Jump to content
270soft Forum

Trump suggests delaying 2020 Presidential Election


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Wiw said:

Since that will never happen, a coup d'etat is the only viable solution.

That won't happen either.  I served in the military.  Most are more focused on girls and video games than politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Some people say Trump is an authoritarian for: firing Attorneys that are investigating him or his allies, tried banning travel based on religion,  demanding loyalty from his party, using unmarked agen

You act as though Trump has been just as bad if not worse by governing with a pen and a phone. I mean the man literally attempted to move the budgetary power of appropriation from Congress to the Pres

Good thing he didn't appoint over 200 federal judges(some of whom are not qualified), or has an entire right wing news network where he calls in all the time on. Good thing because, I was honestly wor

4 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I spent a week in and out of various nuclear missile silos -- I was producing a video product for the US Air Force when I served.  I won't claim to be an expert on this topic, but I can share what I know (within reason, security-wise, of course).

First:  Yes, you are correct that there is no "Button" -- no matter how much Trump may claim that his button is bigger and more beautiful than North Korea's is.  

However, some of the rest of this is wrong.

The nuclear football does exist -- in fact, there are four of them.  One by the President at all times, and one by the VP, Sec of Defense, and...I actually forget the fourth.  Maybe Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  This is for succession purposes -- should something happen to one or more people on this list, we have the backups ready.

The "football" (bag) does not contain a button, but rather a series of codes and pre-established plans of where to attack in the event that an attack is necessary -- these plans range from a single missile to frankly nuclear annihilation.  The President chooses one of these plans and gives the relevant code to the person who carries the bag (an officer in the US Military) who then communicates that code to...those who need to be communicated to in order to activate the nuclear strike.  The Secretary of Defense then gives another code personally verifying that the order did indeed come from the President of the United States.  He is not necessarily voicing his own support for the plan -- only authenticating that it was the President's order, because the President...and the President alone...does indeed have the authority to launch such a strike.

There are no installed failsafes to question the sanity of the President, the legality of the order (other than confirming the President gave it) or checking with anybody else first.  If the President says go, your order is to go.

Some of the people responsible for launching such a strike might very well object when push came to shove -- but they would simply be arrested for refusing a lawful order and replaced by somebody who would follow it -- within minutes.  

 

The how do you explain the terms, "DefCon level," and "Congressional Nuclear Release," used during the Cold War? Those indicate a greater level of complexity and individuals in the decision than you may indicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

The how do you explain the terms, "DefCon level," and "Congressional Nuclear Release," used during the Cold War? Those indicate a greater level of complexity and individuals in the decision than you may indicate.

DefCon Level is a general level of defense, not necessarily tied to nuclear attacks.  To be clear,  definitions have changed over time.  It is true that the worst Defcon levels indicate that there is a known possibility that we are on the brink of nuclear war -- but there is no requirement to reach that DefCon before you actually launch.

As the DefCon level increases (which actually means a lower number), defense measures increase.  Military bases will no longer accept visitors and might evacuate families who live on the base.  Number of armed guards increase, and those with normal office jobs in the military who usually only touch a weapon during annual testing may be required to start carrying a weapon at all times.  The ability to take time off for vacation is cancelled, and anyone on vacation is recalled back to work ASAP at certain DefCon levels.

It does not have to be a national or global level -- it can vary at the local level.

I served from 2004 - 2010.  At most bases I served at around the world, we were at Defcon 3 or Defcon 4 because we were in a post-9/11 environment where the threat of an attack "anywhere" was always present.  You had to show a military ID to get on base (you may have had to show it to get off base too -- I can't remember that part.)

But I spent 1.5 years stationed on a tiny Portuguese island and that was a DefCon 5 -- meaning that you didn't even have to show ID to get onto base.  Because the base was so remote, and frankly unnecessary (it later closed), the threat of an attack was perceived to be almost nil.  Indeed, the base wasn't even guarded by Americans -- it was guarded by the Portuguese.  



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Patine said:

The how do you explain the terms, "DefCon level," and "Congressional Nuclear Release," used during the Cold War? Those indicate a greater level of complexity and individuals in the decision than you may indicate.

As for Congressional Nuclear Release, I've never heard that phrase before and googling it in quotation marks revealed zero hits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

That won't happen either.  I served in the military.  Most are more focused on girls and video games than politics.

But how many generals and admirals did you hobnob with? They're usually the ones behind the motivation for a military coup in any country (unless it's a "Young Officers Revolt," like in Egypt in the 1953, Libya in 196?, and Gabon in some year or other, and a FEW other countries, or like when Samuel Doe and friends made a coup on the last True Whig Party President of Liberia in 1980 when they were only NCO rank - but, almost always, we'll say, it's instigated by apex-level ranks like generals and admirals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

But how many generals and admirals did you hobnob with? They're usually the ones behind the motivation for a military coup in any country (unless it's a "Young Officers Revolt," like in Egypt in the 1953, Libya in 196?, and Gabon in some year or other, and a FEW other countries, or like when Samuel Doe and friends made a coup on the last True Whig Party President of Liberia in 1980 when they were only NCO rank - but, almost always, we'll say, it's instigated by apex-level ranks like generals and admirals.

Actually, my very first video shoot...as maybe the newest enlistee in South Korea...was at a 4-star General's house.  So I did interact with quite a few.

Do you know how you become a General or Admiral in the US Military?

By being the best of the best -- at following orders.

Those deemed disloyal are fired.  It happens all of the time, not just under Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Actually, my very first video shoot...as maybe the newest enlistee in South Korea...was at a 4-star General's house.  So I did interact with quite a few.

Do you know how you become a General or Admiral in the US Military?

By being the best of the best -- at following orders.

Those deemed disloyal are fired.  It happens all of the time, not just under Trump.

Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall," Jackson also once took a solemn oath of allegiance to the President of the UNITED States of America, one that was still SUPPOSED to be binding in 1861, and both are historically remembered as among, not just the U.S.;', but the WORLD's top 100 battlefield military geniuses along with people like Julius Gaius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Duke of Wellington, Suleyman the Magnificent, Genghis Khan, Oda Nobunaga, Erwin Rommel, Hans Guderion, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, Bernard Montgomery, Robert Blake, Lord Nelson, Grigori Zhukov, Simeon Timoshenko, Simon Bolivar, Võ Nguyên Giáp, and, of course, Ulysses Grant, among others - so, definitely among the best of the best, and cracking a global and historical list the VAST majority of American generals and admirals, or those ANYWHERE in the world at any time, never come close to making - a VERY exclusive club for such apex officers in any place at any time. Yet, they felt a need to act against their very oaths of allegiance in that way. I'm not saying such officers will likely do any such thing, just that, it's not without precedent, and competence in that position that seem to change the affair meaningfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall," Jackson also once took a solemn oath of allegiance to the President of the UNITED States of America, one that was still SUPPOSED to be binding in 1861, and both are historically remembered as among, not just the U.S.;', but the WORLD's top 100 battlefield military geniuses along with people like Julius Gaius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Duke of Wellington, Suleyman the Magnificent, Genghis Khan, Oda Nobunaga, Erwin Rommel, Hans Guderion, George Patton, Douglas MacArthur, Bernard Montgomery, Robert Blake, Lord Nelson, Grigori Zhukov, Simeon Timoshenko, Simon Bolivar, Võ Nguyên Giáp, and, of course, Ulysses Grant, among others - so, definitely among the best of the best, and cracking a global and historical list the VAST majority of American generals and admirals, or those ANYWHERE in the world at any time, never come close to making - a VERY exclusive club for such apex officers in any place at any time. Yet, they felt a need to act against their very oaths of allegiance in that way. I'm not saying such officers will likely do any such thing, just that, it's not without precedent, and competence in that position that seem to change the affair meaningfully.

I mean, start by taking out the examples that aren't American.  Different cultures with different histories and different systems in place are going to behave differently.

Patton was fired for disloyal behavior despite military brilliance.  So was Douglas MacArthur.  Congress had to pass a law to specifically prevent President Johnson from firing Grant.  So these are all examples that are actually in my favor, not yours.

But both before and after their firing, none of them attempted a coup despite political differences.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson are the closest examples you offer of US military leadership actually staging a coup -- and they weren't.  They were certainly taking up arms against the United States, but not to dethrone Abraham Lincoln -- rather, to achieve independence. 

That's splitting hairs, arguably, but the closest example you could come up with is  more than 150 years old.  The US Miltiary is an entirely different thing now.  Back then, military units were largely tied to the state you were born in.  I served for six years and didn't spend a single day stationed in my own home state.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Look, point is, NOTHING can stop him from launching nukes! And anyone who tries gets forcibly removed!

Of course, you're still assuming he WANTS or DESIRES a nuclear apocalypse, though, for some unfounded reason. You would read his egotistical Tweets, make him the centre of media attention, have him dominate discussions all over the world day in and day out, make him the central topic of so many affairs, have his face everywhere, and talk about whether he's the best or worst U.S. President that ever lived (things he really seems to want most in life, and especially right now) in a Mad Max style Hellscape? What will his personal fortune and PR be worth in such a world? Can you see why it's nonsensical for him to REALLY want to start a nuclear war. There's a big difference between a narcissist and a nihilist, you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Wiw said:

Look, point is, NOTHING can stop him from launching nukes! And anyone who tries gets forcibly removed!

Not nothing -- his own cowardice. 

Don't get me wrong:  in this case, his cowardice is a blessing.  But he's not going to do something that would result in his own death.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Of course, you're still assuming he WANTS or DESIRES a nuclear apocalypse, though, for some unfounded reason. You would read his egotistical Tweets, make him the centre of media attention, have him dominate discussions all over the world day in and day out, make him the central topic of so many affairs, have his face everywhere, and talk about whether he's the best or worst U.S. President that ever lived (things he really seems to want most in life, and especially right now) in a Mad Max style Hellscape? What will his personal fortune and PR be worth in such a world? Can you see why it's nonsensical for him to REALLY want to start a nuclear war. There's a big difference between a narcissist and a nihilist, you know.

Then why would he, for example, say he'd nuke a hurricane, of all things?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Not nothing -- his own cowardice. 

Don't get me wrong:  in this case, his cowardice is a blessing.  But he's not going to do something that would result in his own death.
 

What cowardice, he's afraid of nothing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wiw said:

What cowardice, he's afraid of nothing!

Ok.  I guess we'll just wait and see who is right.  I'll put my money on "we don't die in a nuclear holocaust in the next five months".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...