I still hope the military at that points says it is not a lawful order. The UCMJ only requires that a military member obey lawful orders. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section892&num=0&edition=prelim Ordering a nuclear strike in these circumstances would hopefully be found to be unlawful. Under the 25th Amendment the VP and a majority of cabinet level department heads must agree. I would hope you could find that number. I am not holding my breath.
Ah, okay. I did read that part, but that isnot going to work, so I did assume you were referring to him telling nobody can stop them using the Spanish airfields.
Approach it from a different way. Ask yourself what personality characteristics would likely belong to a person who would use a nuke. And then ask yourself if Trump possesses those characteristics. My answer is yes, he does.
If certain people are to be believed, his plan for dealing with the Mexican drug cartels was to paint Chinese markings on our fighter planes and missiles and launch them into Mexico.
Not sure if already mentioned, the King is dead, long live the King (I hope y'all understand the reference and sarcasm). Khamenei is dead and Khamenei is the next Ayatolla. Or so sayeth social media (can't find a news source). OSINTdefender has it and I find them rather reliable. Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, an Iranian politician, cleric, and eldest son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been elected the next Supreme Leader of Iran under pressure from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), according to Iran International.
No, he doesn't. He's, at his base, a coward, and would never take responsibility for using a nuke (he knows the order will come from him).
I don't think he connects actions with consequences - the current war is a good example. He's also a sociopathological narcissist, which means he believes he is always right and knows better than everyone else. In other words, if he decided to use a nuke, then he would believe history would look well on him for doing it. As a sociopathological narcissist, he believes he can do no wrong (even if it's raping a child).
Maybe we should give him some. This was my view 5 years ago. Joe Biden vs Donald Trump :: The Election That Just Won’t End Thread :: [R] Not to sound melodramatic but at this point I wonder how the country survives three more years.
Johnson doesn't take over unless both Vance and Trump die or are removed from office before Vance appoints a new vice president (who will also doubtless be terrible which is your point anyway)
Pope is actually a good analogy for Iran’s supreme leader, albeit the pope from 600 years ago. The concept is alien to Sunnis, to the point that you have to explain to a Sunni (like me) what an Ayatollah is.
Before mid way through this term? Not a chance. After? Possible. That would give JD Vance close to ten years
The problem with that argument is Hegseth has purged the Jag Corps of anybody who will give push back and not give a flat "yes." This has been covered specifically in the Caribbean with several legal pods (some talking to former Jag officers) discussing what should happen, and what actually is happening. Thus, I doubt the use of a nuke would have any resistance other than Trump's own cowardice.
Meanwhile the CIA is working to arm the Kurds to take on the remnants if the Iran regime (seriously the Kurds, how many American betrayals are they willing to tolerate?) then theres whatever Israel actually plans to do to “exterminate” the troublesome Iranians. At this point its as if ChatGPT is being used to formulate new plans of action every 30 minutes
I think this is a misread of what I'm saying. It is clear that Trump views his role in two ways: as The Office of President and as President Trump. When he is acting as the former, he doesn't give a crap about the consequences because they are associated with the Office, or one of the underlings. This is why he can talk shit about Venezuela or Iran or Cuba, because it will ultimate be others making the on-the-ground decisions. But when it comes to being asked for his rationale for the attack on Iran, he can't give a clear answer, but he would have to take the responsibility. And he knows that the football rests with somebody close to him, and it is his decision to launch. And any nuclear response would be on his command. And when it comes to taking responsibility for something that is aggressive and can/will cost lives, he will run from that responsibility. Because he is about image, and he is about himself (the narcissist) - Trump. Just look at the way he treated Mamdani - talked shit about him all campaign, but when it came to a face to face, couldn't stop smiling like a little boy in love. Because he is a coward (in that case, he can't bully as he tried to do with Zelenskyy). Yes, because he is a sociopathological narcissist, he had to be right. But he also has insecurity issues (daddy issues) and that narcissist part is displayed as image. Just think about how he had to call into Forbes as John Barron to talk about how much wealthier he was than reality. He talked about the 1980s as his Vietnam when talking about his womanizing. And how he's never been bankrupt. And how smart he is. And how healthy he is. Etc. etc. etc. His narcissism is about his image, not about his confidence. Because when he is challenged, in person he will find a point of agreement to somebody he believes he can't bully, but then talk shit about them when not present. And I recall from his first administration how he would fire people over Xwitter because he couldn't do it in person - confirmed by a producer of the Apprentice who said Trump was never in the room when saying "Your fired!" So, yeah he is a sociopathological narcissist always looking out for #1. And he isn't afraid to hurt people. But only when it works in his favor. And dropping a nuke will not work in his favor, and he knows it.
Where have we seen this before in the middle east - the US government arming a local group of people? It never ends well.
The issue with the Kurds is that they have a lot of equities on their side. Any cursory review of their history leads you to sympathize with them. The one place they have substantial autonomy (Iraqi Kurdistan) they seem to have run the place with a good deal of stability, economic development, and some democracy. While as everywhere in the region the minority question is difficult, they seem to be more accepting of minorities. During most of the Syrian Civil War, the Kurdish lead SDF was the most successful of the anti-Assad, anti-ISIS forces armed by the west. The problem is to support a Kurdish state is to start a long war, including with our NATO ally Turkey, who views even Kurdish autonomy in other states as a threat to the integrity of Turkey. It means 20 more years of US troops in Central Asia. In a perfect world we would be backing the Kurds to the hilt. In this world it is not worth the amount of American blood and treasure
I don't really understand this. Iran is essentially uninvadable geographically speaking. The assumption must be that we we crush their military so completely that we can simply walk in. Not saying it's impossible, but it hasn't been done before. And that doesn't mean we can control it even if we take it. The Kurds certainly want to be out of the control of others, but that is a very limited portion of the whole of Iran. Even if they are totally successful, it only means Iran loses like 10% of their land, if that, and not where oil production is. Hardly a killing blow.