Nope, no-one elected Mark Milley but no-one elected Vasili Arkhipov or Stanislav Petrov either, but we might not still be here if they hadn’t done what they did.
And US military swear oaths to obey lawful orders from their superiors, and the bit about defending the Constitution comes first IIRC. Hard to defend a constitution if the country it constitutes is a pile of smoking rubble.
Stanislav Petrov is a bad example. He was the Duty Officer and made a decision that the alarm was probably false.
It is slightly different to telling your opposite number you will give them advance notice of an attack and consult no civilian on your actions.
As I said to @ydoethur the question is, if Milley did this to a Democrat President under the same circumstances or a similar situation, would you see it as similarly justified or say it is wrong?
Any sane person would see it as justified.
I am aware this definition does not include most current Republican voters.
Most sane - and true - liberal voters would see Milley’s actions as unjustified. And you still haven’t answered whether you would support Milley’s actions if a Democratic President was involved in a similar situation.
Really?
British nuclear weapon launching is under military rather than political control, I believe.
But with civilian authorisation. Correct me if I am wrong but, unless in extreme circumstances, the military can’t go launching nuclear missles by themselves.
Quite right that the military shouldn't go launching the weapons by themselves without checks.
Nor should the President.
If the President goes crazy the military absolutely has the duty to double-check with other relevant people before following through with such madness just because a deranged individual is telling them to send the weapons flying.
Absolutely agree with that. Believe it or not, I don’t want nuclear war.
However, if this is a comment on my Milley point, I’ll reiterate - Milley wasn’t told by Trump to launch an attack nor were there any suggestions given but instead believed it could happen - without consulting anyone - and then acted on his own.
If you want to flip examples, let’s do a roll play scenario in 2017 where Michael Flynn is Chief of Staff and HRC is President. Flynn believes HRC is going to attack Russia over its Crimea behaviour and thinks she is going too far. He therefore takes steps to make sure HRC cant launch the missies even though she has given no direct orders to do so. Is he right to take action?
He feared the POTUS could order a nuclear strike and did no more than make clear that anyone he could give the order to knew to double-check before sending the missiles.
Absolutely that's entirely reasonable and nobody can object to that. He didn't say Trump couldn't order a strike, he just said that if an unprovoked first strike were ordered then rather than sending the missile it should be checked first.
He seems to have something which is subtly dufferent, but which is crucial, that such personnel should not obey the Commander in Chief’s orders unless Milley gave his permission. Milley therefore put himself above the C-in-C.
Now, if the US wants to have a procedure where the CoS can do that, it should be in the Constitution or, at least, codified. The fact it is not suggests that politicians in the past have had misgivings.
And behind Biden too. Presumably behind Johnson but he's not on screen.
Late again?
LOL no, just Morrison spoke first and was shown split-screen with Biden looking at him talking first. Now Boris is speaking. Presumably Biden will speak next.
Main takeaway seems to be that Australia is getting nuclear subs with the assistance of USA and UK.
"That is why we intend to attack these mysterious craft"
Jesus
Very good.
Seriously*, what's more likely, intelligent aliens reaching earth from a distant galaxy or people travelling back in time from the future? Either could conceivably explain UFOs.
(*Ok not really. Neither is possible imho but I'd prefer the latter to the former; at travellers from the future are unlikely to want to anihilate us beacuse it would presumably f*ck-up the, er, future.)
Replace, the theatre of war has shifted to APAC. Europe can't be trusted which means a new partnership needs to be formed. I expect we'll try and pull Japan in, especially if their constitution is amended to allow non-self defence military capabilities.
BBC wittering on about the reshuffle. Truly bizarre. Completely lost the place.
And people claim we need to pay for the BBC because its a public service broadcaster - and they've missed this? What a joke.
Well what have they missed? I mean it’s not aliens after all...
I see that it is big news in Australia, but not clear what it means to us. Considering out militaries couldn't defeat a bunch of nutters on mopeds in Afghanistan.
Replace, the theatre of war has shifted to APAC. Europe can't be trusted which means a new partnership needs to be formed. I expect we'll try and pull Japan in, especially if their constitution is amended to allow non-self defence military capabilities.
What's most shocking here is that the Biden people who control the marionette strings are all in for a much closer UK/US partnership. The Biden team hasn't changed the Trump administration foreign policy outlook at all. In fact they seem to have doubled down and pushed the EU further away and hugged the UK closer.
What's most shocking here is that the Biden people who control the marionette strings are all in for a much closer UK/US partnership. The Biden team hasn't changed the Trump administration foreign policy outlook at all. In fact they seem to have doubled down and pushed the EU further away and hugged the UK closer.
"That is why we intend to attack these mysterious craft"
Jesus
Very good.
Seriously*, what's more likely, intelligent aliens reaching earth from a distant galaxy or people travelling back in time from the future? Either could conceivably explain UFOs.
(*Ok not really. Neither is possible imho but I'd prefer the latter to the former; at travellers from the future are unlikely to want to anihilate us beacuse it would presumably f*ck-up our the, er, future.)
Unless we already fecked up the future and they want revenge....
They’re fucking mental. They’ve ripped us out of Europe and are now lashing us to the US in time for conflict with China. Fuck me. Hasn’t Iraq and Afghanistan taught them anything?
What's most shocking here is that the Biden people who control the marionette strings are all in for a much closer UK/US partnership. The Biden team hasn't changed the Trump administration foreign policy outlook at all. In fact they seem to have doubled down and pushed the EU further away and hugged the UK closer.
Definitely about China. Also about Afghanistan, I think. I don't think the US would bother with this level of PR for an announcement like this if they weren't aiming to wipe out memories of the Afghan fiasco.
What's most shocking here is that the Biden people who control the marionette strings are all in for a much closer UK/US partnership. The Biden team hasn't changed the Trump administration foreign policy outlook at all. In fact they seem to have doubled down and pushed the EU further away and hugged the UK closer.
My WhatsApp has been full of Remoaners delighted that Biden withdrew from Afghanistan without telling the UK.. for 36 hours.
What's most shocking here is that the Biden people who control the marionette strings are all in for a much closer UK/US partnership. The Biden team hasn't changed the Trump administration foreign policy outlook at all. In fact they seem to have doubled down and pushed the EU further away and hugged the UK closer.
But but but Biden's Irish heritage wibble wibble
“America’s Back!”
It is indeed.
POTUS is sharing a stage with America's longstanding closest allies.
Yes but in what sense? If it is just an announcement that Australia will be buying British and American submarines, why would Canada be involved? Biden and Morrison were both at pains to mention that existing partnerships would be honoured.
Replace, the theatre of war has shifted to APAC. Europe can't be trusted which means a new partnership needs to be formed. I expect we'll try and pull Japan in, especially if their constitution is amended to allow non-self defence military capabilities.
Japan, India and Australia. Rope China the fuck in all round.
They’re fucking mental. They’ve ripped us out of Europe and are now lashing us to the US in time for conflict with China. Fuck me. Hasn’t Iraq and Afghanistan taught them anything?
They’re fucking mental. They’ve ripped us out of Europe and are now lashing us to the US in time for conflict with China. Fuck me. Hasn’t Iraq and Afghanistan taught them anything?
The tripartite deal will strengthen the UK defence industry and must lead to a US trade deal
Europe has been sidelined and it will pose big questions for Starmer and indeed Europe itself
Called it... ...It went on to say that the defence pact would also focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence and "additional undersea capabilities".
(BBC ... who perhaps weren't invited to have cameras there ?)
What's most shocking here is that the Biden people who control the marionette strings are all in for a much closer UK/US partnership. The Biden team hasn't changed the Trump administration foreign policy outlook at all. In fact they seem to have doubled down and pushed the EU further away and hugged the UK closer.
My WhatsApp has been full of Remoaners delighted that Biden withdrew from Afghanistan without telling the UK.. for 36 hours.
Shashank Joshi @shashj · 1m Our piece on AUKUS, which the British government refers to as a "new defence alliance". The agreement, originally proposed by Australia, will be signed in Washington next week, presumably during @ScottMorrisonMP 's visit to Washington between Sep 21-24.
An Aussie proposal, interestingly. But suits US and UK
BBC wittering on about the reshuffle. Truly bizarre. Completely lost the place.
And people claim we need to pay for the BBC because its a public service broadcaster - and they've missed this? What a joke.
That is an absolute joke. ITV too. Sky are the only ones running it. Nuclear subs in Aussie waters, a fairly big story…
Nuclear powered, not nuclear armed. Though I imagine they may be able to carry Trident missiles in the future.
No, that would be a very different design. At most they could perhaps manage a few nuclear cruise missiles.
The first Polaris subs were actually cut-and-shut attack subs. One was literally cut in half on the building slip, the two ends pulled apart and the missile compartment added in.
The next generation US/UK attack subs are larger - to help accommodate their natural convection reactors, which require more height. This would make such a conversion even easier.
They’re fucking mental. They’ve ripped us out of Europe and are now lashing us to the US in time for conflict with China. Fuck me. Hasn’t Iraq and Afghanistan taught them anything?
The tripartite deal will strengthen the UK defence industry and must lead to a US trade deal
Europe has been sidelined and it will pose big questions for Starmer and indeed Europe itself
Well, I'll wager one thing: we won't be hearing about AUUKUS ever again.
Looks to me like Scotty wanted a bit of face saving as his deal with the French over subs became unaffordable, mostly over costs of building in Australia.
They’re fucking mental. They’ve ripped us out of Europe and are now lashing us to the US in time for conflict with China. Fuck me. Hasn’t Iraq and Afghanistan taught them anything?
Grow a dick. We're all fucked unless we stand up to and contain China.
Entirely necessary and the right thing to do for the future of humanity, and you're a naïve idiot if you disagree.
Comments
Now, if the US wants to have a procedure where the CoS can do that, it should be in the Constitution or, at least, codified. The fact it is not suggests that politicians in the past have had misgivings.
Main takeaway seems to be that Australia is getting nuclear subs with the assistance of USA and UK.
Seriously*, what's more likely, intelligent aliens reaching earth from a distant galaxy or people travelling back in time from the future? Either could conceivably explain UFOs.
(*Ok not really. Neither is possible imho but I'd prefer the latter to the former; at travellers from the future are unlikely to want to anihilate us beacuse it would presumably f*ck-up the, er, future.)
Edit, sorry I thought you were directly quoting Biden.
ETA that said, Boris's levelling-up speech sounded a bit off too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia_Treaty_Organization
AUKUS is for the Anglos
...consultations.
Just for a moment I thought it was getting serious.
He simply forgot. Classic. So you stumble on a replacement - "that fella down under"
Totally silent now.
POTUS is sharing a stage with America's longstanding closest allies.
Not kowtowing before the Russian President.
Election timing, Canada to join later?
Nasty regime.
They do have a few great airfields for civilian diversions over the Atlantic though, you’d want to think they’d make that point.
Not sure what Canada would have to do about that?
Just on the news now.
"Canada left out again... Do our allies just not trust Trudeau?"
https://twitter.com/erinotoole/status/1438238781858095107?s=20
Europe has been sidelined and it will pose big questions for Starmer and indeed Europe itself
Neither would Australia sink the PLA navy without the USA being alongside.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-us-and-australia-launch-new-security-partnership
Suggests the UK and US wouldn't rule out throwing Australia under a nuclear umbrella.
...It went on to say that the defence pact would also focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence and "additional undersea capabilities".
(BBC ... who perhaps weren't invited to have cameras there ?)
It makes teaching a bit more of a challenge, but that’s what seating plans are for.
I'm only pointing out their obsession.
Those who object (like you) only do so because you are also woke-obsessed, and therefore part of the problem.
Shashank Joshi
@shashj
·
1m
Our piece on AUKUS, which the British government refers to as a "new defence alliance". The agreement, originally proposed by Australia, will be signed in Washington next week, presumably during
@ScottMorrisonMP
's visit to Washington between Sep 21-24.
An Aussie proposal, interestingly. But suits US and UK
https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1438250834777841666?s=20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washington_(SSBN-598)
The next generation US/UK attack subs are larger - to help accommodate their natural convection reactors, which require more height. This would make such a conversion even easier.
At least Sky did
Entirely necessary and the right thing to do for the future of humanity, and you're a naïve idiot if you disagree.
Just like CANZUK if you can merge two names into one sharing a vowel then you do.