Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Spoken like someone who is not a US citizen.
When asked if he approved of the missile strike it was very clear from his response that he had merely given the military approval to do what was necessary. He didn't plan the strike, give the order for the strike, or fire the missiles. Yes, technically he could have, but there are many layers in our government, and as you can see our news reports to the entire world everything that happens, unlike ancient Rome.
Now if Trump were to go off the rails and order a nuclear strike there would be a general who would give the order to fire those missiles, which order would then be carried out by all of the subordinate officers.
In the US, unlike ancient Rome, refusing an order from the President is not seen as treasonous (ask Sally Yates), especially a bogus order to start a nuclear war. In the past people were trained to obey authority, in our country ever since JFK assassination we have been trained more and more to question and be suspicious of authority.
|
Of course the president did not fire the missiles himself. What a silly thing to say. He gives the orders. Same with any leader, they give orders, others follow. But what if that person firing the missile was a Trump supporter and believed everything Trump said? Your argument is shot to pieces.
And why did Trump's presidency get people worried about his new found power?
see
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/s...odes.html?_r=2
Some scholars (and Wikipedia entries) insist that a system of checks and balances puts the secretary of defense in the decision loop. But Bruce G. Blair, a research scholar at Princeton University who as an Air Force officer would have launched a nuclear missile if an order had come from the president, said that rule applied in the silos but not at the top of the command chain.
“There’s nothing the secretary of defense can do,” Dr. Blair, who wrote a book on nuclear command and control, said in an interview. “He has no authority to refuse or disobey that order.”
Your argument fails because ancient Rome also had checks and balances in their power structure.
https://www.reference.com/history/ch...f9ac785247b74a
The Roman Republic had several items in place to keep any one part of the government from having all the power, including a group of men called tribunes who could veto select items and completely stop acts of administration, limited terms and specific requirements for members in order to move up in the government. Many governments in the modern world are based, at least in part, on the model of the Roman Republic, including the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-man_rule
"The two-man rule only applies in the missile silos and submarines; there is no check on the president's sole authority to order a nuclear launch"