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.

 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Disobey Orders To Nuke Iran

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Gen. Pace to Troops: Don't Nuke Iran

Now what about the commanders that receive orders from their superiors?

Pace: "I believe that a lot of the commanders, in fact, do recognize that they do have a free choice in this, that they should not execute orders that are illegal and immoral, such as any order to use any kind of a weapon of mass destruction."

But aren't commanders supposed to follow orders from their superiors, including the president and the secretary of defense?

Pace: "They can still not commit crimes against humanity. They can still not execute any kinds of orders that might tell them to use weapons of mass destruction."


Messed mixages?
How are we supposed to ensure nuclear deterant when the people in the loop are now asked to consider if what they are doing in a warcrime?




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Could be construed as an act of treason, disobeying a direct order. But I am sure thankful that SOMEBODY is using common sense and restraint. That's a tough spot to be in - defy your president and your superiors OR start WWIII and possibly destroy the whole world. I know what I would do.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Nuclear weapons are meant to be a last resort, the commanders see this, its just the politicians and armchair generals who don't. If these men are willing to preserve the lives of millions of people then they have my respect.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Any order that is illegal is NOT required to be followed. The difference here is that the guys pushing the buttons for the nuclear detterent would be pushing them after missiles were already in the air and coming for the US. This would be pushing the button to nuke Iran when they haven't done anything except develop nukes. They would NOT be required to follow this order if it was seen as illegal, as the General said.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Dick Cheney has stated that he will nuke Iran if there's another 9/11 type attack, regardless of whether Iran was involved in it !. Say, for example your kid does something bad, do you drive across town and punish some other kid ? I thought nukes were the final solution, not a tool for 'surgical strikes'. the person that refuses that order deserves the Nobel prize i.m.o.

Anyway, i've done a podcast that sort of relates to this. Please check it out and let me know what you thinkIran's oil bourse: is this game on?



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by fingapointa
Dick Cheney has stated that he will nuke Iran if there's another 9/11 type attack, regardless of whether Iran was involved in it !.

Instead of linking to some PODcast, how about link the news source that cites Cheney stating what you have asserted that he said?

Might add some legitimacy to what you are attempting to peddle forth.




seekerof

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   

The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article in The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi. His article, “In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran,” suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney’s office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.

Emphasis added

www.energybulletin.net...



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
That's a far cry from Cheney actually saying such, is it not?
You specifically asserted that it was Cheney who said such, did you not?

Originally posted by fingapointa
Dick Cheney has stated that he will nuke Iran if there's another 9/11 type attack, regardless of whether Iran was involved in it !.

To simply link something saying "Vice-President Dick Cheney's office wants..." is a far cry from Cheney actually saying such, again, is it not?

Furthermore, the reference to "Cheney's office" is ambiguous.
Care to define what "Cheney's office" means or implies?
Please do not tell me that because something says "Cheney's office," you simply ASSUMED that it was Cheney who made such a claim?
This is not a simple math equation, such as 2+2=4, cause quite frankly, to assume such is more like 2+2=5.

Btw, "Cheney's office" is doing nothing more than what the Pentagon and top level military planners already have done: make contingency plans.
This is not new, for the US, among a host of other major powers in the world, have done and do this, habitually.

As such, and getting back to the topic, if a top US commander is ordered to utilize nukes and he opts to disregard or disobey such an order, he or she will promptly be dismissed/relieved, and if the time ever came and General Pace was placed in that situation, be assured that he would either do what he was ordered to do or he would be promptly dismissed/relieved of his command.

Nuclear weapons are not for arbitrary use.
They are weapons of last resort.




seekerof

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
oh look, apologies for the inference, i'm soooooo sorry i disparaged Deadeye Dick Cheney. I'm not gonna play semantics with you. Boring.

answer me this, would you press the button, knowing that it was an illegal action and knowing you were certain to kill millions ? How would you mine the oil afterwards? Would it be radioactive? Do you think general Pace would give a rats arse of being replaced when the option is genocide? If their last resort weapons why is their contigency planning about poss. pre emptive use?



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I won’t point fingers but some of you need to think. Do you really think Cheney would say something that stupid where some reporter is going to hear him.

And another thing, if Iran were stupid enough to nuke this country they have to realize the war machine would go into action once more.

Make no mistake; what is going on in Iraq right now is the result of political infighting between conservatives and liberals.

when they tell you to push the button, it is because of a national emergency requiring a response. if you don't the man standing next to you will shoot you and then he will push the button...

[edit on 11-3-2006 by landshark]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by landshark


Make no mistake; what is going on in Iraq right now is the result of political infighting between conservatives and liberals.


first this thread is about the possibilities of a nuclear attack on Iran and second infighting between conservatives and liberals? In my opinion this is a bi-partisan issue that has implications internationally. See above for my mea culpa re: Cheney.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Dick Cheney is not authorized to launch a nuclear attack unless the president is incapacitated and he takes over. The president is the only one that can authorize the use of nuclear weapons, so whether Cheney wants to or not is irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by fingapointa




first this thread is about the possibilities of a nuclear attack on Iran and second infighting between conservatives and liberals? In my opinion this is a bi-partisan issue that has implications internationally. See above for my mea culpa re: Cheney.


i am talking about Iran, but each party is terrified about loosing support by doing the wrong thing. all this is doing is making us look weak when the truth is we are just not pissed off enough.

and i don't care what you read in some article i can tell you from my heart it is not the whole story...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Nuclear weapons are not for arbitrary use.
They are weapons of last resort.


That's a very simplistic assessment on the proper use of nukes, which is supposed to be addressed in this thread. We cannot guarantee that "Cheney's contingency plans" will involve the proper use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps I have an issue of trusting people who make a living off of persuasion through propaganda.



As such, and getting back to the topic, if a top US commander is ordered to utilize nukes and he opts to disregard or disobey such an order, he or she will promptly be dismissed/relieved, and if the time ever came and General Pace was placed in that situation, be assured that he would either do what he was ordered to do or he would be promptly dismissed/relieved of his command.


Well, if any military officer declines killing millions of innocent people for amoral "contigency plans," then they are doing their duty as a human being. If they find another to fire a nuke, I don't want to imagine what sorts of hell these people will be unleashing. Do you honestly support firing a nuclear weapon as a pre-emptive strike? The US is not a bubble my friend, and you can be sure that firing a nuke will cause much more instability than the possibility of Iran creating nuclear weapons so many years in the future.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by fingapointa
oh look, apologies for the inference, i'm soooooo sorry i disparaged Deadeye Dick Cheney. I'm not gonna play semantics with you. Boring.

Your apology was taken with the grain of salt it was bestowed with, k?





answer me this, would you press the button, knowing that it was an illegal action and knowing you were certain to kill millions ?

Dude, in your enlightened and maligned world, the use of nuclear weapons is illegal, period, thus becomes an "illegal action," period.
To postulate "if" I would push the nuclear button is like postulating if one could be the President-for-a-day or what would one do if bestowed with a million dollars. In your own words: "boring."




How would you mine the oil afterwards?

You do not "mine" oil.




Would it be radioactive?

Probably not, but if so, purifiers would correct the situation.





Do you think general Pace would give a rats arse of being replaced when the option is genocide?

The use of "genocide" in the a nuclear weapons use reference is ludicrous, unless of course, your implying some Islamic nation nuking Israel. Again, your anti-war and peacenik slant is clouding the realities of war and warfare. I indicated that the use of nuclear weapons is not for arbitrary or haphazard use. They are weapons of last resort. BOTH the Russian and the US know this. Does Iran or North Korea? Let me know, k?




If their last resort weapons why is their contigency planning about poss. pre emptive use?

The best answer I can give you is two things:
There are a number of really good and scholarly books on International Relations Theory.
There are a number of really good and scholarly books on Military History: Global, Strategic, and Tactical Application of war in the nuclear age.
Contingency planning involving nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive action are common, and not restricted to the "Cheney office," the Pentagon, and the US. A contingency plan is simply a "what-if."


And since you turned this into an "answer me this" or "riddle me that," I have a question for you:
Why did you feel the need to put words into someone's mouth to simply justify your opinionated commentary?

This is not a matter of you simply disparaging Cheney, it is a matter of principle. In other words, you should be able to state and back your case without having to resort to 'putting words in someone else's mouth.'





seekerof

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Some false logic here. First of all if you have something then you have it to use and make use of. Secondly, the chief of staff has to answer to someone eg. the president. Lastly, outside of this order not being made on a rational basis, I fail to see under law how the chief can refuse an order from the president to do what he is told.

An example of a decision without rational basis may be the following: you have good relations with a country and they have never posed a threat to you but you decide to drop an atomic bomb on them to severely disable the country so that you can take it over. This is not a likely scenario in the middle east to date.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by landshark
I won’t point fingers but some of you need to think. Do you really think Cheney would say something that stupid where some reporter is going to hear him.

And another thing, if Iran were stupid enough to nuke this country they have to realize the war machine would go into action once more.

Make no mistake; what is going on in Iraq right now is the result of political infighting between conservatives and liberals.

when they tell you to push the button, it is because of a national emergency requiring a response. if you don't the man standing next to you will shoot you and then he will push the button...

[edit on 11-3-2006 by landshark]


That someone else will do the deed if you don't was an excuse much heard at the Nuremberg trials. Disobeying a command that violates your conscience is its own reward.

BTW, what you do IS who you are



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Sorry Seekerof, but this whole "Cheney Said" debate of particulars is pretty disenchanting when you consider our shiny new Pre-Emptive Nuclear Policy.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Nuclear weapons are not military weapons but politicians weapons. Since WW2, everyones in the world knows that. I don't even think the iranians would use them if they had such weapons.

There is only 1 nation on earth who's crazy enough to use WMD. North-Korea. Because NK is a too much psychotic nation.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Dick Cheney is not authorized to launch a nuclear attack unless the president is incapacitated and he takes over. The president is the only one that can authorize the use of nuclear weapons, so whether Cheney wants to or not is irrelevant.


Not quite Zap, the National Command Authority has the power to authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons, the NCA consist of the President and the Sec Def. Neither man by himself can authorize the use of Nuclear Weapons, both must concur. However you are correct, the Vice President has no say in the matter.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join