ozglobal
Topic Author
Posts: 2594
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:17 pm

We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.

Congress members, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this week on the President's authority to launch nuclear weapons and in other forums, the question is being publicly asked.

Speaking at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada, Gen. John Hyten, who is the commander of US Strategic Command, shared what would happen if he were ordered to launch a nuclear strike.
"I provide advice to the President," Hyten said. "He'll tell me what to do, and if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm gonna say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' ....
CNN

Does anyone think this is an ok situation to be in and that it should be allowed to continue, given all that is at stake?

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/19/us-nuclear-general-says-would-resist-illegal-trump-strike-order.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42041975
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-strategic-command-gen-john-hyten-resist-illegal-nuke-order-from-trump/
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/11/19/nuclear-commander-says-he-would-resist-illegal-order-trump.html
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:28 pm

I guess I am confused. Are you saying you have issues with this because the military should follow the commander in chief regardless, or is this an objection to the topic being discussed?

Just because the CIC or any superior gives an order does not mean it is a lawful order.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
windy95
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:38 pm

What's the point of this post? The CinCSAC was asked a question at a forum and gave an answer that has always been the position of the Military. That is to question what you believe to be an unlawful order. The general stated that he has had this conversation with the President to ensure they understand each other. Nothing new and nothing to see here.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10046
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:53 pm

Corker announces Senate hearing to examine Trump's 'authority to use nuclear weapons'
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., announced Wednesday that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing Nov. 14 to examine the president's "authority to use nuclear weapons."
Corker is one of Trump's fiercest critics within his own party. The hearing represents a significant escalation of Corker's concerns about the president's temperament and fitness for office.
The hearing was announced less than a day after Trump delivered a speech in which he called the nuclear-armed North Korean dictatorship a "dark fantasy" and a "military cult."


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/09/senate- ... apons.html
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
ozglobal
Topic Author
Posts: 2594
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:09 pm

mmo wrote:
I guess I am confused. Are you saying you have issues with this because the military should follow the commander in chief regardless, or is this an objection to the topic being discussed?

Just because the CIC or any superior gives an order does not mean it is a lawful order.


Sorry. Guess I assumed it was obvious:

For the first time in 40 years since unilateral powers were given to POTUS to launch an emergency nuclear first strike, large numbers of law makers are genuinely asking how Trump in particular can be contained should he go rogue. I find the situation and the real possibility a grave concern.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4903
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:09 pm

We now live in a World in which the army and the government have to reassure the public that they won't let the unstable and unqualified President start a nuclear war on a whim...

:rotfl:

*It's a nervous laugh. I'm actually dying inside.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
ozglobal
Topic Author
Posts: 2594
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:14 pm

Francoflier wrote:
We now live in a World in which the army and the government have to reassure the public that they won't let the unstable and unqualified President start a nuclear war on a whim...

:rotfl:

*It's a nervous laugh. I'm actually dying inside.


Thanks for perfectly summarizing my point.

We're afraid that at 3am when a tweet no longer brings him catharsis, the button will be next. Not joking.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10046
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:21 pm

ozglobal wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
We now live in a World in which the army and the government have to reassure the public that they won't let the unstable and unqualified President start a nuclear war on a whim...

:rotfl:

*It's a nervous laugh. I'm actually dying inside.


Thanks for perfectly summarizing my point.

We're afraid that at 3am when a tweet no longer brings him catharsis, the button will be next. Not joking.


I always had put my hope in the military and apparently not without cause.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
windy95
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:27 pm

ozglobal wrote:
mmo wrote:
I guess I am confused. Are you saying you have issues with this because the military should follow the commander in chief regardless, or is this an objection to the topic being discussed?

Just because the CIC or any superior gives an order does not mean it is a lawful order.


Sorry. Guess I assumed it was obvious:

For the first time in 40 years since unilateral powers were given to POTUS to launch an emergency nuclear first strike, large numbers of law makers are genuinely asking how Trump in particular can be contained should he go rogue. I find the situation and the real possibility a grave concern.


No for the first time left wing whiners and RINO's are unhappy because they are not in charge. No concerns here...Once again another non event being politicized for no real reason other than I do not like him. Plenty of Republicans had the same worries about Obama but from the opposite side that he would not respond if attacked.. The Trump Derangement Syndrome is really getting old. He won get over it.....
 
windy95
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:31 pm

And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:40 pm

ozglobal wrote:
We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.


We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.


And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:28 pm

windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.
We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

windy95 wrote:
And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.
LBJ was just a part of the chorus of voices railing against Goldwater. Goldwater was on record advocating the use of nukes in Vietnam.
Goldwater was over the top.

DfwRevolution wrote:
peace through strength.
Does your idea of "peace through strength include overthrowing the elected governments of Iran and Guatemala? How about Vietnam, how much "peace" did that bring (or how much strength did it show?)

Don't forget you warhawk clowns own Iraq too.
 
ozglobal
Topic Author
Posts: 2594
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:32 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
ozglobal wrote:
We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.


We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.


And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.


The thing is, we non-Americans are not especially preoccupied with your local partisan politics, nor do we have a dog in that fight, we're just rather attached to this planet and our children staying alive. When all that stands between a precipitative nuclear war and the lack of it is the self-restraint of an individual that demonstrates none, we're going to have an opinion on the matter.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:44 pm

salttee wrote:
We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

windy95 wrote:
Goldwater was on record advocating the use of nukes in Vietnam.
Goldwater was over the top.


I think you might be a little confused. Your incident was not caused by anything but a misinterpretation of sunlight off high altitude clouds and the inability of the Moliyna constellation to discern the reflection. In addition, at the time the USSR did not have OTH detection capability and there were objects "tracked" when there was no capability.

With respect to Goldwater, you are not quite right on his position. Goldwater's position was if you are going to go to war, you go prepared to win. You use all the weapons you have at your disposal. If you are not prepared to do that, then you need to rethink if you really want war. I think the 55,000+ military members who gave their life would argue Goldwater might have been correct.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:09 pm

mmo wrote:
I think you might be a little confused. Your incident was not caused by anything but a misinterpretation of sunlight off high altitude clouds and the inability of the Moliyna constellation to discern the reflection. In addition, at the time the USSR did not have OTH detection capability and there were objects "tracked" when there was no capability.

I think you're the one who is confused. While you have identified the technical glitch that precipitated the event, the danger came from the "severely strained relations between the United States and the Soviet Union" at the time, including intentionally provocative behaviors of the US military. Read the background section at the Wiki link.
mmo wrote:
With respect to Goldwater, you are not quite right on his position. Goldwater's position was if you are going to go to war, you go prepared to win. You use all the weapons you have at your disposal. If you are not prepared to do that, then you need to rethink if you really want war. I think the 55,000+ military members who gave their life would argue Goldwater might have been correct.
I think those 55,000 servicemen and their families would have rather had them live their lives out, rather than dying in a pointless military adventure which never had any hope of succeeding.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:32 pm

ozglobal wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
ozglobal wrote:
We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.


We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.


And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.


The thing is, we non-Americans are not especially preoccupied with your local partisan politics, nor do we have a dog in that fight, we're just rather attached to this planet and our children staying alive. When all that stands between a precipitative nuclear war and the lack of it is the self-restraint of an individual that demonstrates none, we're going to have an opinion on the matter.


1. Nonsense. Europeans widely take sides in U.S. partisan politics with strong favor to Democrats. President Obama entered office in 2009 with nearly 90% approval rating according to Pew survey of Europeans. You can't get 90% of people to agree on a pizza order. Recent presidents like Bush and Reagan were widely regarded in Europe as ignorant cowboys despite taking pursuing strongly pro-European policies.

2. It's derangement that you think Trump demonstrates no self-restraint necessary to prevent nuclear war. Take the brewing North Korea crisis. The Trump administration has restrained from using options far less radical than nuclear weapons, such as intercepting North Korean missile tests.

I said this back during the presidential primaries, but you can't view Trump through a conventional lens. He's playing a different game: misdirection. You all get worked into a lather over some outrageous but ultimately meaningless Tweet. You all assume he's some ignorant buffoon. Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:13 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
You all assume he's some ignorant buffoon.

No assuming necessary. Mr. Trump's constant mis-statement of fact (or lying) is evidence enough of his buffoonery (or dishonesty).

DfwRevolution wrote:
Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges.....

How many so far? Is the pace of approvals of his court picks similar to that of recent Presidents?

DfwRevolution wrote:
....... and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.

Overhauling/replacement of political (Plum Book) appointees is not overhaul of the bureaucracy.

Mass firings and agency reorganizations (of which there has been little) would constitute an "overhaul".

Hasn't happened yet.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
windy95
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:02 am

ozglobal wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
ozglobal wrote:
We are now in a situation where the US heads of the armed services are obliged to take serious questions and publicly provide serious answers as to what they would do in case of rogue orders from Trump to launch unilateral-POTUS commanded nuclear attacks.


We are "in a situation" where a Republican administration holds the Executive Branch. Our armed services take questions from the public because we are an open and free society. The question asked of Gen. Hyten was not remotely "serious" even if it was of a serious nature. Anyone can go look in the UCMJ to see an officer's responsibility if they are given illegal orders. It was totally unprofessional for a journalist to 1.) publicly question an officer whether he would do his duty and 2.) imply that the officer's leadership is unstable or rogue.

It was a divisive question that was only asked due to partisan politics.

windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.


And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.


The thing is, we non-Americans are not especially preoccupied with your local partisan politics, nor do we have a dog in that fight, we're just rather attached to this planet and our children staying alive. When all that stands between a precipitative nuclear war and the lack of it is the self-restraint of an individual that demonstrates none, we're going to have an opinion on the matter.


There are plenty of non Americans on this site who get into our partisan politics. But to your point your worries are baseless because one person cannot just launch a nuclear war and as to Trump not showing restraint that would be your misplaced opinion.
 
windy95
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:26 am

salttee wrote:
windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.
We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

.


LOL... A soviet satellite glitch was because of Reagans cowboy Policies? Get real.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:22 am

windy95 wrote:
LOL... A soviet satellite glitch was because of Reagans cowboy Policies? Get real.
As is usually the case with loudmouth right wingers, your knowledge of events is superficial.
This misunderstanding was already addressed in post #15.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:54 am

salttee wrote:
windy95 wrote:
LOL... A soviet satellite glitch was because of Reagans cowboy Policies? Get real.
As is usually the case with loudmouth right wingers, your knowledge of events is superficial. This misunderstanding was already addressed in post #15.


So it was Reagan's fault the notoriously paranoid Soviets were paranoid?

BobPatterson wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
You all assume he's some ignorant buffoon.

No assuming necessary. Mr. Trump's constant mis-statement of fact (or lying) is evidence enough of his buffoonery (or dishonesty).


I honestly don't think he cares about matters of fact. We conventionally assess knowledge as a measure of competence. We marvel at fact-heavy technocrats. But again: Trump is playing a different game. His game is influencing behavior and manipulation. That's no trivial skill.

BobPatterson wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges.....

How many so far? Is the pace of approvals of his court picks similar to that of recent Presidents?


Trump has 14 judges that have passed Senate confirmation with another 45 awaiting confirmation. Obama had 10 pass Senate confirmation in his first year.

More important than the quantity is the quality. Trump is getting exactly who he wants with no compromises. No recent President has ever had so much latitude in judicial nominations. We can thank Harry Reid for that.

BobPatterson wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
....... and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.

Overhauling/replacement of political (Plum Book) appointees is not overhaul of the bureaucracy.

Mass firings and agency reorganizations (of which there has been little) would constitute an "overhaul".

Hasn't happened yet.


And who says you get to define what constitutes "an overhaul?" Some of the biggest regulatory changes of the last decade have been undone or are under review. It's totally unprecedented for an incoming administration to shred so much of a prior administration in the first year.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:34 am

salttee wrote:
I think you're the one who is confused. While you have identified the technical glitch that precipitated the event, the danger came from the "severely strained relations between the United States and the Soviet Union" at the time, including intentionally provocative behaviors of the US military. Read the background section at the Wiki link.
I think those 55,000 servicemen and their families would have rather had them live their lives out, rather than dying in a pointless military adventure which never had any hope of succeeding.



First of all, your characterization would appear to place the blame on the US. If anything, both sides are as guilty as the other. It was just not the US who enjoyed provocative actions, the USSR enjoyed it as much, if not more than the US. I was in the US military then and if you believe everything written in Wiki, I have some lovely ocean front property in Arizona I'd love to sell you.

Since you think making a statement for me to re-read Wiki is an acceptable answer to a response, I would suggest you go back and re-read my comments about Goldwater. Your response has simply nothing to do with what I wrote. In fact, from what you wrote, it would appear as if you agree with Goldwater. In reality, that was his point.

AMF!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:25 am

I do place blame on Regan for the military adventurism during his time in office. I referred you to the Wikipedia article simply because it provides an accurate short synopsis of the 1983 false alarm incident; in the past I have read in depth of the Russian side of that event and there is a lot more to be said of it than "sun reflecting off of clouds" although I know that the segment of the population with short attention spans might choke on reading a Wiki synopsis I'll post this snippet because it points up the politocal/military envirnment at the time.
In mid-February 1981, and continuing until 1983, psychological operations by the United States began. These were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability and to demonstrate US nuclear capabilities. They included clandestine naval operations, in the Barents, Norwegian, Black, and Baltic seas and near the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment.
I don't understand your use of the word "enjoyed" above, it seems a quite affected way of accusing them of participating in similar activities as the US in probing the other guy's air defense. They may have done it, but nowhere near the scale of what the US regularly did on the fringes of the SU.

BTW I had gotten out of the military prior to the Regan years, I had had discussions with USAF pilots in Europe about these kinds of things, I can vouch for Wiki's accuracy in their abbreviated synopsis.

A particular gripe of mine about the cowboy Reagan years comes from the Korean 747 that the US naval intelligence directed to enter Russian airspace. KE007 was on a mission to probe a newly installed Russian radar installation. The pilot was the highest ranking KCIA agent on KAL's payroll and the plane had two US ELINT aircraft tagging along behind it as it penetrated Soviet airspace. KE007 flew a flight path that required (at least) two separate course changes from the filed flight plan to place it on the course it was on as it overflew Kamchatka - it could not have been on the course it was on by accident. I had a good friend on that plane. If you want to argue about that one you'd better know what you're talking about and you'd better hold back on the insults lest you wind up eating them.

Goldwater's view of military affairs in Vietnam was about parallel with MacArthurs' view of the Korean situation in 1950. They were both frenzied warhawks that wanted to extract any opportunity for war with China. Goldwater was not some wizened backbencher who merely wanted to used adequate force if we were to use force, he wanted the US to show off its military might anywhere and everywhere. The argument you're trying to make was lost over fifty years ago.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11849
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:42 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
1. Nonsense. Europeans widely take sides in U.S. partisan politics with strong favor to Democrats. President Obama entered office in 2009 with nearly 90% approval rating according to Pew survey of Europeans. You can't get 90% of people to agree on a pizza order. Recent presidents like Bush and Reagan were widely regarded in Europe as ignorant cowboys despite taking pursuing strongly pro-European policies.


Why would Europeans favor Democrats ? It's not like we're all voting for our left-wing parties, a majority of European countries at any time are headed by right-wing leaders, some of which would have no problem passing as Republicans in the US (the sane part of the GOP, that is).

The problem lies in the individuals involved, not their political party. If you elect failed businessmen and actors as president, don't expect instant respect from the rest of the world. I'm too young to remember but I'm sure opinions on Reagan improved over time, on W Bush, not so much. On Trump, he started low, got lower, and is now digging.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10046
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:59 am

Aesma wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
1. Nonsense. Europeans widely take sides in U.S. partisan politics with strong favor to Democrats. President Obama entered office in 2009 with nearly 90% approval rating according to Pew survey of Europeans. You can't get 90% of people to agree on a pizza order. Recent presidents like Bush and Reagan were widely regarded in Europe as ignorant cowboys despite taking pursuing strongly pro-European policies.


Why would Europeans favor Democrats ? It's not like we're all voting for our left-wing parties, a majority of European countries at any time are headed by right-wing leaders, some of which would have no problem passing as Republicans in the US (the sane part of the GOP, that is).

The problem lies in the individuals involved, not their political party. If you elect failed businessmen and actors as president, don't expect instant respect from the rest of the world. I'm too young to remember but I'm sure opinions on Reagan improved over time, on W Bush, not so much. On Trump, he started low, got lower, and is now digging.


I mostly agree with your post, but not with this one. The Republicans would quite right in Dutch politics. The Democrats are proposing along the lines of the VVD, which is the most rightwing party which could actually govern. So not surprisingly most of my fellow countrymen would favor a Democratic President of the US. I think that is all over Europe.

Trump is viewed as a joke and Bush took a dive with the Iraq invasion thing and never recovered from that and was viewed as not to bright and we got a good laugh out of that.
Reagan was before my time, so I can't really judge on that.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7608
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:27 pm

Everyone loves to bring up past precedent.

"Oh, Reagan was a wild one"
"Clinton and Obama enjoyed that privilege. Why wasn't it taken from them?"

There are two differences between Trump and his nuclear predecessors:
1. None of them resorted to name calling or were triggered by Tweets from those they considered their foes. Even when Ahmadinejad ridiculed Bush and Obama, even when Chavez referred to Bush as the devil, they all took the high ground and pretended they didn't exist. The baby in North Korea ridicules Trump and suddenly we're on war watch out of concern that Trump will order a preemptive/warning shot that triggers war.
2. Unlike Trump, none of them proved Sigmund Freud's theory of the male preoccupation with size. Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton, and Obama didn't have to display the US military as a show of power; they didn't build up the nuclear arsenal because they had to be #1. And certainly, none of them threatened nuclear war (explicitly or implicitly) as a show of force.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:39 pm

salttee wrote:
I do place blame on Regan for the military adventurism during his time in office. I referred you to the Wikipedia article simply because it provides an accurate short synopsis of the 1983 false alarm incident; in the past I have read in depth of the Russian side of that event and there is a lot more to be said of it than "sun reflecting off of clouds" although I know that the segment of the population with short attention spans might choke on reading a Wiki synopsis I'll post this snippet because it points up the politocal/military envirnment at the time.
In mid-February 1981, and continuing until 1983, psychological operations by the United States began. These were designed to test Soviet radar vulnerability and to demonstrate US nuclear capabilities. They included clandestine naval operations, in the Barents, Norwegian, Black, and Baltic seas and near the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment.
I don't understand your use of the word "enjoyed" above, it seems a quite affected way of accusing them of participating in similar activities as the US in probing the other guy's air defense. They may have done it, but nowhere near the scale of what the US regularly did on the fringes of the SU.

BTW I had gotten out of the military prior to the Regan years, I had had discussions with USAF pilots in Europe about these kinds of things, I can vouch for Wiki's accuracy in their abbreviated synopsis.

A particular gripe of mine about the cowboy Reagan years comes from the Korean 747 that the US naval intelligence directed to enter Russian airspace. KE007 was on a mission to probe a newly installed Russian radar installation. The pilot was the highest ranking KCIA agent on KAL's payroll and the plane had two US ELINT aircraft tagging along behind it as it penetrated Soviet airspace. KE007 flew a flight path that required (at least) two separate course changes from the filed flight plan to place it on the course it was on as it overflew Kamchatka - it could not have been on the course it was on by accident. I had a good friend on that plane. If you want to argue about that one you'd better know what you're talking about and you'd better hold back on the insults lest you wind up eating them.

Goldwater's view of military affairs in Vietnam was about parallel with MacArthurs' view of the Korean situation in 1950. They were both frenzied warhawks that wanted to extract any opportunity for war with China. Goldwater was not some wizened backbencher who merely wanted to used adequate force if we were to use force, he wanted the US to show off its military might anywhere and everywhere. The argument you're trying to make was lost over fifty years ago.


First of all, there have been no insults by me, so before you go accusing someone of something which has not been done, you'd better be ready to accept the consequences. If and when I give you an insult, it will be very obvious and not something veiled and obscured. So, perhaps you should "edit" your response before I ask the moderators to delete your dribble.

You claim the US "as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment" care to share your facts to back that statement up. At the time you are referring to, I was an active duty pilot in the USAF and just so happened to be flying that type of aircraft. I'd like to know what I missed because your allegations are false. It certainly didn't happen in my 11 years of active duty or 10 years in the reserves.

Let's see, KAL 007.....Good story. Are you a conspiracy theorist by chance? The Captain was a KCIA spy and the Navy directed the KAL flight to enter the area! Where do you get these facts? Having flown the 200 and with the Delco INS it is very easy to see what happened. The big question is was it an error or a "shortcut" to save fuel and get more payload on.

With respect to "enjoying" the probing. Your comprehension of what my point was is exactly what I was getting at. The USSR was just as eager as the US to probe the defenses. They did it as much or more often than the US did. They had too. From a technology perspective, they were way behind the US at that time and were about as subtle as a bull in a china shop when it came to probing. What they excelled at was HUMINT, perhaps you have heard of the Walkers? Or Christopher Boyce.

Finally, your comments about Goldwater, are from my perspective, wrong. Show me anyone who has a military background (served) who wants to do what you claim. My experience has been the exact opposite. Military people know the value of life and the last thing they want to do is put their subordinates at risk. Further more, they don't want to do it if they are hamstrung by what the can and cannot do. I am just surprised you didn't lump Curtis LeMay in with your broad stroke condemnation.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11849
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:16 pm

During the campaign, Trump said things like "why do we have nukes if not to use them". After his election he said “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

This is supposed to reassure allies and threaten enemies but it has the exact opposite effect on both counts.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 8:44 pm

mmo wrote:
If and when I give you an insult, it will be very obvious and not something veiled and obscured. So, perhaps you should "edit" your response before I ask the moderators to delete your dribble.
It was obvious what was coming next: "Are you a conspiracy theorist by chance? "
mmo wrote:
You claim the US "as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment" care to share your facts to back that statement up. At the time you are referring to, I was an active duty pilot in the USAF and just so happened to be flying that type of aircraft. I'd like to know what I missed because your allegations are false. It certainly didn't happen in my 11 years of active duty or 10 years in the reserves.
Just below you exhibit knowledge of the practice: "The USSR was just as eager as the US to probe the defenses. They did it as much or more often than the US did. They had too. From a technology perspective, they were way behind the US at that time and were about as subtle as a bull in a china shop when it came to probing."

For my part, I'll offer Wiki's citation for that snippet: Peter Schweizer, Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union also, Pry, Peter Vincent (1999). War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink. Then there's my personal knowledge as a US Army radar operator.
mmo wrote:
Let's see, KAL 007.....Good story. Are you a conspiracy theorist by chance? The Captain was a KCIA spy and the Navy directed the KAL flight to enter the area! Where do you get these facts? Having flown the 200 and with the Delco INS it is very easy to see what happened. The big question is was it an error or a "shortcut" to save fuel and get more payload on.
If he was following the waypoints for airway R-20, what was he doing at 58° 03' 0" N 170°15' 0" E, when he was supposed to be overhead of NEEVA (54° 40.700'N 172° 11.800'E) at that time in the flight? It appears that he was almost 250 miles north of where he was supposed to be - and he would have had to make another course change at about that time to reach the course he flew over the peninsula. If you want to allege that he flew a single course from Alaska to the path he flew over the Russian territories you are also going to have to assume that he had an extremely weird failure in his INS. The usual failed explanation for the actual flight path rests on the premise that the plane flew on heading mode instead of INS mode, and that would require an extremely weird failure on the part of the multiple compass's on board. But it appears that you are discarding that theory, so I won't beat that one to death.

The fact that Captain Chun Byung-in was ex military and had flown missions for the KCIA has been reported by multiple sources. I believe he was number two on KE's seniority list. You're barking up the wrong tree if you want to "debunk" or minimize these facts. I don't have the sources at hand right now but they are accessable in many of the books that have been written on the subject.

mmo wrote:
The USSR was just as eager as the US to probe the defenses. They did it as much or more often than the US did. They had too. From a technology perspective, they were way behind the US at that time and were about as subtle as a bull in a china shop when it came to probing. What they excelled at was HUMINT, perhaps you have heard of the Walkers? Or Christopher Boyce.
They had no HUMIT source for the newest radar that had recently been installed by the Soviets.

mmo wrote:
Finally, your comments about Goldwater, are from my perspective, wrong. Show me anyone who has a military background (served) who wants to do what you claim. My experience has been the exact opposite. Military people know the value of life and the last thing they want to do is put their subordinates at risk. Further more, they don't want to do it if they are hamstrung by what the can and cannot do. I am just surprised you didn't lump Curtis LeMay in with your broad stroke condemnation.
I'll "show" you Douglas MacArthur in late 1950. Please don't lecture me about what "military people" know or think, that cliched argument doesn't go over well with this veteran. There are many military people over the years who have believed that war with China was both necessary and inevitable.
 
GDB
Posts: 13250
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:08 pm

salttee wrote:
windy95 wrote:
And it is not the first time because we had heard the same crap during the Reagan era. Everyone was worried that President Reagan would start a nuclear war with Russia which continued on throughout his administration.
We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident

windy95 wrote:
And before that, the 1964 presidential election turned on Johnson's implication that Goldwater would start nuclear armageddon. There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.
LBJ was just a part of the chorus of voices railing against Goldwater. Goldwater was on record advocating the use of nukes in Vietnam.
Goldwater was over the top.

DfwRevolution wrote:
peace through strength.
Does your idea of "peace through strength include overthrowing the elected governments of Iran and Guatemala? How about Vietnam, how much "peace" did that bring (or how much strength did it show?)

Don't forget you warhawk clowns own Iraq too.


McCain replaced Goldwater, when handing over the veteran Senator told McCain 'had I been President, you would not have been a POW in Vietnam'.
To which McCain replied, 'no, I'd have been one in China!'

To the events of 1983, Reagan's 'Evil Empire' speech to bunch of evangelicals, did frighten the already paranoid old Soviet leadership, when the NATO command post exercise 'Able Archer' was added to the mix, intel about just how paranoid and hair triggered they were, (from a MI6 source extracted in 1985), was immediately passed to the US and it also shook Reagan up. No more 'evil empire' speeches after that. He notably toned the rhetoric down in general after seeing it.
Then of course, the ascent of Gorby 18 months later removed the need anyway.
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:19 am

salttee wrote:
The usual failed explanation for the actual flight path rests on the premise that the plane flew on heading mode instead of INS mode, and that would require an extremely weird failure on the part of the multiple compass's on board. But it appears that you are discarding that theory, so I won't beat that one to death.


Your comments about the "extremely weird failure" are indicative of your lack of knowledge of the 747-200 INS system. It is extremely easy to get the Nav mode into heading as the selector is right in the center of the glareshield. I don't know how many times I have seen it hit with pilots getting out/or in the left and right seat. There is no visual indication or aural warning. So, for you to say it was a "extremely weird failure" is just ludicrous at best.

It's funny, you come back to me about MacArthur, when I never mentioned him. But again, you seem to respond to what you want. I am still waiting for a list of your "bomber flights" where you reported they turned at the last possible moment. But again, it's easy to not respond to that.

And again, what about the Walkers, Boyce and others?

The problem with conspiracy theorists, and I will put you in that category, is they fail to realize any "conspiracy" will involve hundreds of people, if not thousands. And people love to talk.

So, we will just disagree and I won't even agree to that.

AMF!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:32 am

mmo wrote:
Your comments about the "extremely weird failure" are indicative of your lack of knowledge of the 747-200 INS system. It is extremely easy to get the Nav mode into heading as the selector is right in the center of the glareshield. I don't know how many times I have seen it hit with pilots getting out/or in the left and right seat. There is no visual indication or aural warning. So, for you to say it was a "extremely weird failure" is just ludicrous at best.
There are several reasons this prattle from you is little more than gibberish being hidden behind a false appeal to authority. The first being the incongruity that exists when you claimed above that you know all about the Delco INS and for you "it is very easy to see what happened" (not just easy, but very easy) and now you are backtracking and setting the stage for you to claim that KE007 flew from Alaska to Sakhalin Island under heading mode, which of course does not use the INS, but follows a compass heading which needs to be set, as opposed to the INS which tracks to geographical positions.

Before we go any further, you need to clarify what control you think KE007 was operating under and exactly what this "very simple" error of feature was that brought the aircraft over the Kamchatka Peninsula and then the Sakhalin Island. And while doing so, please answer to the fact that there is no heading or INS course that can duplicate KE007's flight path from Alaska to Sakhalin there has to be a turn somewhere. (this is why I stated that there would have to have been a weird INS failure to have caused the aircraft to have turned off of a great circle course, and then back onto a different GS course)

mmo wrote:
It's funny, you come back to me about MacArthur, when I never mentioned him.
You asked me: "Show me anyone who has a military background (served) who wants to do what you claim." (Invade China) My answer was the blatantly obvious fact that MacArthur ran his army (and airforce) right up to the Chinese border in late 1950. Then you went on with your Readers Digest type of nonsense about how peaceloving military people are "My experience has been the exact opposite. Military people know the value of life and the last thing they want to do is put their subordinates at risk." You obviously think that civilians are complete dumbfucks, have you forgotten that quite a few civilians are ex-military? You really need to stop talking down to people.

And can we now drop this side topic as it has nothing to do with KE007?

mmo wrote:
I am still waiting for a list of your "bomber flights" where you reported they turned at the last possible moment.
Your actual question was: "You claim the US "as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment" care to share your facts to back that statement up." and I gave you two citations, along with your personal acknowledgement of those activities by both the USAF and the Russians.
mmo wrote:
And again, what about the Walkers, Boyce and others?
The the Walkers and Boyce are just your strawmen they have nothing to do with this conversation.

mmo wrote:
The problem with conspiracy theorists, and I will put you in that category,
I too have you in a "category" but I'll be polite and not share it.

We can now see that I was dead on accurate in assuming that you would descend into petty ad hominem attacks.
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:19 am

salttee wrote:
There are several reasons this prattle from you is little more than gibberish being hidden behind a false appeal to authority. The first being the incongruity that exists when you claimed above that you know all about the Delco INS and for you "it is very easy to see what happened" (not just easy, but very easy) and now you are backtracking and setting the stage for you to claim that KE007 flew from Alaska to Sakhalin Island under heading mode, which of course does not use the INS, but follows a compass heading which needs to be set, as opposed to the INS which tracks to geographical positions.

Before we go any further, you need to clarify what control you think KE007 was operating under and exactly what this "very simple" error of feature was that brought the aircraft over the Kamchatka Peninsula and then the Sakhalin Island. And while doing so, please answer to the fact that there is no heading or INS course that can duplicate KE007's flight path from Alaska to Sakhalin there has to be a turn somewhere. (this is why I stated that there would have to have been a weird INS failure to have caused the aircraft to have turned off of a great circle course, and then back onto a different GS course)

mmo wrote:
It's funny, you come back to me about MacArthur, when I never mentioned him.
You asked me: "Show me anyone who has a military background (served) who wants to do what you claim." (Invade China) My answer was the blatantly obvious fact that MacArthur ran his army (and airforce) right up to the Chinese border in late 1950. Then you went on with your Readers Digest type of nonsense about how peaceloving military people are "My experience has been the exact opposite. Military people know the value of life and the last thing they want to do is put their subordinates at risk." You obviously think that civilians are complete dumbfucks, have you forgotten that quite a few civilians are ex-military? You really need to stop talking down to people.

And can we now drop this side topic as it has nothing to do with KE007?

mmo wrote:
I am still waiting for a list of your "bomber flights" where you reported they turned at the last possible moment.
Your actual question was: "You claim the US "as well as flights by American bombers, occasionally several times per week, directly to Soviet airspace that turned away only at the last moment" care to share your facts to back that statement up." and I gave you two citations, along with your personal acknowledgement of those activities by both the USAF and the Russians.
mmo wrote:
And again, what about the Walkers, Boyce and others?
The the Walkers and Boyce are just your strawmen they have nothing to do with this conversation.

mmo wrote:
The problem with conspiracy theorists, and I will put you in that category,
I too have you in a "category" but I'll be polite and not share it.

We can now see that I was dead on accurate in assuming that you would descend into petty ad hominem attacks.


Where to begin, because as far as I am concerned, this topic is over. I don't think I can really continue this childish debate.
One thing I have noticed from this post and most of your others, is you really like to take liberty with what people write or you don't really understand what people, in this case me, actually write. I never stated I "know all about the Delco INS", I have about 8000 hours in the 747 equipped with that system, and I don't know all. But I do know how easy it is to have someone his the Nav Mode and have the system revert to heading. That is why in the airline I flew for SOP was to set the heading set bug 45 degrees off so if/when it did happen it would be very obvious. Furthermore, I never said, wrote, claimed the flight flew from Anchorage in heading.

Anyhow, I am going to take George Carlin's advice about arguing with a certain caliber of people and leave it at that. I am sure you can use your google skills and find out what I mean.

AMF!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:56 am

You're good at the insults but not so much at a discussion of navigation.
Let it be said that you left the discussion of KE007 after four posts without ever saying even as much as what type of navigational system you thought the plane was flying under.

All you ever did in this thread was throw insults.
 
GDB
Posts: 13250
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:42 am

I have never brought the KAL conspiracy, KAL had - and would continue having until the late 1990's - a poor safety record.
But most of all, the Soviets knew they'd screwed up and lied. The pilot of the SU-15 who was ordered to shoot down KAL007 was made to change his radio calls after landing, to simulate the noise of the cockpit in flight an electric razor was switched on nearby, the buzzing noise it made being used for fake 'calls' made after the event. This was admitted by the pilot years later.
Though it IS true that under Reagan there were more and more aggressive ELINT flights near Soviet airspace. So they were extra jumpy.
But the USSR did not want to world to know just how dysfunctional it's command and control was, 4 years later another incident made it impossible to hide when that Cessna piloted by a young West German landed in Moscow!
A launch detection sat that got confused by sunlight off clouds was also hardly a ringing endorsement of their system.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:26 pm

GDB wrote:
I have never brought the KAL conspiracy, KAL had - and would continue having until the late 1990's - a poor safety record.
But most of all, the Soviets knew they'd screwed up and lied. The pilot of the SU-15 who was ordered to shoot down KAL007 was made to change his radio calls after landing, to simulate the noise of the cockpit in flight an electric razor was switched on nearby, the buzzing noise it made being used for fake 'calls' made after the event. This was admitted by the pilot years later.
Though it IS true that under Reagan there were more and more aggressive ELINT flights near Soviet airspace. So they were extra jumpy.
But the USSR did not want to world to know just how dysfunctional it's command and control was, 4 years later another incident made it impossible to hide when that Cessna piloted by a young West German landed in Moscow!
A launch detection sat that got confused by sunlight off clouds was also hardly a ringing endorsement of their system.
I have read about and studied the KE007 story in great detail but I've never heard anything like Gennadi Osipovich faking a radio call after landing. The story sounds ridiculous on it's face.

When he went public in 1986 he wasn't saying anything like that.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/09/world ... pying.html

A well written article from 2014 never claims anything like that.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... other-look

A 2013 Air Force magazine never makes such a claim.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... orean.aspx

Do you have a source for such an unlikely event taking place?

Everything about the flight supports the premise that something odd was going on. There was a 10,000 lb fuel discrepancy, the plane took off with more fuel than was listed on the dispatch report. Captain Chun turned down the loading of a heavy air freight item although it would appear to have been within weight limits.

The plane took off from the shorter of two runways in light winds, apparently to avoid starting out on airway R-20. He held to the north of the correct airway from takeoff, all the way across Alaska and for the duration of the flight. The pilot, Captain Chun, is exceptional in that he was not a garden variety airline pilot even by Korean standards, he was very senior and had a long military career, he is described as being an extremely meticulous individual.

Then there is the fact that KE007 reported in at all the waypoints along the flight path except one where his actual location would have put him out of radio range for the nearest receiver. He was never anywhere near those waypoints. And on and on.

Then at the end, ask yourself why would any rational person ignore repeated radio demands to identify themselves?
 
GDB
Posts: 13250
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:33 pm

salttee wrote:
GDB wrote:
I have never brought the KAL conspiracy, KAL had - and would continue having until the late 1990's - a poor safety record.
But most of all, the Soviets knew they'd screwed up and lied. The pilot of the SU-15 who was ordered to shoot down KAL007 was made to change his radio calls after landing, to simulate the noise of the cockpit in flight an electric razor was switched on nearby, the buzzing noise it made being used for fake 'calls' made after the event. This was admitted by the pilot years later.
Though it IS true that under Reagan there were more and more aggressive ELINT flights near Soviet airspace. So they were extra jumpy.
But the USSR did not want to world to know just how dysfunctional it's command and control was, 4 years later another incident made it impossible to hide when that Cessna piloted by a young West German landed in Moscow!
A launch detection sat that got confused by sunlight off clouds was also hardly a ringing endorsement of their system.
I have read about and studied the KE007 story in great detail but I've never heard anything like Gennadi Osipovich faking a radio call after landing. The story sounds ridiculous on it's face.

When he went public in 1986 he wasn't saying anything like that.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/09/world ... pying.html

A well written article from 2014 never claims anything like that.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... other-look

A 2013 Air Force magazine never makes such a claim.
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... orean.aspx

Do you have a source for such an unlikely event taking place?

Everything about the flight supports the premise that something odd was going on. There was a 10,000 lb fuel discrepancy, the plane took off with more fuel than was listed on the dispatch report. Captain Chun turned down the loading of a heavy air freight item although it would appear to have been within weight limits.

The plane took off from the shorter of two runways in light winds, apparently to avoid starting out on airway R-20. He held to the north of the correct airway from takeoff, all the way across Alaska and for the duration of the flight. The pilot, Captain Chun, is exceptional in that he was not a garden variety airline pilot even by Korean standards, he was very senior and had a long military career, he is described as being an extremely meticulous individual.

Then there is the fact that KE007 reported in at all the waypoints along the flight path except one where his actual location would have put him out of radio range for the nearest receiver. He was never anywhere near those waypoints. And on and on.

Then at the end, ask yourself why would any rational person ignore repeated radio demands to identify themselves?


Yes I have, he admitted on camera, he demonstrated it, to a crew making a documentary in 2007, about the tensions of 1983.
He identified a passenger aircraft, many of the 747's windows were shut but not all, way more than you'd see from a RC-135.
Nonetheless he was ordered to fire, when his bosses found out they'd brought down a KAL 747 not a RC-135, they went into damage limitation mode.
We saw something similar more recently with MH17, Russia spinning stories, impeding the work of accident investigators.

Real conspiracies are almost always in the attempt to cover up mistakes.

The documentary concerned, I actually posted it not long ago, in a thread about the death of Stanislav Petrov, the man who was running the command center that got the false launch indications a few weeks after KAL007.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:07 pm

I know he saw that it was an airliner and was ordered to shoot anyway there's no controversy about any of that.
All I'm interested in is the bit about "faking" a radio message with an electric razor noise in the background.
Google site search no longer works; can you give me the url of your source for that?

BTW
From the Soviet POV, their only "screwup" was not catching up with the plane over the Kamchatka peninsula. They never apologized for shooting it down.
They denied shooting down MH-17. There's no similarity between the two.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:42 pm

Is this the video you're referring to?
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v55760583xQkAkrNQ

I'm not going to sit through an hour and twenty minutes of a docudrama about the near launch by the SU. I skipped through it and saw nothing about KE007.

But it's a docudrama anyway, not a serious documentary.

May I ask you, have you really ever looked into the KE007 incident? Do you actually know anything more about it than a Time magazine article would provide?
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17584
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:18 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
I honestly don't think he cares about matters of fact. We conventionally assess knowledge as a measure of competence. We marvel at fact-heavy technocrats. But again: Trump is playing a different game. His game is influencing behavior and manipulation. That's no trivial skill.

I can't believe sentient human beings think Trump is executing any type of skill here. Trump is playing the same game he always has--sh!t the bed, blame someone else, sue anyone that complains into silence, run away *repeat*, and then his monkey handlers clean up the mess while he claims victory. We've known this for decades.

DfwRevolution wrote:
There's a long history of smearing Republicans as warmongers because we believe in peace through strength.

Also: wars. Smearing lol. Bless your heart.

DfwRevolution wrote:
Meanwhile, Trump is stacking U.S. judicial branch with young conservative judges and overhauling the executive branch bureaucracy, and you're none the wiser.

Oh we're well aware. Don't you worry Trump's brand of white nationalist revenge will live on long after he's gone, but if you think he's doing anything beyond forwarding the judge lists from the Federalist, hooking up friends/relatives, and repeating whatever the people on Fox News yell at him through the tee vee, you're dreaming.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Everyone loves to bring up past precedent.

:checkmark: :checkmark: There is no precedent. We've never had someone so mentally deranged and incompetent in charge of a military that could destroy the world multiple times over. This is totally new territory, and even if we have a sane/intelligent president in the future, probably a good idea to review.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6076
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:01 am

salttee wrote:
We almost had an accidental war because of Reagan's cowboy policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Sovi ... m_incident


Your deranged rants make no sense. How exactly is it Reagan's fault that Russians had garbage satellites (and anything involving electronics), paranoid, half-dead leadership, and a secret service that was perhaps very good at shooting defensless POWs but had exactly ZERO analytic capacity?
I guess Carter's pussy policies were so much better...
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:32 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
How exactly is it Reagan's fault that Russians had garbage satellites (and anything involving electronics), paranoid, half-dead leadership, and a secret service that was perhaps very good at shooting defensless POWs but had exactly ZERO analytic capacity?
The issue isn't Russian 1980s technology, the issue is that we almost had an accidental war, and in fact came close to having hydrogen bombs dropped on our cities. I realize that the fact that the Russians almost launched is just a bit of intellectual trivia for your right wing brain, but to anybody who is grounded in reality it was a serious breach in the security of our nation. You can heap all the insults you want on them but none of that changes the fact that their nukes were real.

Reagan's cowboy gamesmanship which sent us into idiotic practices like Able Archer almost cost us our everything.

Compare it to someone who has a neighbor who is paranoid and half brain dead but owns a collection of high power weaponry that he spends a lot of time polishing. Using Reagan's tactics I guess a person like you would think it clever to taunt him and make him believe that you intend to burn his house down.

That doesn't strike me as being very smart.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15420
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:50 am

salttee wrote:
Reagan's cowboy gamesmanship which sent us into idiotic practices like Able Archer almost cost us our everything.


Except no one knew how truly paranoid the Soviets were about a sudden, preemptive strike by the U.S. UNTIL Able Archer 83; their reaction to it is what ultimately led President Reagan and the entire U.S. military machine to realize exactly how skittish the Soviets were, and that handling them differently needed to be done going forward.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:37 am

EA CO AS wrote:
no one knew how truly paranoid the Soviets were...................


Just like:
No one knew that the Chinese would join the Korean war if we marched right up to their border
No one knew that the people of Iran would resent the US (and Britain) overthrowing their elected government
No one knew that the people of Guatemala would resent the US for overthrowing the only elected government in Central American history
No one knew that the Vietnamese would never surrender their nation to another (white) foreign colonizer.
No one knew that once we took Saddam down the Shiites would take over the nation and the Sunnis would revert to militant Islam.
Nobody knows that the Islamic people have no intention of surrendering their world to another (white) foreign colonizer.
Nobody knows that war with Iran would be like the Iraq war squared.

The right wing conservative approach, the militant foreign policy, is based on ignorance.
 
mmo
Posts: 1793
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:57 am

salttee wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
no one knew how truly paranoid the Soviets were...................


Just like:
No one knew that the Chinese would join the Korean war if we marched right up to their border
No one knew that the people of Iran would resent the US (and Britain) overthrowing their elected government
No one knew that the people of Guatemala would resent the US for overthrowing the only elected government in Central American history
No one knew that the Vietnamese would never surrender their nation to another (white) foreign colonizer.
No one knew that once we took Saddam down the Shiites would take over the nation and the Sunnis would revert to militant Islam.
Nobody knows that the Islamic people have no intention of surrendering their world to another (white) foreign colonizer.
Nobody knows that war with Iran would be like the Iraq war squared.

The right wing conservative approach, the militant foreign policy, is based on ignorance.



Be careful, he is an expert at everything and will berate you with "facts". Reminds me of the expression "a scholar at everything, who knows nothing".
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:10 pm

Aesma wrote:
During the campaign, Trump said things like "why do we have nukes if not to use them". After his election he said “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

This is supposed to reassure allies and threaten enemies but it has the exact opposite effect on both counts.


I understand and agree with your point that we should not use nukes.

However, how is the "conventional, respectable" foreign relations platform any less trashy and stupid? We tell Iran they don't need nukes. We promptly invade Libya and kill him. We invade Iraq and kill Saddam. Of course these countries need nukes. North Korea stands as the most accomplished foreign relations team bar none. The American side utterly failed to accomplish any policy objectives on nuclear proliferation. Not only is Trump a clown and an idiot. The entire American team, most assuredly including Clinton, McCain etc, are clowns and complete idiots. Trump has uttered several correct statements on nuclear relations. He is equal, if not better in terms of intellect and proficiency on this matter than the rest of the team.

The danger of mass deaths caused by clowns in charge isn't just theoretical. The issue isn't just that Trump might kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Clinton, McCain and company have actually done that. Trump actually isn't the most murderous clown idiot among the American policymakers involved. He is one of the lesser murderous clown idiots. He's said more correct things than they have. And he's killed fewer people, so far. I think he should be watched carefully, but bear in mind that Trump condemns the tragic Iraq invasion. He is not some wishy washy faux-respectable butcher like Bush/Clinton. He talks dirty instead of killing people. So far.
 
GDB
Posts: 13250
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:02 pm

salttee wrote:
Is this the video you're referring to?
http://www.veoh.com/watch/v55760583xQkAkrNQ

I'm not going to sit through an hour and twenty minutes of a docudrama about the near launch by the SU. I skipped through it and saw nothing about KE007.

But it's a docudrama anyway, not a serious documentary.

May I ask you, have you really ever looked into the KE007 incident? Do you actually know anything more about it than a Time magazine article would provide?


It's a documentary with a few reconstructions, I note you missed out the sources used, that pilot, the senior CIA officers, the source in the Soviet embassy in London - the source behind the very concerning intel on just how paranoid the Soviets were - something that the Reagan administration had not taken into account. Once they did their tone changed.
Also interviewed included the then head of the KGB, the late Mr Petrov, plus staff officers on both sides.

You cannot separate KAL007 from all the other events around the same time, they fed off each other.
MH17 was the result of letting a bunch of half trained militia loose on an AD system, worse one being operated outside of a proper command and control network.
KAL007 was the result of an over zealous commander in the IA-PVO, the branch of the service tasked with defending Soviet airspace, who no doubt had taken heat from his superiors about the increasing frequency and aggressiveness of RC-135 missions skirting around their airspace. The sort of thing that might be a precursor to an attack, with Reagan's 'Evil Empire' speech ringing in their ears.

MH17 was not so much covered up as confounded by lack of co-operation and a mass of fake news.
Back in 1983, things were a bit cruder, also of course the USSR was far more shut off from the world.
Though worth a punt for them to blame the KAL007 crew, which given the many incidents KAL had and would have, where poor flight crew co-ordination was a factor, they were not totally wrong.
However, given the tensions of the time, which likely put the extra pressure on the man who gave the order to shoot it down, even though there was ambiguity to say the least, about if it was really a RC-135.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:46 pm

GDB wrote:
IYou cannot separate KAL007 from all the other events around the same time
You most certainly can, and if you want to understand how that plane came to be shot down you absolutely have to focus on that event and that event alone. You obviously have no interest in doing that, so I don't know why you are entering into a conversation with someone who has stated that they have studied the event in depth and who had a friend on the plane.

Also, one needs to keep separate what they think and what they know. You seem to think that the Russians made a mistake somehow in the shooting down of KE 007. Let me tell you that I know that there was no mistake, they didn't give a hoot if it were a an RC-135, a 747 or the Goodyear blimp, it was violating their airspace and it was going to come down if they had anything to do with it. The only "mistake" to analyze is why was it there.

Although it has nothing to do with this subject I'll also let you in on my informed opinion as an ex air defense radar operator, those weren't amateurs operating that BUK site. The whole premise of that being the case is ridiculous. But if you want to discuss that subject, please bring up a MH-17 thread.
 
salttee
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:50 am

GDB I dug into my old notes and I came across the re-recording event you talked about. That occurred "years later" according to my notes, so it had no interest for me. My interest is/was the flight and the shootdown.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2014
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Trump era sparks fresh debate about nuclear war authority

Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:12 pm

salttee wrote:
Goldwater's view of military affairs in Vietnam was about parallel with MacArthurs' view of the Korean situation in 1950. They were both frenzied warhawks that wanted to extract any opportunity for war with China.


Thank you saltee...

I got a warm fuzzy feeling when I read what you wrote.

I was too young to vote for Goldwater, but in my heart, I knew he was right, as was MacArthur.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarkSnowyNight and 44 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos