maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26968
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16223
Anthropoid wrote:
jwilkerson wrote:


In a sense this guy is correct. And I was taught this early on in basic training ... and maybe a lot of people don't even know this ... but in the military we are not required to obey all orders without question ... in fact ... in theory every order we receive must go through our own personal "is it a legal order or is it an illegal order?" ... this is because we are legally bound to disobey ALL illegal orders ? In the Army I was in, we were shown a docu-drama on the MyLai incident in conjunction with this legal/illegal order training. So the basic ideas were ... you must not kill innocent civilians ... you must not kill POWs etc. that sort of thing ... At the end of WWII the USA realized that the krauts were saying "we were just obeying orders" when it came to the concentration camps .. so I suspect the emphasis on the legal/illegal order idea came from that.
So there is that point. There is a such thing in the military as the idea that ALL military members must decide about every order ... is it legal or illegal .. if legal they must obey if illegal they must disobey. There are a few other ifs ands and buts but that's the gist of it.

But also, at least in my day ... if you were going to be a person with a finger on the trigger of a nuclear weapon, you had to under go evaluation to try to make sure you WOULD push the button if ordered. We didn't want to put a bunch of peace niks or philosophers in charge of our nukes. And I suspect this is still the case. You want to be as sure as you can, that the folks with their fingers on the triggers will do the job if the time comes.

==
So, what does this mean? For me it means Hyten must be sacked. What he says is true about legal/illegal orders but it was just as true before he said it as it is after he said it. It did not need to be said. And it is also true that we need the people with their fingers on the trigger to obey orders if the time comes. That was true before Hyten said his words and it is still true.

He didn't need to speak on this topic. And I suspect his words were an attempt at a veiled political statement. And he had no business making such a statement. Whoever his boss is should sack him, "loss of confidence in ability to command" are the usual words these days. Nothing else needs to be said. We don't need political activists running our nukes. And first and foremost his words feed into the whole anti-trumpf anti-authority message of the SJW and their ilk. Hyten should be sacked ASAP.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-commander/u-s-nuclear-general-says-would-resist-illegal-trump-strike-order-idUSKBN1DI0QV


Totally agree. However, he is testifying before a Senate Committee, so stating how things work made sense I think. It isn't like he said "Donald Trump is stupid, but I'm not" is it?

He was being interrogated by the Senate so it would seem to make sense that he needed to explain how it works, i.e., that he and his soldiers are not mindless kill bots who would do as ordered when given an illegal order.

Of course the media are going to spin anything he said, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what he said was a sackable offense does it?


Anthro, I DON'T think that he was testifying before the Senate when this was said.

The linked article stated:

Quote:
Air Force General John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told an audience at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada that he had given a lot of thought to what he would say if he received such an order.


So he was appearing at some sort of military/security conference. (kind of like a trade show but for generals and other national security people).

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
Ah right! Bad idea for Generals to pursue celebrity status, but then it was a "Security Conference" so it makes sense that he was a speaker there.

Tough call. I agree with the spirit of Jwilk's complaint about the General's behavior: he gave ammunition "to the enemy" and that is bad. Never doing anything to make the Commander look bad (unless one is pursuing legal and procedural correct approaches to have said Commander relieved) is pretty much a given in ANY organization, especially the military.

Yes, if it was said at a conference, then I agree with Jwilk, it was a good time to say less, or else nothing at all. " . . . in any such instance we'd follow the doctrine, which is specifically designed to prevent 'illegal' orders from being carried out . . ." would've been a better choice of words.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
Well ... while I agree that we all bare some responsibility for our acts ... I also think the whole "Nuremberg Principles" are more legal hog wash than a shining moral principle. Written by lawyers for lawyers to justify "to the victor go the spoils". Rather than lay the responsibility on the law and rule writers and on the superior officers to "get it right" ... let's make sure we can hold the individual accountable for capital murder no matter what. Well Bovine Scatology on that.

I think bad sh^t happens in war ... there are cases where people get out of hand ... and there are cases where punishment is justified ... but the idea that some "rational man" exists who can tell right from wrong over actions that happen on a battlefield is nonsense in my book.
In general I don't like the idea of killing POWs or innocents ... but I can't say it is an ironclad rule that anyone doing it should get the death penalty. If a unit behaves in this way as a reaction to serious casualties on the field at the moment ... then I say "bad sh^t happens in war" ... Now if they have 30 days to think about it ... and show up later and cooly mow people down that might not have been involved in the earlier incident ... then guilty.

So I think it depends ... and I am ok with letting the military courts figure it out on a case by case basis. I agree with the idea that everyone is responsible, but I don't think you can translate that into blanket rules that it is always illegal to kill POWs or civilians.

One case to ponder is the "Lone Survivor" case. In this example 3 goat herders stumble across 4 SEALS on patrol ... the 4 SEALS debate what they should do ... they just barely decide to let the herders go ... I think it is less than 24 hours beforer 3 of them and another 16 or so team members who tried to rescue them are dead. The attack against them came from the direction the goat herders went towards. So maybe the decision killed almost 2 dozen team members. In hindsight might it have been the wrong decision ?
I doubt we will ever know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... but my point is just to show that there might be cases where "right and wrong" gets a little muddy.
Bad things happen in war ...

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26968
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16223
jwilkerson wrote:
Well ... while I agree that we all bare some responsibility for our acts ... I also think the whole "Nuremberg Principles" are more legal hog wash than a shining moral principle. Written by lawyers for lawyers to justify "to the victor go the spoils". Rather than lay the responsibility on the law and rule writers and on the superior officers to "get it right" ... let's make sure we can hold the individual accountable for capital murder no matter what. Well Bovine Scatology on that.

I think bad sh^t happens in war ... there are cases where people get out of hand ... and there are cases where punishment is justified ... but the idea that some "rational man" exists who can tell right from wrong over actions that happen on a battlefield is nonsense in my book.
In general I don't like the idea of killing POWs or innocents ... but I can't say it is an ironclad rule that anyone doing it should get the death penalty. If a unit behaves in this way as a reaction to serious casualties on the field at the moment ... then I say "bad sh^t happens in war" ... Now if they have 30 days to think about it ... and show up later and cooly mow people down that might not have been involved in the earlier incident ... then guilty.

So I think it depends ... and I am ok with letting the military courts figure it out on a case by case basis. I agree with the idea that everyone is responsible, but I don't think you can translate that into blanket rules that it is always illegal to kill POWs or civilians.

One case to ponder is the "Lone Survivor" case. In this example 3 goat herders stumble across 4 SEALS on patrol ... the 4 SEALS debate what they should do ... they just barely decide to let the herders go ... I think it is less than 24 hours beforer 3 of them and another 16 or so team members who tried to rescue them are dead. The attack against them came from the direction the goat herders went towards. So maybe the decision killed almost 2 dozen team members. In hindsight might it have been the wrong decision ?
I doubt we will ever know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... but my point is just to show that there might be cases where "right and wrong" gets a little muddy.

Bad things happen in war ...


My bold emphasis above.


Yes, of course things get muddy.
I think that it's very rare that things are a solid black and white/cut and dried.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
Thus, the old saying: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out."

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
Quote:
... Does the duly elected President of the United States have the authority to issue an order to launch nuclear weapons?
I believe that the answer to that is "Yes" ...


I think the tough case is ... can the resident order a "first strike" ... and if the resident does ... and the people with their fingers on the trigger decide that would be murdering civilians ... and do not push the button ... then what ?

==
I think if the NKs nuke us first then hopefully most trigger people would pull the trigger if the resident orders a counter-strike ...

But can the resident "legally" according to the laws of war ... order a first strike ??

And how much provocation is enough ?

==
International Law does have the principle that a nation (or gangland as we now recognize them) can respond in kind to an attack.

So if the rags hit the twin towers and the pentagon and tried to hit the rainbow shack or the capitol ... then perhaps we can hit ( with tac nukes like 200 kt or so to rubble the target structures) the 2 hoo lee mosques ... and a spot or 2 in afghanistan where we think the head turbans and uncle bin hang ...


(but note we didn't do that)

==
So I assume we have to wait for phat boi to nuke us ... maybe that's what the general was trying to say ... but I wouldn't say that (if I was in his shoes) ... I'd be vague ... and say we will follow our defined procedures and obey orders .. that's what I would say ...
:)

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:09 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
Quote:
... Thus, the old saying: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." ...


I like the variation in "Kingdom of Heaven" ... something like ...

"Let's fight and let Ghod decide who is right".

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:48 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14354
Reputation points: 9532
We in the military were/are required to obey all 'lawful' orders.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:48 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7394
Reputation points: 15171
abradley wrote:
We in the military were/are required to obey all 'lawful' orders.


Same here, everyone from NCO's upwards have a pen and a small notebook with them so you can demand them issue the order on paper.

You can refuse the order and you will find yourself at court martial. There you can present your case, the written order and argue over it's legality.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Military Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 9336
Location: Eskridge, KS
Reputation points: 11289
In the military I was in, you had a choice. Either obey or accept the consequences. And it wasn't necessarily courts martial. Sometimes just article 15. But you had a choice there as well. Accept the punishment or go to court.

_________________
Go trumpf Go !!!
(will the resident return to being the President?)
(will the rainbow shack return to being the White House?)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 253 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group