5 ms·

"A nuclear standoff. One leader is drunk. The other is delirious. The underlings scramble to avoid the worst. This is not an end-of-the-world Hollywood thriller

by kop316 8y ago

"A nuclear standoff. One leader is drunk. The other is delirious. The underlings scramble to avoid the worst. This is not an end-of-the-world Hollywood thriller, or an episode in President Trump’s erratic diplomacy." No matter you're opinion of Trump, I find it extremely off putting when you are reading an article and the author feels the need to get in a jab like that, on either side of the political spectrum. I have seen that in other lectures before, and I feel it undermines the credibly of the author.

rat87 8y ago
If you want to pretend we live in a world where the US has a sane President it's your choice. The fact that legally no one can stop the president from ordering nukes launch is a flaw our system has long had but this is easily the time where this flaw is more frightening since Nixon's aides illegally conspired to prevent a drink Nixon form launching nukes during impeachment This isn't some sort of political bias, it's just acknowledging reality. This is one of the many things keeping washintons foreign policy professionals awake at night during the Trump era
- rrggrr 8y ago
  One can pathologize almost any President and be right. Kennedy, Roosevelt, Clinton, Reagan... from drug addiction to senility something has afflicted all of these men. Its not led to nuclear war precisely because there exists a command authority and leadership depth in the US (and Russia) that has worked well enough. Try not to confuse political rhetoric with a lack of self-awareness when judging the current President. One who pays close attention to his extemporaneous comments and speeches will notice a familiar struggle between impulsivity and self-awareness driven self-control that is actually pretty reassuring.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    The law is clear. The president has complete control over nuclear weapons, and can order their deployment at anytime. That is by design. This is the lynchpin of mutual assured destruction, and what enables launch on warning to occur. A president at any time can spin the globe, close his eyes and pick a city at random and say “nuke it”, legally it is a valid order. I too have paid closer attention to the current president’s remarks, and I see so evidence of self-awareness and self-control. I see bullying pretending to be strength. I see habitual self-aggrandizing lies. I see the worst kind of bullshitter: one that believes his own bullshit.
    - kop316 8y ago
      Nuking a country without provocation is most certainly NOT a legal order, and the US military has been educated that is their duty and responsibility to refuse to carry out illegal orders.
      - jonathankoren 8y ago
        Sure it's legal. It's called a preemptive attack.
    - rrggrr 8y ago
      Yeah, if an adversary's missile launch has been detected. Absent that the President is required to consult with his command authority. He can then be stopped by the 25th Amendment and/or a refusal to obey and unlawful order by his military aide and war room duty officers. Stop being an alarmist.
      - rat87 8y ago
        The president doesn't have to consult anyone The sec of defense has to confirm the presidents identity but not the wisdom of the order Radiolab did a story on this and a former secretary of state confirmed it https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes The principle for the army to not obey unlawful orders is the only legal way to stop a president from launching nukes. And that is very much a grey area (as to what is an unlawful order). Nixon's aides made sure he wouldn't launch nukes when he was unstable but did so in an illegal manner
    - briandear 8y ago
      Actually the law is clear: there are Constitutional checks in place to prevent a rogue presidential nuclear strike. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-presidents-power-order-nuclear-strike/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentar... The president can’t “spin a globe” and order a strike and it be legally a valid order; there is a lot more to it than that.
  - munificent 8y ago
    > One who pays close attention to his extemporaneous comments and speeches will notice a familiar struggle between impulsivity and self-awareness driven self-control that is actually pretty reassuring. One who pays close attention—who am I kidding, even passing attention—to Trump's entire life story shows a consistent pattern of utter selfishness and narcissism, unwillingness to take any responsibility for the consequences of his actions, and a complete willingness to sacrifice anything and cause any manner of harm in order to further his person desires.
  - rat87 8y ago
    > One can pathologize almost any President and be right. Trying to compare Trump to other presidents isn't useful > Its not led to nuclear war precisely because there exists a command authority and leadership depth in the US (and Russia) that has worked well enough. So far. Not leading to the end of the world does not mean a system is good or has sufficient safety just that it hasn't failed in the time period > Try not to confuse political rhetoric with a lack of self-awareness when judging the current President. There is no need for pathologizing or political rhetoric We know from Woodwards book and plenty of other sources, not from political opponents but people inside the administration exactly how crazy things are
dsr_ 8y ago
Upvoted because you're making an actual argument. I couldn't disagree with you more, though. The comparison is precisely between major world leaders who are either insane or evil -- it wasn't clear back then, and it isn't now.
- kop316 8y ago
  I would agree more if there was an actual juxtaposition in the article between Nixon and Trump, but after that, Trump was never mentioned. I interpreted it as the author wanted to take a free jab just because they could, and that is the part that is off putting to me.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Now you are not just making an argument, but a convincing one. As much as I enjoy jabbing at our fearless leader of the free world, cheap shots are boring.
allemagne 8y ago
Diplomacy: erratic. Economy: growing. These are facts about the current administration, not "jabs" for some side or the other. We should not be ignoring reality just to be polite to "both sides".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
rconti 8y ago
It is a fact that the US President is erratic. Whether you think that is intentional or not, or to our benefit or not, is a matter of opinion.
noobermin 8y ago
Mattis has in fact ignored orders from Trump like one to "take out Assad." The comparison is apt.
- sehugg 8y ago
  And had to be convinced not to unilaterally pull out of South Korea, and not to back the Saudis' blockade of Qatar that was assisted by his son-in-law, and that the North Korean missiles he saw on Fox News were from an earlier video, and ...
InclinedPlane 8y ago
Trump and his administration goes beyond all norms and deserves no defense.

by kop316 8y ago

rat87 8y ago

If you want to pretend we live in a world where the US has a sane President it's your choice. The fact that legally no one can stop the president from ordering nukes launch is a flaw our system has long had but this is easily the time where this flaw is more frightening since Nixon's aides illegally conspired to prevent a drink Nixon form launching nukes during impeachment This isn't some sort of political bias, it's just acknowledging reality. This is one of the many things keeping washintons foreign policy professionals awake at night during the Trump era

rrggrr 8y ago
One can pathologize almost any President and be right. Kennedy, Roosevelt, Clinton, Reagan... from drug addiction to senility something has afflicted all of these men. Its not led to nuclear war precisely because there exists a command authority and leadership depth in the US (and Russia) that has worked well enough. Try not to confuse political rhetoric with a lack of self-awareness when judging the current President. One who pays close attention to his extemporaneous comments and speeches will notice a familiar struggle between impulsivity and self-awareness driven self-control that is actually pretty reassuring.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  The law is clear. The president has complete control over nuclear weapons, and can order their deployment at anytime. That is by design. This is the lynchpin of mutual assured destruction, and what enables launch on warning to occur. A president at any time can spin the globe, close his eyes and pick a city at random and say “nuke it”, legally it is a valid order. I too have paid closer attention to the current president’s remarks, and I see so evidence of self-awareness and self-control. I see bullying pretending to be strength. I see habitual self-aggrandizing lies. I see the worst kind of bullshitter: one that believes his own bullshit.
  - kop316 8y ago
    Nuking a country without provocation is most certainly NOT a legal order, and the US military has been educated that is their duty and responsibility to refuse to carry out illegal orders.
    - jonathankoren 8y ago
      Sure it's legal. It's called a preemptive attack.
  - rrggrr 8y ago
    Yeah, if an adversary's missile launch has been detected. Absent that the President is required to consult with his command authority. He can then be stopped by the 25th Amendment and/or a refusal to obey and unlawful order by his military aide and war room duty officers. Stop being an alarmist.
    - rat87 8y ago
      The president doesn't have to consult anyone The sec of defense has to confirm the presidents identity but not the wisdom of the order Radiolab did a story on this and a former secretary of state confirmed it https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes The principle for the army to not obey unlawful orders is the only legal way to stop a president from launching nukes. And that is very much a grey area (as to what is an unlawful order). Nixon's aides made sure he wouldn't launch nukes when he was unstable but did so in an illegal manner
  - briandear 8y ago
    Actually the law is clear: there are Constitutional checks in place to prevent a rogue presidential nuclear strike. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-presidents-power-order-nuclear-strike/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentar... The president can’t “spin a globe” and order a strike and it be legally a valid order; there is a lot more to it than that.
- munificent 8y ago
  > One who pays close attention to his extemporaneous comments and speeches will notice a familiar struggle between impulsivity and self-awareness driven self-control that is actually pretty reassuring. One who pays close attention—who am I kidding, even passing attention—to Trump's entire life story shows a consistent pattern of utter selfishness and narcissism, unwillingness to take any responsibility for the consequences of his actions, and a complete willingness to sacrifice anything and cause any manner of harm in order to further his person desires.
- rat87 8y ago
  > One can pathologize almost any President and be right. Trying to compare Trump to other presidents isn't useful > Its not led to nuclear war precisely because there exists a command authority and leadership depth in the US (and Russia) that has worked well enough. So far. Not leading to the end of the world does not mean a system is good or has sufficient safety just that it hasn't failed in the time period > Try not to confuse political rhetoric with a lack of self-awareness when judging the current President. There is no need for pathologizing or political rhetoric We know from Woodwards book and plenty of other sources, not from political opponents but people inside the administration exactly how crazy things are

dsr_ 8y ago

Upvoted because you're making an actual argument. I couldn't disagree with you more, though. The comparison is precisely between major world leaders who are either insane or evil -- it wasn't clear back then, and it isn't now.

kop316 8y ago
I would agree more if there was an actual juxtaposition in the article between Nixon and Trump, but after that, Trump was never mentioned. I interpreted it as the author wanted to take a free jab just because they could, and that is the part that is off putting to me.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Now you are not just making an argument, but a convincing one. As much as I enjoy jabbing at our fearless leader of the free world, cheap shots are boring.

allemagne 8y ago

Diplomacy: erratic. Economy: growing. These are facts about the current administration, not "jabs" for some side or the other. We should not be ignoring reality just to be polite to "both sides".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

rconti 8y ago

It is a fact that the US President is erratic. Whether you think that is intentional or not, or to our benefit or not, is a matter of opinion.

noobermin 8y ago

Mattis has in fact ignored orders from Trump like one to "take out Assad." The comparison is apt.

sehugg 8y ago
And had to be convinced not to unilaterally pull out of South Korea, and not to back the Saudis' blockade of Qatar that was assisted by his son-in-law, and that the North Korean missiles he saw on Fox News were from an earlier video, and ...

InclinedPlane 8y ago

Trump and his administration goes beyond all norms and deserves no defense.