I am absolutely not sure that Iran developing nukes means people leave it alone. Israel might well see a concerted push towards getting those nukes on the part of Iran as an existential threat and make a pre-emptive strike of some kind before Iran gets there as part of the Begin Doctrine. They might not, of course, and everything might work out in a MAD shaped uneasy peace if Iran one day says surprise we have nukes, but who knows?
It wouldn't be the first time Israel have bombed a nuclear facility to prevent an enemy from developing nukes.
I guess Iran could sidestep this if they just pull some nukes out of a hat one day but if they're actively developing them Israel will probably do something about it.
EDIT: this isn't to say any of this should happen or that Israel would be right or wrong to do something, just that the idea of Iran developing nukes leading to some kind of stability is one I'm not convinced by.
Yeah that's the other thing. I don't seen Iran being able to develop nukes. If the US doesn't use military force to stop them I have a hard time imagining a scenario where Israel doesn't.
Not that Israel getting into a hot war with Iran is a good thing at all but the idea of Iran suddenly becoming a nuclear state has always struck me as pretty far fetched for numerous reasons.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
On one hand I understand proliferation is bad.
On the other hand I want them to have a nuke tomorrow to serve as a lesson to US leaders how stupid they are.
"Source: Intel officials don't want public hearings on worldwide threats for fear of angering Trump @kylieatwood reports https://cnn.it/2QZ3wMI"
- The Lead is Jake Tapper's CNN show.
It's funny that they're afraid of Trump's temper tantrums. It's terrifying that his temper tantrums is affecting the intelligence communities ability to do their jobs, and by extension, makes the USA (and arguably the world) more unsafe.
Because accurately contradicting Trump on matters of national security will be seen as a breach of personal fealty to the President.
While I don't doubt there's at least some career ass-covering involved here, there's also clearly some institutional ass-covering as well.
When Trump goes on his temper tantrums, it's not just the heads of these organizations that are facing criticism and a degradation of their jobs, it's their organizations too.
We might not be at a point where national trust of intelligence organizations is at it's lowest. Hoover, Iran Contra, civil rights movement, many other examples.
But we are at the most likely point of Executive fuckery in their operation. Accurately reporting the news in contradiction of the President's statements (and boy fuck, will they contradict), is just waving a red flag at a dipshit bull who's just about to be emboldened that he's completely above the law and he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
It's not like they've got much choice if they've got even a smidgeon of integrity (and if they don't, they'd front up and lie). Get out of it, front up and face the consequences, or resign and let Trump nominate a bootlick to the position.
In one sense, the ideal situation is that everyone has one bomb, so everyone will finally leave each other the fuck alone. But of course, one is never enough. Someone will always be thinking, "If I can disable, or get them to waste, their bomb, then I can fuck them over however I want."
Humans are terrible. Not all the time, but often enough.
Commander Zoom on
+1
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I'd be concerned about Trump deliberately outing the intelligence source of contradicting information too.
Valerie Plame 2: GOP Boogaloo!
I dunno, I find it hard to shed a tear for the IC being in the crosshairs here. They've done more than enough illegal and immoral hatchet work for the past half dozen Republican administrations that it warms my heart to see even this tiny bit of karmic comeuppance. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
In one sense, the ideal situation is that everyone has one bomb, so everyone will finally leave each other the fuck alone. But of course, one is never enough. Someone will always be thinking, "If I can disable, or get them to waste, their bomb, then I can fuck them over however I want."
Humans are terrible. Not all the time, but often enough.
The problem there is, alliances. As a superpower you need more bombs than everyone else combined, just in case you decide to piss off everyone else combined. As an unstable minor nation you just need a couple, to make trying to push you around too risky.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.
Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.
The US started it, but you can make the argument that Putin would have invaded Georgia and Ukraine even if the US hadn’t gone into Iraq and Afghanistan first.
He’s an expansionist asshole that’s been trying to redo the USSR for decades, he doesn’t need an excuse.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.
Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.
Libya is also a good example of this. They gave up all their nuclear stuff they were working on to appease the US but in the end we smacked them up anyway.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.
Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.
Libya is also a good example of this. They gave up all their nuclear stuff they were working on to appease the US but in the end we smacked them up anyway.
America's Jekyll-and-Hyde political system causes a lot of problems here. Countries meet Democrat politicians and ambassadors who are all smiles and sincerity and sign reasonable deals to get rid of nukes in exchange for mutually beneficial economic deals. Then 4 years later, Mr Hyde comes back and the Republicans tear up the US side of the deal and shit on it, while expecting the other countries to honor their side of the deal with nothing in exchange.
Countries are going to wise up that the words of the Democrats are worth shit, because 4-8 years later, Republicans will trash the deal.
They certainly haven't killed thousands of civilians with nukes as the USA has
Hundreds of thousands, but yeah.
Getting a nuke is the most logical goal for Iran to pursue and I honestly don't see why they shouldn't. It's not like those other countries have a good reason as to why they should own nukes.
Because nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. Everyone should have less nukes, not more.
ok yeah and as soon as the US, Russia, UK etc. get rid of all their nukes I'll say that Iran should refrain from getting nukes.
but as long as the only nation to have ever used nukes keeps indicating that they'd love to start a war with them, I'll grant that Iran is entirely reasonable in pursuing nukes.
We have decommissioned ~80% of our arsenal from it's peak.
That's great so you only got about 6000 left or so?
The fact that the US (and Russia) have reduced their stockpile from the absolutely insane level at the peak of the Cold War doesn't actually matter.
I disagree rather strongly with that, and am glad there are ~40,000 fewer nuclear warheads pointed at me and my family. I would like there to be fewer still. Which is why our breaking faith with Iran and causing them to re-establish a nuclear weapons program is so terrible.
While I agree with you, I do get Julius's point.
As long as countries with nuclear weapons insist on being bullies to those without them (US v Iran, Russia v Ukraine, China into South China Sea), but stopping short when the country DOES have nuclear weapons (US v North Korea, Russia v EU/NATO, China v India), then the underlying point of "nuclear power" vs "non-nuclear power" isn't dependent on how many nukes, just that they're owned and able to project a threat.
The US could halve their current stockpile, and it wouldn't change anything about their ability to project force against countries that don't have them.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.
Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.
Libya is also a good example of this. They gave up all their nuclear stuff they were working on to appease the US but in the end we smacked them up anyway.
America's Jekyll-and-Hyde political system causes a lot of problems here. Countries meet Democrat politicians and ambassadors who are all smiles and sincerity and sign reasonable deals to get rid of nukes in exchange for mutually beneficial economic deals. Then 4 years later, Mr Hyde comes back and the Republicans tear up the US side of the deal and shit on it, while expecting the other countries to honor their side of the deal with nothing in exchange.
Countries are going to wise up that the words of the Democrats are worth shit, because 4-8 years later, Republicans will trash the deal.
In other words, only deals signed by Republicans are worth something. So, a Democrat administration has zero credibility on Foreign Policy, since the US will swing back to the Republicans eventually and destroy whatever Democrats do out of spite, while Democrats won't do that.
I'm not saying that Democrats should do the same, but that's the net effect.
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
While Democrats are unlikely to tear up the China deal merely because Trump signed it, Russia should probably expect very frosty relations whenever Democrats are in the driving seat.
“We should charge them rent,” Trump said of South Korea. “We should make them pay for our soldiers. We should make money off of everything.”
Trump questioned why the United States couldn’t get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off,” Trump boomed. “Where is the f---ing oil?”
“I want to win,” he said. “We don’t win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.”
“They’re in arrears,” Trump said, reverting to the language of real estate. He lifted both his arms at his sides in frustration. Then he scolded top officials for the untold millions of dollars he believed they had let slip through their fingers by allowing allies to avoid their obligations.
“We are owed money you haven’t been collecting!” Trump told them. “You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business.”
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
When Rex Tillerson is braver than the rest, you know they fucked up.
“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”
Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them when no one else would.
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
When Rex Tillerson is braver than the rest, you know they fucked up.
“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”
Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them when no one else would.
Every one of those "grateful" officers is a coward for not standing up to Trump themselves. These experts seem like they are trying to further paint the president as unfit for duty (as if we needed more evidence) but all I want to know after reading them is where the fuck are the mass resignations and whistle blower reports from these fucking people. He turned us into an unambiguous mercenary force in Saudi Arabia overnight and you all just fucking let him.
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
When Rex Tillerson is braver than the rest, you know they fucked up.
“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”
Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them when no one else would.
The difference between Tillerson and the other secretaries who fundamentally 'don't need this [public sector] shit' is that they just get to grift all day as their departments probably don't suffer nearly the same level of interference from Trump.
Chao/Devos - Transportation/Education: Who gives a shit.
Mnuchin/Ross - Commerce/Treasury: Probably deflect to the convenient scapegoats of the US Trade Rep and Fed Chair respectively.
State has no where to hide, and the Secretary had no one to hide behind when Trump decides to meddle.
How can a person be so brave under fire from the enemy, and so cowardly when it comes to speaking up for themselves?
Because one involves doing what you are told by your betters even if it means your death, and the other requires breaking away from the pack to make a moral stand.
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
When Rex Tillerson is braver than the rest, you know they fucked up.
“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”
Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.
“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”
There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them when no one else would.
Every one of those "grateful" officers is a coward for not standing up to Trump themselves. These experts seem like they are trying to further paint the president as unfit for duty (as if we needed more evidence) but all I want to know after reading them is where the fuck are the mass resignations and whistle blower reports from these fucking people. He turned us into a unambiguous mercenary force in Saudi Arabia overnight and you all just fucking let him.
Because he's their commanding officer at the end of the day and it's their career. Tillerson is in the position where he can easily just walk away. He doesn't really give a shit about the job.
Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
No we aren't.
We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.
Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
No we aren't.
We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.
Ok, but what happens when your superior officer appears to have abandoned reason and decides to accuse you of insubordination for daring to push back against his opinion? What happens to your career then?
Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
No we aren't.
We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.
Ok, but what happens when your superior officer appears to have abandoned reason and decides to accuse you of insubordination for daring to push back against his opinion? What happens to your career then?
Depends. There's a ton of variables. I won't pretend that retaliation is a potential risk when disagreeing with one's superiors. But we're under no circumstance sworn to agree and support everything the president says.
But frankly, part of being higher ranking is being willing and able to handle that risk. If someone's at the rank of flag officer they should be well past worrying about losing their position over doing what's right.
Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
No we aren't.
We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.
Ok, but what happens when your superior officer appears to have abandoned reason and decides to accuse you of insubordination for daring to push back against his opinion? What happens to your career then?
Depends. There's a ton of variables. I won't pretend that retaliation is a potential risk when disagreeing with one's superiors. But we're under no circumstance sworn to agree and support everything the president says.
But frankly, part of being higher ranking is being willing and able to handle that risk. If someone's at the rank of flag officer they should be well past worrying about losing their position over doing what's right.
Also, the Chiefs of Staff and other 4 stars are kind of at the peak of their career at that point. Worst case they get forced to resign in protest and join some random corporate board or think-tank or University or foundation. It's not like they're going to be the vet sleeping under an overpass.
I mean aren't our military supposed to be the bravest of the brave, strongest of the strong, courage in the face of overwhelming odds. And yet some chicken shit draft dodging cry baby gets them quaking in their boots?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
Doubly fitting, since Biff was designed after Trump
I don't want to speak for all X, but for some people, their career means everything to them. It would not surprise me to find out many, if not all, of these officers are more concerned with that than being in the right.
When you're at that level you're expected to be willing to suffer blowback in order to do the right thing. The decisions that get made that high up are for such high stakes that your career is the last thing that should come into play. People's lives are very literally on the line.
Seeing that story about the directors in the IC not wanting to testify because their boss might chew them out makes me sick. Do your damn job.
Military are literally sworn not to criticize or contradict the President. They literally would be breaking the law and could be fired on the spot for doing it.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
No we aren't.
We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.
Ok, but what happens when your superior officer appears to have abandoned reason and decides to accuse you of insubordination for daring to push back against his opinion? What happens to your career then?
Depends. There's a ton of variables. I won't pretend that retaliation is a potential risk when disagreeing with one's superiors. But we're under no circumstance sworn to agree and support everything the president says.
But frankly, part of being higher ranking is being willing and able to handle that risk. If someone's at the rank of flag officer they should be well past worrying about losing their position over doing what's right.
And yet... we now have before us a testimonial saying that those at the very heights of military power appear to be doing just that...
Posts
It wouldn't be the first time Israel have bombed a nuclear facility to prevent an enemy from developing nukes.
I guess Iran could sidestep this if they just pull some nukes out of a hat one day but if they're actively developing them Israel will probably do something about it.
EDIT: this isn't to say any of this should happen or that Israel would be right or wrong to do something, just that the idea of Iran developing nukes leading to some kind of stability is one I'm not convinced by.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Not that Israel getting into a hot war with Iran is a good thing at all but the idea of Iran suddenly becoming a nuclear state has always struck me as pretty far fetched for numerous reasons.
On the other hand I want them to have a nuke tomorrow to serve as a lesson to US leaders how stupid they are.
Except Trump wouldn't care or even understand why that happened was even a bad thing.
"Source: Intel officials don't want public hearings on worldwide threats for fear of angering Trump @kylieatwood reports https://cnn.it/2QZ3wMI"
- The Lead is Jake Tapper's CNN show.
It's funny that they're afraid of Trump's temper tantrums. It's terrifying that his temper tantrums is affecting the intelligence communities ability to do their jobs, and by extension, makes the USA (and arguably the world) more unsafe.
Because accurately contradicting Trump on matters of national security will be seen as a breach of personal fealty to the President.
Do your fucking job.
While I don't doubt there's at least some career ass-covering involved here, there's also clearly some institutional ass-covering as well.
When Trump goes on his temper tantrums, it's not just the heads of these organizations that are facing criticism and a degradation of their jobs, it's their organizations too.
We might not be at a point where national trust of intelligence organizations is at it's lowest. Hoover, Iran Contra, civil rights movement, many other examples.
But we are at the most likely point of Executive fuckery in their operation. Accurately reporting the news in contradiction of the President's statements (and boy fuck, will they contradict), is just waving a red flag at a dipshit bull who's just about to be emboldened that he's completely above the law and he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
It's not like they've got much choice if they've got even a smidgeon of integrity (and if they don't, they'd front up and lie). Get out of it, front up and face the consequences, or resign and let Trump nominate a bootlick to the position.
Humans are terrible. Not all the time, but often enough.
Valerie Plame 2: GOP Boogaloo!
I dunno, I find it hard to shed a tear for the IC being in the crosshairs here. They've done more than enough illegal and immoral hatchet work for the past half dozen Republican administrations that it warms my heart to see even this tiny bit of karmic comeuppance. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes
The problem there is, alliances. As a superpower you need more bombs than everyone else combined, just in case you decide to piss off everyone else combined. As an unstable minor nation you just need a couple, to make trying to push you around too risky.
Yes, nuclear nonproliferation has become a dead letter over the course of the last decade. Mostly thanks to Putin. It's horrible and a bit frightening about what that means for the future.
The U.S. abandoning the principle of national sovereignty to take Iraq and Afghanistan kicked off this particular era.
Ukraine is the latest example. They gave up their nukes under the implicit notion that the West would protect them from Russian aggression. We've thrown them completely under the bus.
He’s an expansionist asshole that’s been trying to redo the USSR for decades, he doesn’t need an excuse.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Libya is also a good example of this. They gave up all their nuclear stuff they were working on to appease the US but in the end we smacked them up anyway.
America's Jekyll-and-Hyde political system causes a lot of problems here. Countries meet Democrat politicians and ambassadors who are all smiles and sincerity and sign reasonable deals to get rid of nukes in exchange for mutually beneficial economic deals. Then 4 years later, Mr Hyde comes back and the Republicans tear up the US side of the deal and shit on it, while expecting the other countries to honor their side of the deal with nothing in exchange.
Countries are going to wise up that the words of the Democrats are worth shit, because 4-8 years later, Republicans will trash the deal.
But yes the GOP are on average, worse
In other words, only deals signed by Republicans are worth something. So, a Democrat administration has zero credibility on Foreign Policy, since the US will swing back to the Republicans eventually and destroy whatever Democrats do out of spite, while Democrats won't do that.
I'm not saying that Democrats should do the same, but that's the net effect.
Also, apparently a lot of high ranking government types have no problem being Marty McFly at the beginning of Back to the Future and just sit there and take it from the man.
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/youre-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-inside-trumps-stunning-tirade-against-generals/2020/01/16/d6dbb8a6-387e-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html
When Rex Tillerson is braver than the rest, you know they fucked up.
To be fair, he is something of an expert on businesses going bankrupt...
Every one of those "grateful" officers is a coward for not standing up to Trump themselves. These experts seem like they are trying to further paint the president as unfit for duty (as if we needed more evidence) but all I want to know after reading them is where the fuck are the mass resignations and whistle blower reports from these fucking people. He turned us into an unambiguous mercenary force in Saudi Arabia overnight and you all just fucking let him.
The difference between Tillerson and the other secretaries who fundamentally 'don't need this [public sector] shit' is that they just get to grift all day as their departments probably don't suffer nearly the same level of interference from Trump.
Chao/Devos - Transportation/Education: Who gives a shit.
Mnuchin/Ross - Commerce/Treasury: Probably deflect to the convenient scapegoats of the US Trade Rep and Fed Chair respectively.
State has no where to hide, and the Secretary had no one to hide behind when Trump decides to meddle.
Most of them were trained to never speak up against their higher ups, at least directly to them
Because one involves doing what you are told by your betters even if it means your death, and the other requires breaking away from the pack to make a moral stand.
Because he's their commanding officer at the end of the day and it's their career. Tillerson is in the position where he can easily just walk away. He doesn't really give a shit about the job.
Normally the top ranking officials have quite a bit leeway as advisors.
Trump is not normal. So a lot of those generals are probably going on autopilot and toeing the line and being good little soldiers
No we aren't.
We aren't supposed to say derogatory or threatening things about the president but we're under absolutely no obligation to agree with him. An officer/NCO that doesn't provide contradicting information when it's true is functionally useless.
Ok, but what happens when your superior officer appears to have abandoned reason and decides to accuse you of insubordination for daring to push back against his opinion? What happens to your career then?
Depends. There's a ton of variables. I won't pretend that retaliation is a potential risk when disagreeing with one's superiors. But we're under no circumstance sworn to agree and support everything the president says.
But frankly, part of being higher ranking is being willing and able to handle that risk. If someone's at the rank of flag officer they should be well past worrying about losing their position over doing what's right.
Also, the Chiefs of Staff and other 4 stars are kind of at the peak of their career at that point. Worst case they get forced to resign in protest and join some random corporate board or think-tank or University or foundation. It's not like they're going to be the vet sleeping under an overpass.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Doubly fitting, since Biff was designed after Trump
Seeing that story about the directors in the IC not wanting to testify because their boss might chew them out makes me sick. Do your damn job.
And yet... we now have before us a testimonial saying that those at the very heights of military power appear to be doing just that...