WTF!

[DrmDoc]

I've been somewhat reserve in voicing my opinion on aspects of this administration of late; however, after reading comments made by Admiral Scott Swift I feel I must comment here.  In his answer to a hypothetical question posed to him at a security conference in Australia, Adm. Swift, commander of our Pacific fleet, said he would launch a nuclear attack against China next week if Trump ordered it.  Indeed, I understand the chain of command and how important it may be for foreign nations to know the strong allegiance of our military to the presidency of our nation, but this response is incredibly idiotic and out of line for one of our military leaders to make in a public forum.  His response doesn't make our nation any more secure and our citizenry any less fearful given the impulsive, incendiary, and moronic tendencies of our current president.  Given the totally unqualified man we've elected as president, this kind of saber rattling doesn't make the world or our allies secure either, in my opinion.  Adm. Swift's response should have been that he does not engage in public responses to hypothetical questions where the defense of our nation is a concern, period!  It's all just so frustrating given the sort of things being said and done under this administration.  Trump has brought instability to our nation, IMO, and our next elections certainly can't come soon enough.

[John Cuthber]

It would have been better if he had said " I'm not answering that".
It would be better yet if it didn't matter that he answered it.

 The problem's Trump, not Swift.

[StringJunky]

I read into the chain of command in the UK and US establishments and I don't think the admiral is high enough to argue. Only the top military person can in both instances. A two-man rule operates all the way down the nuclear command chain.

Edited July 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It would have been better if he had said " I'm not answering that".
It would be better yet if it didn't matter that he answered it.

 The problem's Trump, not Swift.

I agree, the problem is Trump.  I also think that Swift's poorly considered comments have made him a problem as well.  His acknowledged willingness in a public forum to execute a nuclear attack goes to his judgment as a commander. He should have just kept his mouth shut!

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I read into the chain of command in the UK amd US establishments and I don't think the admiral is high enough to argue. Only the top military person can in both instances, under certain circumstances. A two-man rule operates.

I agree, he has to follow the orders of his commander and chief but he should never discuss those orders in an public forum where they might be construed as a threat or policy.  Swift's comments are potentially incendiary and a unwarranted.

Edited July 27, 2017 by DrmDoc
grammer

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I agree, the problem is Trump.  I also think that Swift's poorly considered comments have made him a problem as well.  His acknowledged willingness in a public forum to execute a nuclear attack goes to his judgment as a commander. He should have just kept his mouth shut!

I agree, he has to follow the orders of his commander and chief but he should never discuss those orders in an public forum where they might be construed as a threat or policy.  Swift's comments are potentially incendiary and a unwarranted.

I'm unsure what he did other than confirm US policy. I didn't need to hear that from Swift. It is common knowledge. The shock would have been if he had said he would NOT execute an attack ordered by his commander.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

I agree, the problem is Trump.  I also think that Swift's poorly considered comments have made him a problem as well.  His acknowledged willingness in a public forum to execute a nuclear attack goes to his judgment as a commander. He should have just kept his mouth shut!

I agree, he has to follow the orders of his commander and chief but he should never discuss those orders in an public forum where they might be construed as a threat or policy.  Swift's comments are potentially incendiary and a unwarranted.

Possibly, but it would still be quite standard procedure and he would be expected to say that. He was asked a question and he gave a standard answer. He can't say anything else. He is just showing that he is compliant to the rules.

Edited July 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm unsure what he did other than confirm US policy. I didn't need to hear that from Swift. It is common knowledge. The shock would have been if he had said he would NOT execute an attack ordered by his commander.

 

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Possibly, but it would still be quite standard procedure and he would be expected to say that. He was asked a question and he gave a standard answer. He can't say anything else. He is just showing that he is compliant to the rules.

Yes, he's acknowledging policy but was it necessary and is it conducive to our nation's international relationships and reputation? 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

 

Yes, he's acknowledging policy but was it necessary and is it conducive to our nation's international relationships and reputation? 

I don't think it's a big deal. He's only showing his obeyance and respect for the chain of command. Any loyal military person, wherever they are in the pecking order, will say the same. This is about respect for the office of the leader and not Trump himself. Turn the triangle of power upside down and that's where the weight of responsibility and blame lies if things go wrong; the leader.

Edited July 27, 2017 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

 

Yes, he's acknowledging policy but was it necessary and is it conducive to our nation's international relationships and reputation? 

People like stability. I imagine it would make the world more risky to know that Trump's military subordinates may not follow orders. Is Putin more likely or less likely to do something outrageous if he knows Trump's orders may be questioned?

Generals have been fired for questioning the President.

Edit: I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if this was a planned response to send a message, given the current turmoil surrounding Trump

Edited July 27, 2017 by zapatos

[DrmDoc]

I just think it's bad form for our military leaders to be discussing hypothetical nuclear war with a non-combative nation in our present unstable political environment.

[John Cuthber]

The US has nukes.
If the senior staff of Armed Forces are not prepared to say, publicly, that they would use them, what are those nukes for?
 

What else should he have said?

Frankly, it's a stupid question; there's only one answer.

Who asked it, and why?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm unsure what he did other than confirm US policy. I didn't need to hear that from Swift. It is common knowledge. The shock would have been if he had said he would NOT execute an attack ordered by his commander.

People in govt refuse to answer a variety of questions and or point out the silliness of them all the time. He should have just said " I am not going to hypothetically discuss using Nuclear weapons". Saying yes to a question about hypothetically incinerating an unimaginable number of people is in poor taste. Addressing the question as absurd would have been more appropriate. The use of nuclear weapons on a population isn't something one casually spitballs about. I have no doubt had the reporter asked if he'd drone strike his own children if ordered his answer would have been something more akin to my recommendation above. perhaps it was a bad question but it was also a terrible answer.

[imatfaal]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

People in govt refuse to answer a variety of questions and or point out the silliness of them all the time. He should have just said " I am not going to hypothetically discuss using Nuclear weapons". Saying yes to a question about hypothetically incinerating an unimaginable number of people is in poor taste. Addressing the question as absurd would have been more appropriate. The use of nuclear weapons on a population isn't something one casually spitballs about. I have no doubt had the reporter asked if he'd drone strike his own children if ordered his answer would have been something more akin to my recommendation above. perhaps it was a bad question but it was also a terrible answer.

Exactly.  One would hope that a person risen to the rank of admiral would have the savoir faire to dodge a question like that whilst reiterating the sanctity of the chain of command and also questioning the wisdom/integrity of the reporter asking the question.   Unfortunately I could also imagine the world in which it was a question planted by the administration with a pre-agreed answer - the orange faced excuse for a human being is very bellicose for one who dodged many drafts

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 He should have just said " I am not going to hypothetically discuss using Nuclear weapons".

Or not. It's not like there is a rule book on what you should and shouldn't say.

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Or not. It's not like there is a rule book on what you should and shouldn't say.

That's not entirely true. There's the Glomar response for classified or personal information.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response

[MigL]

Aww come on...

The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to convince the other side ( potential enemies ) that if they launch a nuclear strike against us they will be destroyed also. IOW you are ready and willing to launch. That's how deterrence works  and has worked since 1945.

If you say you will 'second guess' your President ( because he may be a nut-job ), you are giving wiggle room to the other nut-jobs ( like in North Korea ), who then think they might get away with a nuclear strike against us.

[iNow]

We wouldn't be here discussing this if he were instead confirming he'd send warships into the South China Sea if ordered to do so. We'd acknowledge it as just another military option available in our Toolkit. 

The heartburn seems to come specifically from the idea of nukes, a weapon understandably in a different league from the rest of the arsenal.

IMHO... The focus should be on how best to address our broader policy on the use if nuclear weapons and what international support can be gathered for that policy, not whether or not a senior military official would hypothetically agree not to execute the hypothetical orders of their very real commander in chief. 

[Sicarii]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Aww come on...

The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to convince the other side ( potential enemies ) that if they launch a nuclear strike against us they will be destroyed also. IOW you are ready and willing to launch. That's how deterrence works  and has worked since 1945.

If you say you will 'second guess' your President ( because he may be a nut-job ), you are giving wiggle room to the other nut-jobs ( like in North Korea ), who then think they might get away with a nuclear strike against us.

The question is quite loaded -- it gave no context to the hypothetical situation. There are two scenarios:

Option 1: If the question is asking if the admiral would carry out the order of commander-in-chief and launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against China, then that would be wrong. I'd like to think our high-level military officers have it in them to disobey such blatant disregard for international law and human life.

Option 2: If the question is asking if the admiral would carry out the order of commander-in-chief and launch a provoked nuclear attack against China, then there would be no problem. The attack would have some kind of justification that make it permissible -- in WWII, it was to force Japan to surrender and end the deadliest conflict in history.

Since we do not yet possess the ability to read minds, there's no way to know which scenario is correct. I choose to believe that even Trump is not crazy enough to order an unprovoked nuclear attack, and thus I go with option 1.

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

That's not entirely true. There's the Glomar response for classified or personal information.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response

Interesting.
The article says "Lower courts have thus far ruled the Glomar response to have potential merit if the secretive nature of the material truly requires it, and only if the agency provides "as much information as possible" to justify its claim".

Well, it's no secret that:

the US has nukes and

The admiral will obey orders.*

so, why bother to deny the fact that, if ordered to, he will launch nukes?

That's what they are for.

* OK, if the admiral thinks the president has "flipped" that gets tricky- however it's still reasonable to assume that the admiral will usually obey orders

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Or not. It's not like there is a rule book on what you should and shouldn't say.

There are such things as best pratices.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Aww come on...

The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to convince the other side ( potential enemies ) that if they launch a nuclear strike against us they will be destroyed also. IOW you are ready and willing to launch. That's how deterrence works  and has worked since 1945.

If you say you will 'second guess' your President ( because he may be a nut-job ), you are giving wiggle room to the other nut-jobs ( like in North Korea ), who then think they might get away with a nuclear strike against us.

No one here is has posted that the answer should have been no.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There are such things as best pratices.

No one here is has posted that the answer should have been no.

You just don't get it do you? The admiral is subordinate to the President and Defence Secretary. He will do what he's told. He is not culpable for any command he obeys. He's a cog in big wheel that works in a fixed way and his response reflects his position. Have you ever looked into the training an armed forces person has and the drilling they have to do? You do it. Absolute discipline is required because the the generals need to have confidence that their orders will executed exactly as expressed all the way down. Every serviceman's  life depends on everyone else doing their job exactly. There is no 'I' in 'team'. This is the bigger picture where the admiral is coming from.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You just don't get it do you? The admiral is subordinate to the President and Defence Secretary. He will do what he's told. He is not culpable for any command he obeys. He's a cog in big wheel that works in a fixed way and his response reflects his position. Have you ever looked into the training an armed forces person has and the drilling they have to do? You do it. Absolute discipline is required because the the generals need to have confidence that their orders will executed exactly as expressed all the way down. Every serviceman's  life depends on everyone else doing their job exactly. There is no 'I' in 'team'. This is the bigger picture where the admiral is coming from.

No, I actually have considerable experience with this. Also at no point have I implied the answer to the question should have been no. Every military branch has public affairs personnel and every branch has vetted information and best practices for those who go before the press. That the Admiral is not the Commander in Cheif and must follow orders is a given. It is redundant to argue that. POTUS has nuclear authority, POTUS has the nuclear football with him, we all understand that fact. It was a hypothetical question about using nuclear weapons against a country which we aren't even currently at conflict with. A hypothetical order a reporter was making up and not an actual order from the President. Lets not conflate the two. Military members do not have to follow make believe orders. Public affairs personnel and most public representatives and or speakers are trained to identify pointless hypothetical questions and not fall into the rabbit holes they create. Especially when they are redundant or rhetorical. All of which is why official spokesman for The U.S.Navy's Pacific Fleet came out and did some damage control because it wasn't a question he should have entertained:

The fleet spokesman later said the question was asked as an "outrageous hypothetical" "Frankly, the premise of the question was ridiculous," he said. "It was posed as an outrageous hypothetical, but the admiral simply took it as an opportunity to say the fact is that we have civilian control of the military and we abide by that principle."

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1AC1TU

[swansont]

45 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You just don't get it do you? The admiral is subordinate to the President and Defence Secretary. He will do what he's told. He is not culpable for any command he obeys. 

Any legal command. "I was just following orders" does not always hold up in court. (see Nuremberg)

----

One can deflect such a question with an answer like "As an officer in the US navy (or fill in country and branch as needed) I will faithfully execute any legal order given to me" followed by "Next question" 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

There are such things as best pratices.

 

And where is this book on 'best practices'? I suspect it is what you believe the best practice to be.

As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised to learn this was a planned response meant to confirm Trump's authority in a chaotic administration.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And where is this book on 'best practices'? I suspect it is what you believe the best practice to be.

As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised to learn this was a planned response meant to confirm Trump's authority in a chaotic administration.

As linked in my previous post spokesmen for the Navy have come out and attacked the question as "outrageous" and "ridiculous". The Navy would not do that if they were pleased with the answer and felt the Admiral handled it well.