balladofwindfishes
Member
There's probably like 40 senators right now that want to nuke NK today.
But even so, Congress already are the ones who declare war.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
There's probably like 40 senators right now that want to nuke NK today.
But even so, Congress already are the ones who declare war.
Tremendous.
None of them do.
They're not interested in starting an international conflict, however they are right to question the strategy that brought us to this point... Though personally I don't think it possible to keep nukes out of their hands forever.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Just as it was impossible to keep guns, TNT, tanks, submarines, flamethrowers, assault rifles, etc, out of "bad" countries' hands forever.
The GOP is dying for any excuse to start a war and pretend to be strongmen.
The speech sounds like it was written in part by an elementary school kid. More to the point it talks almost nothing about treatment and everything about law enforcement solutions. Fuck this guy.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I try to not call myself an atheist because I think other atheists are pretty embarrassing.
Yeah... There's quite a bit of difference between tanks and ICBMs with nuclear warheads.
And as war hungry as the GOP can be, striking first in NK is not even an option. Literally not a single GOP Congressman has said anything remotely like that.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yep, same here. I still call myself Catholic because I don't want to be associated with atheist stupidity.
There's no reason someone has to parade around like a jerk saying "YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES, STOP BEING SO IGNORANT" or other such garbage to someone who very well may only be alive because they found something to believe in. There's no reason to be abrasive with people who are totally normal and just believe in a higher power. As long as their religion isn't being used as an excuse to spread hate, then there's no real harm.
I also LOVE talking about the bible and biblical myths.
I agree (sort of), but not in the "he's brain damaged and not thinking straight!" but in the "he knows he is going to die and this was probably his last major vote and he wanted to secure his legacy"
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
It's literally just War On Drugs 2.0 / "Just Say No", translated from Trump's usual eloquence.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah. I've got a friend from high school who was on track to be valedictorian of her class, but her estranged dad got her hooked on meth and she nearly dropped out. Her dad went to prison for possession of it.
But they both found religion and now she's happily married and raising her kid sister, and her dad finished a technical degree in prison and is now out on parole for his turnaround.
I don't believe, but I'm not going to say that belief doesn't have power for people. Both of them would be dead without it by now.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
It's an... Odd speech for a drug epidemic that often targets middle aged workers with back problems.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Ron Johnson is the guy who, when Tammy Baldwin was elected to the Senate, said he would educate her about the budget.
At this point, Johnson had been in the Senate for two years and had never held elected office prior to that. Baldwin had been in Congress for 14 years.
He's an unbelievable asshole.
At this point, Johnson had been in the Senate for two years and had never held elected office prior to that. Baldwin had been in Congress for 14 years.
He's an unbelievable asshole.
Republicans should know to stay away from any ____ and ____ phrase
The President can't officially declare war, only Congress can.
However, what he can do, as commander in chief of the military, is authorize military action against countries without an official declaration of war.
To remove that ability from Trump, would be to strip the office of the president of it's status as commander in chief.
I'm reading conflicting information about this topic.
Is the President allowed to authorize nuclear strikes against other countries unprovoked? Or only in retaliation to an attack of some sort?
Define limited.
Because I have read articles that state that he would be unable to authorize a nuclear strike without just cause.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Congress's interpretation of the 2001 AUMF probably gives Trump the ability to wage war anywhere for any reason.
As long as it's legal*, the President can order any type of military action. What he can't do is declare war against another country.
* legal is a bit of a broad term, but something like the strikes against Syria would be legal. However, Trump just can't wake up one morning and decide to bomb some random country that did nothing wrong because he felt like it.
With North Korea, since they've made a threat against a US territory (Guam), Trump would be justified if he did want to give an attack.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The Syrian strikes were clearly illegal, lol.
I don't really know what it entails to be honest given that we've authorized so much under it. I say limited only because I recall it is defined as only allowing what is 'necessary and appropriate', but like 19 mentioned it's broad as fuck.
The core issue is now and probably forever will be that congress simply looks the other way when it comes to authorizing strikes if they're politically questionable. Ends up being tacit approval that they turn around and wholeheartedly agree with or condemn depending on the fallout later. 'The President goes to war without Congress' approval' sounds shitty, but what are you to do if congress is shitting themselves at the prospect of giving an answer?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This credits China with much more control over North Korea than they actually have. I mean, yes, China could withhold food aid in an attempt to trigger a starvation that would oust the Kim regime, but that's effectively no different to China militarily invading North Korea - from the Kim regime's perspective, both end in the same result (no more Kim regime) and consequently have to be avoided with the same importance, and you can bet if China militarily invaded North Korea nukes would be on the table.
When you analyse North Korea, it's the same approach you have to take when analysing Russia or even Syria - these are rational actors, but the actor is the dictator, not the state; the state is a tool of the dictator. Any kind of progress in North Korea is fundamentally going to have to be in a way that is non-threatening to the Kim family's interests. Anything which would result in the end of the Kim family would result in nuclear weapons as a response even if it wasn't an invasion because the Kim family aren't concerned with North Korean citizens (obviously), but self-preservation.
The end-game for North Korea is a long time away, but it probably looks something more like Burma/Myanmar than anything else - in exchange for a puppet opposition, trade is very slightly liberalised, in exchange for more opposition concessions, trade is liberalised further (and more importantly, trade that enriches and improves the lives of the Kim family), the Kim family allows the opposition a chance in a very heavily curtailed political role as long as Kim family power is unquestionable, again in return for loosened Western restrictions, and keep repeating until, again in the very distant future, the Kim family are just an extremely wealthy and comfortable family who traded away power over an impoverished state for influence and immunity in a wealthy one.
Anything else - anything which seriously threatens Kim continuity - will not end well.
McCain better respond. Johnson sucks
So idiot says dumb shit like this:
So even if he did order a review of our nuclear readiness very early in his presidency, and if the review is even complete yet, it's absolutely impossible that any of its recommendations have been implemented yet.
And after just a little checking....
Its was actually Obama that made the order to "modernize" and that will take decades.
Trump did sign an EO order but appears to have literally changed nothing that was not already going on.
Fuck what a moron.
And I wish they would call him out. How EXACTLY has our nuclear arsenal been renovated and modernized?
But then hcan you call someone out who doesn't have press conferences? This fucking little bitch of a coward can't even face the press because he doesn't know the slightest detail about his job.
So even if he did order a review of our nuclear readiness very early in his presidency, and if the review is even complete yet, it's absolutely impossible that any of its recommendations have been implemented yet.
And after just a little checking....
Its was actually Obama that made the order to "modernize" and that will take decades.
Trump did sign an EO order but appears to have literally changed nothing that was not already going on.
Fuck what a moron.
And I wish they would call him out. How EXACTLY has our nuclear arsenal been renovated and modernized?
But then hcan you call someone out who doesn't have press conferences? This fucking little bitch of a coward can't even face the press because he doesn't know the slightest detail about his job.
Fenderputty
Banned
If we attacked it would be a preemptive attack to catch them off guard and reduce SK causalities. It would be a standard attack and not a nuclear attack. Note that I said "IF" we attacked.
I'm not sure what conflicting information you're getting on this. The entire Vietnam war was never made official by congress.
RustyNails
Member
This is a pretty low blow, even by GOP's standards. What was Johnson thinking?
If trump decides he wants to launch a nuclear strike, it seems like we may be more likely to depend on someone disobeying trump than we will be depending on mudddy legal waters stopping him.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
You actually gonna pretend that's what I said? It obviously is not.
Those articles are wrong. The president has absolute independent authority to authorize the immediate launch of a nuclear weapon. This is by design, because if somebody was to launch one at us we would have literally single digit minutes to respond. There can't be any procedural obstacles to retaliating.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Johnson angling for a cabinet appointment
Which is great because I'm angling for his (Feingold's) Senate seat.
Which is great because I'm angling for his (Feingold's) Senate seat.
I mean, I think the problem here is in the terms of the question.
The President has the power to authorize nuclear strikes against other countries with no preparation or advance warning and no explanation of his reasons. That's actually necessary to the deterrent system, which always assumed that we would need to be prepared for the situation where we did not find out about another nation's attack on us until their missiles were already in flight, leaving us only minutes to respond.
The assumption behind this system is that the President would always be trustworthy and thus that he would always have a good reason for ordering a sudden nuclear strike. Obviously that is not true for Donald Trump and so the system might not work as it would've for previous presidents.
In terms of legal authority, the President has full control over the American military, but not the power to declare war. There is a War Powers Act which states that the President cannot send troops abroad absent a national emergency or declaration of war, but technically no President has ever agreed that the law is constitutional in limiting the President's authority to direct the military, and so its constitutional status is still arguably undetermined (although all Presidents have complied with the law).
The War Powers Act also states that the President may not maintain troops abroad for 60 days (plus 30 days for withdrawal) without a Congressional authorization of war. But nuclear weapons aren't troops!
In general, though, I think the legal questions are mostly irrelevant. The President clearly has the power to nuke anybody he wants at any time, and equally clearly, if his choice was deemed incorrect after the fact he would certainly be removed from office, possibly bodily.
Basileus777
Member
The War Powers Act has no teeth. Obama was able to skirt around it at will even with a hostile Congress and a Republican Congress will never hold Trump to it.
RustyNails
Member
Feingold's career in politics is done. Duder blew up what, a 10 point lead? Wisconsin voter suppression shenanigans not withstanding.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Was it anything he did?
It was one of the more baffling race results from that horrible night.
Basileus777
Member
Does Feingold really need to lose a 3rd time? Wisconsin voters like him less than Hillary even.
Um...read the post. Aaron is running, not Feingold. And he's going to win.
VendettaRed07
Member
Aaron Strife
Banned
This is my angle.
Generally I prefer new candidates, but if Johnson's seat opens up, man, Feingold was really fucking good, you guys.
Also I think it's ironic Johnson blames McCain's brain cancer for his No vote. Whose idea was it to fly him out to the Senate floor again?
Thank you.
A Minnesotan will surely win a Wisconsin election.
Wait until they hear my whiskey plate joke.
You don't think Trump actually thinks the opioid epidemic is any different from any other drug, do you?
He had no idea what he was talking about. Administration hasn't done shit on the issue.
lol i just read it as a stock response drafted for every thread like that.
It is, which is what makes it fantastic in-context.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Look out for August 15, as former Kansas Democratic House leader (and gubernatorial nominee in 2014) Paul Davis is expected to kick off his campaign for KS-2.
Trump won this district 56-37, but Davis won it 51-45 when he ran for governor.
Quinnipiac Virginia poll at 2pm EST.
Trump won this district 56-37, but Davis won it 51-45 when he ran for governor.
Quinnipiac Virginia poll at 2pm EST.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Quinnipiac Virginia
Northam 44-38
Generic ballot 49-38 D
Seems Northam is having some trouble coalescing the left but a 6-point lead is nothing to sneeze at.
High undecideds gives me some heartburn though.
https://poll.qu.edu/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=2479
Trump approval 36-61
McAuliffe approval 51-35
Kaine approval 54-38 (50-40 re-elect)
Warner approval 59-30
Northam 44-38
Generic ballot 49-38 D
Seems Northam is having some trouble coalescing the left but a 6-point lead is nothing to sneeze at.
High undecideds gives me some heartburn though.
https://poll.qu.edu/virginia/release-detail?ReleaseID=2479
Trump approval 36-61
McAuliffe approval 51-35
Kaine approval 54-38 (50-40 re-elect)
Warner approval 59-30
- Status