Trump holds meeting on national security in public. Treason?

http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-national-security-mar-a-lago/

Trump and Abe discussed their response to the North Korean rocket launch while dining outside at Trump's private club, with other club guests dining all around them. Reportedly aides were lighting documents with their (easily hackable) cellphone cameras, and club members were posting pictures and stories to Facebook the entire time. Have you ever wondered what the guy holding the nuclear briefcase looks like? Wonder no more, there's a picture of him on Facebook.

Now, if a private email server was treason when Hillary did it because she compromised national security....

This guy is such a shit show. I wonder how much longer until the boom is going to be lowered.

Don't hold your breath.

I'm sure this missile fire is just saber rattling, but when you got a nut running NK and a nut running the White House, how long before nukes are fired?

Equating Kim what's his name and President Trump even in jest is beyond ridiculous. I assume you're joking of course.

You know there's more to it than the President pushing a button and the nukes flying, right? The President can't just decide on a whim to glass a target.

How does it work? Does someone have to concur or something?

14D doesn't even know the definition of treason. Hint: It is explicitly defined in the Constitution.

Well actually he can. All that stands between the POTUS and bigbadaboom is an SS agent or military guy shooting him in the face. Even the SoD or whoever down the ladder does nothing but confirm the president's identity.

Ha ha, no. From what I've read, nuclear release authority starts with POTUS (usually, can go to lower levels under certain circumstances) but requires at least one other senior official to confirm the use of the weapon(s). Especially when you're talking about ICBMs, which can't be recalled or stopped once launched. Control of US nukes always follows the two-man rule, both to prevent lunatics from ending the world and to reduce the chance of an accidental launch. No single individual, including the President, can authorize the use of nuclear weapons in the US. I would presume the other announced nuclear powers have similar safeguards in place, and as evidence I give you the fact that no nukes have been used in combat since the first two that ended WWII.

According to the book "Big Red" about life aboard a U.S. Ohio class nuclear missile submarine (the U.S.S. Nebraska in this case hence the book name) if the submarine receives launch orders without warning or any previous indications of hostilities, then the submarine commanders are expected to go to periscope depth and seek clarification of the orders.

Unfortunately, Aurora is right.

The only "checks" that are done by anyone below the President are to confirm if and only if the person issuing the order is actually the President of the United States. The level of President is the one level in the chain where there is no two-man rule.

Air Force Major Harold Hering was once discharged from service simply for asking, "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"

The Air Force's official stance is that "knowing whether or not a launch order is lawful is beyond the executing officer's need to know".

I don't like that.

If the President got really drunk and decided to launch nukes, there's no procedure or policy in place that can legally gainsay his order.

From what I've read indications are that most other nuclear powers have command and control restrictions on their nuclear weapons that are even more strict than that of the United States.

For example, in the Soviet Union (and presumably still in Russia) regular personnel aboard their nuclear missile submarines are not even allowed to so much as touch the nuclear missiles or the warheads. The missiles are sealed in their tubes from before they leave port until they return and they are serviced by special personnel.

I've read (again I doubt anyone in the U.S. knows for sure) that in Israel, their nuclear weapons are stored separately from the delivery systems at all times and of course guarded. They are not activated (armed) until they are presumably ready to be used. Thus the decision to use the nuclear weapon is made BEFORE they are even taken out of storage.

Correct but incomplete.

American ICBMs can't be recalled or stopped.

But beginning with the Minuteman IIIs IIRC, American ICBMs once launched can be retargeted in flight. Of course the retargeting options get fewer and fewer the closer the missiles get to their targets.

So say that President Trump went crazy and launched a salvo of 10 Minuteman IIIs at their preselected targets in Russia (military command centers most certainly) if would be possible if done early enough to retarget them so they impacted isolated areas of Siberia or the Arctic.

This would have to be done within minutes though

Neither do any of the shitgibbons who called for Clinton's head over emails.

Which is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Nope. 2 men rule in that case just means confirming the identity of who's issuing the order.

As for no nukes being used since 1945... MAD certainly played a big part in that. It's why the Russians are so hysteric when it comes to missile shields, they think it could upset MAD and give NATO the chance to strike at them without punishment.

When Nixon went full time drunk, Kissinger actually instructed the military to run an eventual badaboom orders through him before complying. Nixon did contemplate nuking at least North Vietnam and maybe the USSR but he was stopped. So yes, it's possible when sane minds are around.

Trump, on the other hand, has Bannon. A guy who gets off at the thought of war even more than Dayton.

Of course it is.

That's not true.

I completely agree. You may have noticed I spent years calling them out. That is why it is so disheartening to see the left behaving the same stupid hyper partisan way.

It's not treason, no. But such complete carelessness is definitely higher on the security fail totem pole that not knowing how emails work IMO.

You're a fucking moron.

I don't expect anyone here to seriously agree it's treason, because it's probably not, but I do hope those that claimed Hillary was unfit for the presidency because of her email handling will see what Trump is doing and draw a similar conclusion.

They won't.

After getting caught saying something stupid he goes with the "I was just joking" defense.

So people posted pictures of Trump and Abe on Facebook?

There were some "documents" of questionable content and classification?

Can this get any more vague?

Isn't it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-richard-nixon-nuke-north-korea-2017-1?IR=T
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/01/world/nixon-proposed-using-a-bomb-in-vietnam-war.html
https://warisboring.com/when-nixon-threatened-to-nuke-vietnam-a00bc0f73909#.112ag34w4
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/

And that's just the first four Google hits.

^None of those are credible sources.

President Nixon had an almost fanatical belief and desire in becoming a peace maker (some say due to his mothers disapproval of his World War Two military service).

He was never going to use a nuclear weapon without the U.S. being attacked first.

And your first link has nothing to do with Vietnam anyway.

Declassified NSA documents aren't credible sources?

Did he give PM Abe some Valentine's greetings?

There is an extremely wide gulf between "considered" and "seriously considered".