Timeline for Can President Trump shoot off the nukes whenever he wants to, even for no reason?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2017 at 16:58 | comment | added | user6726 | I'm skeptical of that going anywhere. Good faith doubt is a civilian concept: soldiers are not expected to demand proof of legitimacy of their orders, beyond following established protocols. A soldier could not launch in response to a tweet or a purported phone call from POTUS. The law does not distinguish launching nukes from dropping conventional bombs. To the extent that a soldier can refuse an order because he feels it might not have actually been given legally, that is the extent to which he can lawfully refuse. | |
| Nov 28, 2017 at 3:40 | comment | added | ohwilleke | Another out for a soldier would be a good faith doubt as to the authenticity of the order in circumstances where there was no reason to believe that a sincere order to launch was actually given by the President. Our current President's practice of saying things and then later claiming that he didn't mean them could help facilitate such a position. | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 21:26 | comment | added | user6726 | "Already established by law"; "has been put on notice"; esp. "statutorily prohibited". | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 21:04 | comment | added | Martin Bonner supports Monica | Define 'obviously illegal'. For example: theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/… | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 20:51 | comment | added | user6726 | @MartinBonner, do you have a case in mind where a low-ranking soldier was successfully prosecuted for following an order that was not obviously illegal? | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 20:14 | comment | added | Martin Bonner supports Monica | @user6726 : Lots of low-ranking soldiers/officials in the concentration camps have been prosecuted. It's not either/or, the tribunal (or possible future US court) would go for both. | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 19:14 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @MartinBonner Not since.Nuremburg - since the 1300s. | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 14:52 | comment | added | user6726 | However, an international tribunal that prosecuted members of the US military for such crimes would not prosecute the soldier who implements the order, it would prosecute a general. Point is, from the perspective of US law, the soldier could not legally resist an order unless it is plainly unlawful, and in the OPs scenario, it is not plainly unlawful. You can always up the ante and change the situation, and maybe the ECJ would render a different judgment from a US military court. | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | Martin Bonner supports Monica | If a President were to order the nukes to be launched in order to (say) wipe Mexico off the map, that might be judged to be a Crime against Humanity, and as such, would be illegal. "I was just obeying orders" is no longer a defence since Nuremberg. | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 5:20 | history | edited | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1037 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2017 at 3:11 | comment | added | BobE | Sounds like your answer is "Yes" to the title question and "Yes" they are legally bound to carry out legal orders. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20). | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 2:54 | comment | added | phoog | What about circumstances under which the commander-in-chief's military subordinates can lawfully disobey his order? Are there any? | |
| Oct 4, 2017 at 1:58 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |