It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Admiral Would ‘Nuke China Next Week’ If Trump Ordered It

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would very much hope that a US Admiral would nuke China if given the order by the Commander in Chief.


I'm sure he will. And he'll know, as he executes that order, that the consequence will be the destruction of US cities and the deaths of millions of US citizens in a Chinese retaliation. I wouldn't want his responsibilities.


Yeah, tough job indeed.




posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
At least that guy can say that he just followed orders like the Nazis did, fantastic!

China to send nuclear-armed submarines into Pacific amid tensions with US

#SubchinaTrumpsWarheads



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
At least that guy can say that he just followed orders like the Nazis did, fantastic!

China to send nuclear-armed submarines into Pacific amid tensions with US

#SubchinaTrumpsWarheads


Fortunately there is a process in place.





It's existed for some time. Perhaps you think you have a better idea, but I doubt you do.
What the Admiral will have known when he was asked such a dumb question is that these steps take place before any 'button' is pushed, something blowhards don't really consider when they envisage a call between the President and an Admiral along the lines of "launch those nukes, fella... "..
"...ok boss!

edit on 29/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Good, Admirals must follow the orders of the Commander in Chief.
How is this worthy of a thread? Were the Admirals insubordinate for Obama?



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would very much hope that a US Admiral would nuke China if given the order by the Commander in Chief.


I would very much hope a sane person would tell the president # you unless its a retaliatory strike...........

No one is justified useing nukes in a first strike policy. It would be mass murder and mean the end of both countries.



What kind of person would support throwing away hundreds or millions or billions of lifes?



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would very much hope that a US Admiral would nuke China if given the order by the Commander in Chief.


I'm sure he will. And he'll know, as he executes that order, that the consequence will be the destruction of US cities and the deaths of millions of US citizens in a Chinese retaliation. I wouldn't want his responsibilities.


Yeah, tough job indeed.


Very simple.

If your president gives you a #ing insane order that would mean the end of your country and hundreds of millions of lifes you disobey it as it would be treason to obey it!

Military are to take a oath to protect the country and the constitution........cant protect it if its smoking pile of nuclear rubble.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
At least that guy can say that he just followed orders like the Nazis did, fantastic!

China to send nuclear-armed submarines into Pacific amid tensions with US

#SubchinaTrumpsWarheads


All orders are justifiable when its your guy doing it.

Good example from the Nuremberg trials is Grand Admiral Donitz. He got 10 years for unrestricted U-boats war crime.......US Admiral Nimitz did the same in the pacific and is hailed a hero. Hell Nimitz even wrote a note to testfy in Donitz favour because of the BS double standards.


But it would be the same today.

If Russia launched a first strike they would be evil aggressors and survivors of such a nuclear war would lament how putins subordinates did not stop him

If the USA does they wluld be hailed as heros and anyone who refused would be labeled traitors.....



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would very much hope that a US Admiral would nuke China if given the order by the Commander in Chief.


I'm sure he will. And he'll know, as he executes that order, that the consequence will be the destruction of US cities and the deaths of millions of US citizens in a Chinese retaliation. I wouldn't want his responsibilities.


Yeah, tough job indeed.


Very simple.

If your president gives you a #ing insane order that would mean the end of your country and hundreds of millions of lifes you disobey it as it would be treason to obey it!

Military are to take a oath to protect the country and the constitution........cant protect it if its smoking pile of nuclear rubble.


If the President calls up the Admiral one night and says 'I order you to nuke China" then sure, I agree with you.
If, however, the President follows the correct protocols, then the Admiral would be committing treason by NOT following orders.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: InsaneIthorian




No one is justified useing nukes in a first strike policy. It would be mass murder and mean the end of both countries.


Ähm, nope. Given the fallout and nuclear winter (after the anticipated retaliation from China and Russia) it would mean the end of humanity on this planet for quite some time. Way to be done with the northern hemisphere instantly, and I don't think the folks on the southern side of things would survive the intense radiation for more than a short period of time.

#WhenSpaceMarinesLivesMatter



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would very much hope that a US Admiral would nuke China if given the order by the Commander in Chief.


I would very much hope a sane person would tell the president # you unless its a retaliatory strike...........

No one is justified useing nukes in a first strike policy. It would be mass murder and mean the end of both countries.



What kind of person would support throwing away hundreds or millions or billions of lifes?


I am sure that if the President initiated the process and had no valid reason at all to do it, then the people involved in the process would object and potentially have him removed from office as a result.

The crazy idea that the President can nuke another country on a whim has gained some chatter time in social media mainly because of propaganda and fear mongering.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If there is a justifiable reason and protocol followed sure.

But lets face it, one man having the power to end the world is not right.

There should be some sort of policy or set of rules for use of nuclear weapons.

Chinas no first strike policy is one of the few things I agree with on China.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: InsaneIthorian

The irony in this post is hillarious. This is the unfortunate reality of life, depressing, but it is what it is.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: InsaneIthorian
a reply to: UKTruth

If there is a justifiable reason and protocol followed sure.

But lets face it, one man having the power to end the world is not right.

There should be some sort of policy or set of rules for use of nuclear weapons.

Chinas no first strike policy is one of the few things I agree with on China.


There are a set of rules.
First off the President actually needs consent to go to war. I would consider nuking another country an act of war!
That's all before the protocols in place to actually trigger a strike.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I think its note worthy.

If there are elements within our country that would undermine Trumps ability to lead, this should be of particular interest to them:

That there are still those wild cards in the deck, enough of them, to keep anyone from counting cards in Trumps deck.

Saying he would follow his orders says, "He is my commander. Im with him."

Its a silent "so say we all"

EDIT TO ADD:
He doesnt have to spell it out. As many said its a given. This is as a declaration. A banner risen.


edit on 7 29 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
First off the President actually needs consent to go to war.

Maybe not in this case. Technically, there was an armistice in place ... but, Kim Jong-Un nullified it some years ago.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Snarl

I think its note worthy.

If there are elements within our country that would undermine Trumps ability to lead, this should be of particular interest to them:

That there are still those wild cards in the deck, enough of them, to keep anyone from counting cards in Trumps deck.

Saying he would follow orders says, "He is my commander. Im with him."

Its a silent "so say we all"



There seem to be quite a few treasonous minds in America at the moment, willing to put their own country in grave danger in order to further political aims. It's always been an issue - especially in America - but it seems very acute at the moment.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: UKTruth
First off the President actually needs consent to go to war.

Maybe not in this case. Technically, there was an armistice in place ... but, Kim Jong-Un nullified it some years ago.


So if you are technically at war - he follows the strike protocols and no Admiral should be making decisions on changing that process.
I would also question your interpretation of the link - it says that South Korea have made the decision - quite how that effects the US position I don't know.
Not sure why China could be nuked under those circumstances - was the armistice inclusive of a war footing between the US and China?
edit on 29/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Not sure why China could be nuked under those circumstances - was the armistice inclusive of a war footing between the US and China?


The Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty was a treaty signed on July 11, 1961

Fight one ... fight the other. One would be stoopid not to.



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: UKTruth
Not sure why China could be nuked under those circumstances - was the armistice inclusive of a war footing between the US and China?


The Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty was a treaty signed on July 11, 1961

Fight one ... fight the other. One would be stoopid not to.


Why would a decision by the South Koreans mean that the US was at war - are you saying that South Korea can declare war for the US govt? Have you researched this properly?

You seem to be making a claim that the South Koreans can bypass the President of the US and Congress and declare war on China on behalf of the USA... you might want to dig into the details a bit further as your assertion does not pass the smell test.
edit on 29/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

It wasn't the South Koreans who nullified the treaty.


North Korea declared the 1953 Korean War armistice nullified on Monday, following through on a longstanding threat that it renewed last week amid rising tensions with South Korea.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join