What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[CountDeMoney]

his marching orders

But that's it, isn't it?  It is erroneous to want to believe that generals and admirals will act to save the Republic.  They take orders.  They acknowledge the role of Commander-in-Chief.  They, more than anybody else, defer to the chain of command.

That's why, when The Donald will want to push the big red shiny button, they will let him. 

[grumbler]

But that's it, isn't it?  It is erroneous to want to believe that generals and admirals will act to save the Republic.  They take orders.  They acknowledge the role of Commander-in-Chief.  They, more than anybody else, defer to the chain of command.

That's why, when The Donald will want to push the big red shiny button, they will let him.

I'm not so sure about that.  Military officers (even those who rise to high rank in a system where rank times IQ is a constant) are highly aware of their own responsibility to refuse illegal orders, even if those orders come from the chain of command.  Every leadership training course I attended, up through PCO school, emphasized that merely following orders was not sufficient.  My sense has always been that the Marines are even more maverick in that way than the Navy.

[DontSayBanana]

Who are they coming from, Carrot?

If I knew that, I'd be getting some reward money from Bob Mueller. I just mean that he's clearly not setting his own agenda, but the agenda he's pushing is not Trump's.

[grumbler]

If I knew that, I'd be getting some reward money from Bob Mueller. I just mean that he's clearly not setting his own agenda, but the agenda he's pushing is not Trump's.

So... a conspiracy?   

[CountDeMoney]

But that's it, isn't it?  It is erroneous to want to believe that generals and admirals will act to save the Republic.  They take orders.  They acknowledge the role of Commander-in-Chief.  They, more than anybody else, defer to the chain of command.

That's why, when The Donald will want to push the big red shiny button, they will let him.

I'm not so sure about that.  Military officers (even those who rise to high rank in a system where rank times IQ is a constant) are highly aware of their own responsibility to refuse illegal orders, even if those orders come from the chain of command.  Every leadership training course I attended, up through PCO school, emphasized that merely following orders was not sufficient.  My sense has always been that the Marines are even more maverick in that way than the Navy.

I sincerely doubt any of them would buck the National Command Authority guidelines regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which still remains solely under the POTUS.

[grumbler]

I sincerely doubt any of them would buck the National Command Authority guidelines regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which still remains solely under the POTUS.

Not true; the Two Man Rule requires that the SecDef agree to the use of nuclear weapons.  The president can fire the SecDef for refusing, but then he needs to get the approval of the DepSecDef (as acting Secdef).  If he also refuses the President cannot use nukes, as he will need to get Senate approval of a new SecDef, since only DepSecDef can be acting SecDef.  NCA regulations say that the Chairman of the JCS must refuse the order to use nuclear weapons unless the Two Man Rule has been followed.

Interestingly, in a Last Survivor scenario the NCA resides in the Designated Survivor, and the senior surviving Unified Commander in tough with the designated Survivor may stand in for the SecDef.  That's the only scenario I am aware of wherein there can be an acting SecDef that wasn't the DepSecDef.

[Barrister]

I sincerely doubt any of them would buck the National Command Authority guidelines regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which still remains solely under the POTUS.

Not true; the Two Man Rule requires that the SecDef agree to the use of nuclear weapons.  The president can fire the SecDef for refusing, but then he needs to get the approval of the DepSecDef (as acting Secdef).  If he also refuses the President cannot use nukes, as he will need to get Senate approval of a new SecDef, since only DepSecDef can be acting SecDef.  NCA regulations say that the Chairman of the JCS must refuse the order to use nuclear weapons unless the Two Man Rule has been followed.

I hadn't heard of such a rule before.

Doing some quick reading it suggests that the SecDef is required to ensure the authenticity of the order - to confirm that the President is in fact ordering the use of nuclear weapons.  The word used is that the SecDef must "verify" the order - not that he must "agree" with it.

[crazy canuck]

I sincerely doubt any of them would buck the National Command Authority guidelines regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which still remains solely under the POTUS.

Not true; the Two Man Rule requires that the SecDef agree to the use of nuclear weapons.  The president can fire the SecDef for refusing, but then he needs to get the approval of the DepSecDef (as acting Secdef).  If he also refuses the President cannot use nukes, as he will need to get Senate approval of a new SecDef, since only DepSecDef can be acting SecDef.  NCA regulations say that the Chairman of the JCS must refuse the order to use nuclear weapons unless the Two Man Rule has been followed.

I hadn't heard of such a rule before.

Doing some quick reading it suggests that the SecDef is required to ensure the authenticity of the order - to confirm that the President is in fact ordering the use of nuclear weapons.  The word used is that the SecDef must "verify" the order - not that he must "agree" with it.

Even if your narrow interpretation is correct.  Isn't Grumbler correct as a practical matter - it does in fact take two and the second may refuse.

edit: although following the concern about chain of command being obeyed, Wiki does make this claim " The Secretary of Defense has no veto power and must comply with the president's order."

[Barrister]

Even if your narrow interpretation is correct.  Isn't Grumbler correct as a practical matter - it does in fact take two and the second may refuse.

I have no idea - I'm going off of a couple minutes with the google machine.  I was asking grumbles for comment.

[grumbler]

I hadn't heard of such a rule before.

Doing some quick reading it suggests that the SecDef is required to ensure the authenticity of the order - to confirm that the President is in fact ordering the use of nuclear weapons.  The word used is that the SecDef must "verify" the order - not that he must "agree" with it.

But if he really does disagree with the order, he will refuse to verify it.  That has the identical practical effect, with the understanding that the President may then fire him and name the DepSecDef (but no one else) as Acting SecDef.  If he fails to get verification from the Acting SecDef, then he needs to get the Senate to approve a new SecDef and DepSecDef.

So, the President really doesn't have sole discretion in the use of nuclear weapons, though it would be require the opposition of two men to prevent their use if the president decided to use them.

[CountDeMoney]

I sincerely doubt any of them would buck the National Command Authority guidelines regarding the use of nuclear weapons, which still remains solely under the POTUS.

Not true; the Two Man Rule requires that the SecDef agree to the use of nuclear weapons.  The president can fire the SecDef for refusing, but then he needs to get the approval of the DepSecDef (as acting Secdef).  If he also refuses the President cannot use nukes, as he will need to get Senate approval of a new SecDef, since only DepSecDef can be acting SecDef.  NCA regulations say that the Chairman of the JCS must refuse the order to use nuclear weapons unless the Two Man Rule has been followed.

I hadn't heard of such a rule before.

Doing some quick reading it suggests that the SecDef is required to ensure the authenticity of the order - to confirm that the President is in fact ordering the use of nuclear weapons.  The word used is that the SecDef must "verify" the order - not that he must "agree" with it.

We still do not possess a codified "No First Use" policy that legally or constitutionally requires a two-man rule for a preemptive launch. The POTUS just needs the SecDef to verify the order, not concur for the order.  And it can be for any size launch; it doesn't have to be birds over the poles and all Stranglovian.  It could be a theater-level use of a weapon.

This system is not nearly as ironclad procedural as people want to think it is.  It's designed not to be.  That's why Maxwell Taylor said if you have misgivings about an irrational President with nuclear weapons, then don't elect one.  Oops.

[dps]

We still do not possess a codified “No First Use” policy

And we never should.

[CountDeMoney]

We still do not possess a codified "No First Use" policy

And we never should.

OK.

[Barrister]

Trump calls up a NYT reporter to say that he isn't actually angry at anyone, and his poll numbers are very good.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/trump-russia-charges.html?_r=0

[Habbaku]

Which is, of course, confirmation that he's angry at a lot of people and that his poll numbers are terrible.