ladies and gents, reffering to Seb's article...:
"Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer...said that even if a four-star commander of nuclear forces believed a presidential launch order to be illegal, he could not stop it because the order goes to him and to launch crews in the field simultaneously. The commander could try to override the order by sending a launch termination order, Blair said.
“But it would be too late,” he said. "
So, effectively, after the fact we can all argue if it was legal, but the nukes would already be on their way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/13 10:18:08
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
