5 ms·

Not the first time, in the last few weeks of Nixon's presidency the secretary of defense orders any presidential order about nuclear arms to be cleared via him

by posnet 6y ago

Not the first time, in the last few weeks of Nixon's presidency the secretary of defense orders any presidential order about nuclear arms to be cleared via him or Henry Kissinger. And people need to keep in mind, the nuclear launch system while very efficient is not completely digital or automated. He can give the order, but it still requires military leadership to make a judgement call as whether to follow it. https://time.com/5388648/watergate-nixon-anonymous-op-ed/ https://time.com/5388648/watergate-nixon-anonymous-op-ed/

k__ 6y ago
Good to know. Even if they're legally bound it's good to know that there's still someone in between who can simply say no.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  > Even if they're legally bound They are not legally bound. They are legally bound to follow a lawful order. It's a personal judgment call what constitutes a lawful order, and in 99.9% of the cases people just follow orders. But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey.
  - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
    > But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey. Sadly, you’re assuming everyone in the chain are rational actors. This breaks down in a cult
  - agsdfagsd 6y ago
    US subs are often incommunicado for extended periods of time. If they receive an EAM ordering them to suface and launch immediately, guess what happens.
    - credit_guy 6y ago
      Trump can't just pick up the phone can give a sub commander a direct order to launch the nukes (in particular because the boomers are incommunicado, so he needs to follow a certain protocol). There will be a number of officers on land who will need to relay his orders. And those officers will refuse to do so.
  - grayfaced 6y ago
    It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters. The legal process will determine if it was lawful only after the fact. Society will also judge after the fact. Both have means to punish you for picking wrongly. But the safe bet today is to refuse any unconsciousable order because the next administration likely won't punish for it.
    - credit_guy 6y ago
      You are absolutely right, of course. What I meant is, as an officer, your assessment whether the order you receive is lawful or not is based on a personal judgment, there is no lookup table you can go and check the legality of the order. In most cases, not obeying an order will result in investigations later on, and the legality will be established by various legal experts.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      > It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. As someone who's refused to follow an order because I believed it wasn't lawful, I disagree with you. The UCMJ provides good general guidance over what constitutes a lawful order, but like any legal document, it doesn't cover specifics or edge cases that crop up. This puts military personnel in hairy areas where they have to know what the UCMJ states on the subject of the order, and make a decision whether or not an order is lawful. I know you followed up with "It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters.", but what your statement comes down to is that the person following the order needs to decide on the spot whether it's lawful or not, and sometimes may have to argue their decision in a Military Court. This makes them de facto legal arbiters.
wortelefant 6y ago
but didn't Trump just replace the Secretary of Defense? In the linked story, it was the secretary who implemented the legal safeguards
bdavis__ 6y ago
I would counter that the launch process is inefficient and designed to ensure positive control. Many people have to concur and validate the orders are legitimate. The president doesn't call the sub captain on his iphone. In addition, military officers with this responsibility understand the gravity of the situation; in the ICBM fields they have access to the media. Launch when everything in the world is peaceful? Nope. They would question it.

by posnet 6y ago

k__ 6y ago

Good to know. Even if they're legally bound it's good to know that there's still someone in between who can simply say no.

credit_guy 6y ago
> Even if they're legally bound They are not legally bound. They are legally bound to follow a lawful order. It's a personal judgment call what constitutes a lawful order, and in 99.9% of the cases people just follow orders. But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey.
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  > But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey. Sadly, you’re assuming everyone in the chain are rational actors. This breaks down in a cult
- agsdfagsd 6y ago
  US subs are often incommunicado for extended periods of time. If they receive an EAM ordering them to suface and launch immediately, guess what happens.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    Trump can't just pick up the phone can give a sub commander a direct order to launch the nukes (in particular because the boomers are incommunicado, so he needs to follow a certain protocol). There will be a number of officers on land who will need to relay his orders. And those officers will refuse to do so.
- grayfaced 6y ago
  It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters. The legal process will determine if it was lawful only after the fact. Society will also judge after the fact. Both have means to punish you for picking wrongly. But the safe bet today is to refuse any unconsciousable order because the next administration likely won't punish for it.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    You are absolutely right, of course. What I meant is, as an officer, your assessment whether the order you receive is lawful or not is based on a personal judgment, there is no lookup table you can go and check the legality of the order. In most cases, not obeying an order will result in investigations later on, and the legality will be established by various legal experts.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    > It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. As someone who's refused to follow an order because I believed it wasn't lawful, I disagree with you. The UCMJ provides good general guidance over what constitutes a lawful order, but like any legal document, it doesn't cover specifics or edge cases that crop up. This puts military personnel in hairy areas where they have to know what the UCMJ states on the subject of the order, and make a decision whether or not an order is lawful. I know you followed up with "It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters.", but what your statement comes down to is that the person following the order needs to decide on the spot whether it's lawful or not, and sometimes may have to argue their decision in a Military Court. This makes them de facto legal arbiters.

wortelefant 6y ago

but didn't Trump just replace the Secretary of Defense? In the linked story, it was the secretary who implemented the legal safeguards

bdavis__ 6y ago

I would counter that the launch process is inefficient and designed to ensure positive control. Many people have to concur and validate the orders are legitimate. The president doesn't call the sub captain on his iphone. In addition, military officers with this responsibility understand the gravity of the situation; in the ICBM fields they have access to the media. Launch when everything in the world is peaceful? Nope. They would question it.