CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:32 am
 


Regina Regina:
What would happen if President Biden refused to retaliate?


Then the duty would fall to President Boehner. The reason for this is because once you have a nuclear attack on the US then the military has to end that threat. Any POTUS who fails to act to protect the citizens of the USA, regardless of his reasons, would be reasoned to be incomptent or compromised and in their military role as Commander in Chief would be subject to military rules and not civilian rules and would be relieved of command.

Potentially, the person could be restored as POTUS after the event but that would likely be up to civilian authorities at that point.

All the military would be concerned about is the safety and security of the USA.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:38 pm
 


So the military would decide who was president?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2398
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:42 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
QBall QBall:
NORAD cannot launch without the President's permission.


If Obama refused to issue the order to retaliate against a nation that hit the US with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons then he'd be deposed (likely declared incompetent) and the military would turn to President Biden to issue the order.

There are some things that the military simply will not sit on its collective butt for and a President who fails to act in response to such an attack would be one of them.


Christ almighty you have no idea how your executive works, do you? Unless the U.S. military is going to perform a coup and invade the White House the only way to remove the President, according to Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, is on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. You can't be impeached for incompetency. That means the President must first be impeached by the House of Representatives. The House Judicial committee appoints a special prosecutor who presents the case to the members of the House. If the House votes by a simple majority to impeach, it is sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate selects a panel with a prosecutor and puts the President on trial. After the trial the Senate votes. If a 2/3 majority find him guilty, he is removed from office. Do you really think the Republicans are going to bring an impeachment charge during wartime?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:10 pm
 


Regina Regina:
So the military would decide who was president?


If the US is under direct attack and the POTUS refuses to act in accordance with established protocols then the established protocols provide for removing the President.

As disturbing as this may sound to some of you bear in mind that whoever sits in the White House has to go through war games to see how (and why) these protocols proceed as they do. They all know how it works.

A President who would refuse to protect the USA from a foreign attack would be guilty of dereliction of duty and the military would be obligated to immediately relieve him of command. In all likelyhood, the then-acting President would likely restore the elected President's authority after the crisis was passed.

With Obama I seriously doubt that this would be an issue but with Jimmy Carter it most certainly was and that's why these protocols came about in the 1980's and 1990's.

Carter made several remarks to the effect that if the Soviet Union were to have attacked the USA that he would not use nuclear weapons in retaliation. This is in line with his pacifist views but not at all in line with the defense of the USA. With Carter the USA was vulnerable to a first-strike and then also vulnerable to subsequent strikes due to his potential inactions.

Thus protocols were developed to make sure that the security of the nation is first and that the personal views of a President are secondary during an event that threatens the national existence.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:19 pm
 


Given how vigourously and cold-bloodedly President Obama has continued to wage the existing war against terrorists the liklihood that he'd suddenly wimp out on the North Koreans if they shot a missile at the US is slim to none. This projecting of Obama's alleged pacifism by right-wingers failed as a tactic in 2008 and 2012 during the elections and keeps failing today. With the B2 bomber flyovers and the sudden appearance off the Korean coastline of a UN Navy ship specifically designed with the task of intercepting incoming missiles shows that the Administration and Pentagon are taking this activity in North Korea seriously and that the US military will be ordered by the President to immediately pounce if they're required to.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:22 pm
 


Finally somebody speaking some sense.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:49 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Finally somebody speaking some sense.


I said about the same thing as Thanos.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:04 am
 


$1:
North Korea collapse would set Asia on edge

Kim's bombast and constant threats overshadow the fact there are signs of real liberalization now underway in the totalitarian regime

The big danger in the Far East is not that North Korea will attack its neighbours, but that the regime will collapse and intervention by other players will provoke unpredictable and highly volatile results.

It has received little attention in the West, but there are signs that Kim Jong Un and his mentors are continuing policies started by his father, Kim Jong Il who died in December 2011, to liberalize the regime.

For authoritarian regimes like Pyongyang, this is always a dangerous transition, and events can spiral out of control.

But chaos in North Korea would invite intervention by South Korea, where there are strong yearnings for reunification of the two countries divided at the end of the Second World War.

Equally concerned about a flame-out by the Kim regime would be China, the only significant supporter of the Pyongyang government. Beijing sees a separate North Korea as an important buffer against United States' military influence in the region.

Beijing would be reluctant to intervene directly in North Korea because of the imperialist message it would send to China's other neighbours such as Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines with which it has territorial disputes.

But there are clearly scenarios in the fallout from a collapse in North Korea that could quickly see a combustible confrontation between China and the U.S., backed by its Asian allies.

Recent threats by the Pyongyang regime to attack South Korea and the U.S. are too outlandish to be credible. They are undoubtedly aimed at North Korea's domestic audience and intended to brand leader Kim Jong Un as a decisive, tough and ruthless leader like his father and grandfather before him.

Kim's propaganda machine portrayed new United Nations sanctions against Pyongyang - a response to its Feb. 12 underground test of a nuclear weapon - and joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises as acts of aggression against North Korea. Therefore, said Pyongyang, North Korea is justified in making pre-emptive strikes against South Korea and the U.S.

But UN sanctions were to be expected. It is what has happened every time North Korea has defied international condemnation of its weapons programs, including two previous nuclear weapons tests and the launching of unarmed long-range missiles.

The war games between U.S. and South Korean forces are an annual event, and while Pyongyang always protests, there is no reason for the North to consider these any more threatening than past exercises.

And the threat to attack the U.S. is too outlandish.

Like all authoritarian regimes, the driving force behind all that happens in Pyongyang is the preservation of the regime.

Kim and his courtiers know full well that if they push too hard they will be removed either by the U.S. and its allies or by China.

On Sunday, even as the Central Committee of the ruling Workers' Party of Korea proclaimed that its possession of nuclear weapons will not be negotiated away and are now an essential part of "the nation's life," it also took another step in the reform process.

The Central Committee, whose decisions are seldom reported as openly as these were, set out "a new strategic line" with an emphasis on economic development.

In the last few years, Pyongyang has toyed with following China's model for trade and investment. But it has been politically near impossible for the leaders to abandon the ruinous policy of "juche" - economic self-reliance - developed by the regime's founder, Kim Il Sung.

An indication that the economic reform policy may be real is that former North Korean premier Pak Pong Ju was promoted to full membership in the Politburo.

Pak led the 2002 Economic Management Improvement Measures, the first efforts at reform.

But he met severe resistance from hard-line "juche" purists, his reforms were shelved, and he was removed from power.

But an increasingly important part of the North Korean economy and a model for its future development is the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC).

The KIC is a joint venture between North and South Korea where, every day, South Korean managers commute to supervise 50,000 Northern workers in 123 enterprises owned by the South.

And again, contrary to the usual view from the West, there has been some liberalization of the police state in North Korea in recent years.

One significant development is that, for the first time, business people and others trusted by the ruling party have been given passports and allowed to work abroad, mostly in China.

But among some of these North Koreans interviewed by non-Korean analysts, there is a common theme.

They are uniformly contemptuous of the Kim regime, which they see as totally self-serving and uninterested in providing for North Korea's people.

If these are the views of people trusted by the ruling Workers' Party, then the ground under the Kim regime cannot be considered stable.

[email protected]




Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/North+ ... z2PNibYNwH


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2398
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:17 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
If the US is under direct attack and the POTUS refuses to act in accordance with established protocols then the established protocols provide for removing the President.


No branch of the military can create a policy or doctrine which violates the Constitution. Please stop embarrassing yourself.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:20 am
 


QBall QBall:
No branch of the military can create a policy or doctrine which violates the Constitution.


ROTFL


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 150
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:28 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
QBall QBall:
NORAD cannot launch without the President's permission.


If Obama refused to issue the order to retaliate against a nation that hit the US with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons then he'd be deposed (likely declared incompetent) and the military would turn to President Biden to issue the order.

There are some things that the military simply will not sit on its collective butt for and a President who fails to act in response to such an attack would be one of them.


There is one thing the US military does to a T and that is obeying its civilian command chain.

Your post sounded, to me, that you would actually be in favor of a military coup?

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
QBall QBall:
No branch of the military can create a policy or doctrine which violates the Constitution.


ROTFL


Not sure what protocols you referred to. Do you have a link?

I suppose it's possible the military could do anything it wanted if some general got a hair up his posterior. But that would assume that the 100s of thousands of officers and enlisted men carrying out those illegal orders would break their oath of allegiance to the constitution and to their chain of command, which I find doubtful.

More likely, the nutter general would be quietly escorted out of the room to a waiting mental hospital.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19939
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:51 pm
 


Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35270
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:53 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
QBall QBall:
No branch of the military can create a policy or doctrine which violates the Constitution.


ROTFL

That's why you guys have that well trained and armed militia of yours... to make sure they don't... or do, I'm not sure. :?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:58 pm
 


pineywoodslim pineywoodslim:
There is one thing the US military does to a T and that is obeying its civilian command chain.


Except that the President is also a military officer in his role as Commander in Chief. He is then subject to military law in that capacity and that body of military law (UCMJ) in conjunction with the 25th Amendment provides that a President who is unable or unwilling to effect the defense of the United States during a time of crisis can be relieved of duty and replaced by the next person in the Constitutional line of succession. After the crisis has passed the status of the President would be a matter for Congress. At no point would the military institute a coup, it would just act to effect the security of the United States.

pineywoodslim pineywoodslim:
Not sure what protocols you referred to. Do you have a link?


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108h ... 2319ih.pdf

108 H.R. 2319

Summary of the relevant secition:

Provides that an individual acting as President shall continue to do so until the expiration of the then current Presidential term (as under current law), or until the individual's earlier death, resignation, [i]removal from office, or inability, unless the individual's discharge of the powers and duties of the office is founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or Vice President, in which case the individual shall act only until the removal of the President's or Vice President's disability. [/i]


If the President is unable to perform the duties expected of him/her as defined in documented protocols and as demonstrated in hypothetical exercises then that President can be legally relieved of command for the duration of the crisis and then pending the decision of the Congress.

It's all perfectly legal.

pineywoodslim pineywoodslim:
I suppose it's possible the military could do anything it wanted if some general got a hair up his posterior. But that would assume that the 100s of thousands of officers and enlisted men carrying out those illegal orders would break their oath of allegiance to the constitution and to their chain of command, which I find doubtful.

More likely, the nutter general would be quietly escorted out of the room to a waiting mental hospital.


In the situation I'm speaking of here it would be the President whose mental state would be in question. And it's not like some bunch of generals would take over, they'd just turn to the Vice President to carry on.

I have absolutely no doubt that the CF have similar measures in place concerning the PM. They'd be derelict in their duties if they didn't.

Say, for instance, a nuke pops a city in Canada and the PM loses his/her family and is overcome by grief and unable to carry on. I cannot imagine that the CF doesn't have a plan written down somewhere to deal with this eventuality.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:03 pm
 


you swear to serve and protect the constitution, not the president don't you?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.