[Vamp018]

"Even though they're prohibited by law from doing so."

Indeed for Drones run by the Military in the US non training. The USCG however can use drones over the US and we can and will shoot down Drones causing abuse or Military operated drones in non training. Don't worry about DHS, we have them civvies on a tight rope with those systems. All drones are confined to the US-Canada Border and US-Mexico. Anywhere else req's the respective State's chief Exec's permission first. Unless you get a cluster F%ck Gov like during Hurricane Katrina, Democraps err.

[llama66]

Good ole ABC warfare tests. I suspect some of those tests are more common than we'd really like to believe.

[martin14]

llama66 llama66:

Good ole ABC warfare tests. I suspect some of those tests are more common than we'd really like to believe.

They were spraying Agent Orange in New Brunswick in the 60's.

All kinds of stuff under the radar.

[QBall]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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)

You're just dumber than a bag of hammers aren't ya? Commader-In-Chief is a title, not a rank. Captain in the Navy is rank and a title. Ranks are earned, titles are appointed, that's why you don't need to hold the rank of Captain to be called Captain of a ship. No one in the armed forces can be promoted to to Commander-In-Chief BECAUSE IT'S NOT A RANK. The President is a civilian who holds the title of Commander-In-Chief, just like the Secretary of Defense is also a civilian who holds a title. Only active service members are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and since active members of the military cannot hold elected office the President is not subject to the UCMJ.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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.

No it does not. all the 25th amendment does is state in case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President and that whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. This has never happened or would never happen just because the vice president wants to launch nukes.

[quote="BartSimpson"]
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.[.quote]

You reading comprehension really needs work. Inability does not mean incompetence. It means physically unable to perform the job. Not "I don't like the job you're doing so we're not going to listen to you Mr. President". What part of the military cannot draft a law/regulation/order that violates the Constitution or the powers of the Executive, Congress or the House do you not understand?

[QBall]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Seeing as the Constitution is mentioned first, does that not supersede the part about obeying commands of the president? Sort of dicey leaving it open to interpretation.

No because it states in Article II Section II it states "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" That makes the President's powers absolute as long as the President does not give an illegal order. No where in the Constitution nor any amendment does it state the President has to use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons when attacked with the same nor does it state how the President must defend the United States. The ultimate decision is the President's and as long as the decision is legal it must be followed. That's why all those U.S. service members that fled to Canada and elsewhere instead of going to Iraq/Afghanistan during the Bush years because they didn't agree with/didn't like Bush or thought that Bush was incompetent were tried and convicted by court martial when they were caught.

[BartSimpson]

QBall QBall:

You're just dumber than a bag of hammers aren't ya?

No, you're just uninformed.

Up until 2002 there were actually several 'commanders-in-chief' in the US military and the term was and is used to define a military rank, not a civilian post. After 2002 the military rank of C-in-C was reserved to the President alone but it is still a military rank and subject to the UCMJ in extraordinary circumstances.

There are several scenarios in which a President may be temporarily relieved of his/her military command and they've been wargamed extensively and approved by the required civilian oversight processes. The precedent for this kind of thing started with Woodrow Wilson who was incapacitated while in office and it was determined that his wife was effectively carrying out the duties of the President. The Secretary of War was informed of this situation and the net result was the resolution of an unConstitutional situation with an unConstitutional solution that saw the US temporarily ruled by a triumvirate of Mrs. Wilson, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War.

In the near century since this happened there has been much progress in planning for this kind of situation to ensure the continuity of governance, military chain of command, and the security of the United States.

If you're still active duty then you have access to your branch's war college and can easily verify what I'm saying with a simple email inquiry.

None of what I posted is classified so a smart guy like yourself should be able to track it down.

[BartSimpson]

QBall QBall:

What part of the military cannot draft a law/regulation/order that violates the Constitution or the powers of the Executive, Congress or the House do you not understand?

What part of the fact that this happens all the time do you not understand?

Edit: Lord knows, we have laws against murder and corruption, too, and I guess in your private little paradise nothing like that ever happens, does it?

[Jonny_C]

0:

kim jong un.JPG [ 121.32 KiB | Viewed 66 times ]

http://technology.canoe.ca/2013/04/04/20710661.html

[BartSimpson]

The Norks are now moving their portable IMRM launchers.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/04 ... ar-attack/

Not good.

[BartSimpson]

Now the Norks have publicly announced that they've officially approved using nukes on the USA.

Arguably, Obama would be justified in hitting their missile facilities and etc.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 8ddefeb.01

$1:

N. Korea approves nuclear strike on United States

By Jung Ha-Won (AFP) – 22 hours ago

SEOUL — North Korea dramatically escalated its warlike rhetoric on Thursday, warning that it had authorised plans for nuclear strikes on targets in the United States.

"The moment of explosion is approaching fast," the North Korean military said, warning that war could break out "today or tomorrow".

Pyongyang's latest pronouncement came as Washington scrambled to reinforce its Pacific missile defences, preparing to send ground-based interceptors to Guam and dispatching two Aegis class destroyers to the region.

Tension was also high on the North's heavily fortified border with South Korea, after Kim Jong-Un's isolated regime barred South Koreans from entering a Seoul-funded joint industrial park on its side of the frontier.

In a statement published by the state KCNA news agency, the Korean People's Army general staff warned Washington that US threats would be "smashed by... cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means".

"The merciless operation of our revolutionary armed forces in this regard has been finally examined and ratified," the statement said.

Last month, North Korea threatened a "pre-emptive" nuclear strike against the United States, and last week its supreme army command ordered strategic rocket units to combat status.

But, while Pyongyang has successfully carried out test nuclear detonations, most experts think it is not yet capable of mounting a device on a ballistic missile capable of striking US bases or territory.

Mounting tension in the region could however trigger incidents on the tense and heavily militarised border between North and South Korea.

The White House was swift to react to Pyongyang's latest "unhelpful and unconstructive threats".

National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said: "It is yet another offering in a long line of provocative statements that only serve to further isolate North Korea from the rest of the international community and undermine its goal of economic development.

"North Korea should stop its provocative threats and instead concentrate on abiding by its international obligations."

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel earlier said Pyongyang represented a "real and clear danger" to the United States and to its allies South Korea and Japan.

"They have nuclear capacity now, they have missile delivery capacity now," Hagel said after a strategy speech at the National Defense University. "We take those threats seriously, we have to take those threats seriously.

"We are doing everything we can, working with the Chinese and others, to defuse that situation on the peninsula."

The Pentagon said it would send ground-based THAAD missile-interceptor batteries to protect military bases on the island of Guam, a US territory some 3,380 kilometres (2,100 miles) southeast of North Korea and home to 6,000 American military personnel, submarines and bombers.

They would complement two Aegis anti-missile destroyers already dispatched to the region.

The THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) is a truck-mounted system that can pinpoint an enemy missile, track the projectile and launch an interceptor to bring it down.

The new defensive measures came as Pyongyang stopped South Korean staff members from entering the Kaesong complex, a shared industrial zone funded by Seoul but 10 kilometres inside the North.

Pyongyang said the 861 South Koreans already in the zone could leave.

The move cut the last practical cooperation between the rival powers and was seen as a dramatic escalation in the crisis.

South Korea's defence ministry said it had contingency plans that included "military action" if the safety of its citizens in Kaesong was threatened.

China, the North's sole major ally, appealed for "calm" from all sides, and Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov said he was worried the situation could spiral out of control.

Describing the Kaesong ban as "very regrettable", South Korea's Unification Ministry urged the North to normalise access immediately.

Around 53,000 North Koreans work at 120 South Korean plants at the complex, which was still operating normally Wednesday.

Tensions have soared on the Korean peninsula since December, when the North test launched a long-range rocket. In February, it upped the ante once again by conducting its third nuclear test.

Washington has deployed nuclear-capable US B-52s, B-2 stealth bombers and two US destroyers to South Korean air and sea space.

This week, the North warned it would reopen its mothballed Yongbyon reactor -- its source of weapons-grade plutonium. It was closed in July 2007 under a six-nation aid-for-disarmament accord.

The US-Korea Institute at John Hopkins University said Wednesday that a satellite photograph seen on March 27 appeared to show construction work along a road and near the back of the reactor was already under way.

Experts said it would take at least six months to get the reactor back up and running, after which it will be able to produce one bomb's worth of weapons-grade plutonium per year.

[Benn]

Without the PRC supporting them (which they are not, at least publically and in the security council) NK would be committing suicide by launching anything. First off the nuke would be blown away before it go too far. This would be followed by hell fire on NK government and military sites.

Question is how long can the US go on funding and resourcing military actions and multiple at the same time. What if they go after NK and Iran starts acting up? Even the US would be spread to thin, even with the help of NATO countries.

ITs too bad Nukes are not the politically good option (or arguably ethical one) as it certainly is the cheapest one.

[Jonny_C]

L'il Porker has absolutely no idea what kind of fire he's playing with. That makes him pretty dangerous.

We could get a news flash at any time that something tragic has started.

[Jonny_C]

An ex-CIA analyst's assessment of what might happen...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04 ... t=My+Yahoo

[Strutz]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

L'il Porker has absolutely no idea what kind of fire he's playing with. That makes him pretty dangerous.

We could get a news flash at any time that something tragic has started.

That would be terrible news.

I can see them attacking South Korea much more likely than to attempt to send a rocket to the U.S.

I'm sure they fully realize that if they do attack anyone the retaliation would be immediate and likely much more devastating on their side of the border. I just can't see them not acknowledging this.

[jambo101]

There's plenty of American interests military and civilian within missile range of N.Korea,If our young NK porker wants to target one of these installations retribution should be forth coming but i'd hold back on the nuclear option as the situation could quickly turn into a 3rd world war depending on Russia and China's response to the American response.