Ukraine conflict

I'd be surprised if our nuclear subs didn't have the ability to detect whether nuclear strikes are occurring in the US whether they receive orders or not. Probably several ways to confirm it.

But I don't know how they work out what to do then, if they receive no launch orders. If we can think of issues in less than a day, I'm sure they've all been worked out ahead of time. If not, they're doing a rather poor job of planning.

Supposedly all kinds of war scenarios are worked out in advance, even if they never happen.

Trivia

Quote:

Deepest Bunker: The deepest underground bunker is the Central Military China Commission's Joint Military Command Centre in Bejing, located 2,000 meters underground. It is said that the bunker should hold one million people.

Given the seeming consensus that Putin is completely at fault for the invasion, and given his sabre rattling about nuclear war, I submit we should break the "unwritten rule of politics" and assassinate him.

With plausible deniability, of course.

I see a Russian is offering a million dollar reward for Putin's "head."

Someone should start a "gofundme" seeking as much reward money as possible; presumably if enough contribute enough money somebody will have the balls to succeed and claim the reward.

Quote: rxwine

I'd be surprised if our nuclear subs didn't have the ability to detect whether nuclear strikes are occurring in the US whether they receive orders or not. Probably several ways to confirm it.

But I don't know how they work out what to do then, if they receive no launch orders. If we can think of issues in less than a day, I'm sure they've all been worked out ahead of time. If not, they're doing a rather poor job of planning.

Supposedly all kinds of war scenarios are worked out in advance, even if they never happen.

I would hope after many decades of nuclear fear where this was a primary issue (Cold War really until the mid 90s, yes there are still nuclear threats today, but nothing like the height of the Cold War where everyday for years people were bracing for impact), there would be come kind of policy in place.

But, sometimes disorganized and archaic chains of command even surprise me (and this issue involves multiple civilians and multiple military branches working together for a launch from an order to the site that launches, even if it just takes one person -Acting President- to "order" a launch, so I could imagine there are many potentials for lapses at one stage of the chain). My guess is this war, is causing things to get squared away quickly if there were potential for lapses due to not really being a massive threat in the last few Presidencies (certainly not a front burner issue, so even if it looms in the background, I doubt recent Presidents were spending hundreds of hours on refining protocols).

Quote: missedhervee

Given the seeming consensus that Putin is completely at fault for the invasion, and given his sabre rattling about nuclear war, I submit we should break the "unwritten rule of politics" and assassinate him.

With plausible deniability, of course.

I see a Russian is offering a million dollar reward for Putin's "head."

Someone should start a "gofundme" seeking as much reward money as possible; presumably if enough contribute enough money somebody will have the balls to succeed and claim the reward.

That is a morally interesting argument, I am against the death penalty, and generally do not like killing except for obvious defense purposes. But, I am a fan of regime change. And, you can even argue that its a less messy way of regime change (war issues aside).

So, I don't know where it comes to a point that a politician is so dangerous it becomes ethical to start blatant assassination attempts? And, I don't know the legal authority to order assassinations. Yes, this is essentially what executive drone strikes are, but they are against militants in very specific circumstances, not civilian leaders who are just leading a dangerous policy.

I found this interesting article about Iraq (the first time, 1992):
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=cilj

I don't know if things have changed or the author is even correct in his interpretations, but from my quick reading (I did not spend much time, did a quick gloss over), it seems the author is saying assassination is legal, if we declare war against the country and the leader of the country can be considered a belligerent. And, goes on to say, that Hussein could be assassinated after a formal war declaration.

Interesting article looking at it in the context of its publication either way.

"A president can evade the ban on assassinations posed by Executive
Order 12,333 through four loopholes. He may: (1) declare open war;
(2) broadly construe Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and interpret certain criminal acts as legitimating self-defense; (3) narrowly construe Executive Order 12,333; and (4) repeal or amend the order, or
permit Congress to do the same"
(I honestly have no idea if these EOs are still valid due to the age of this article)


I don't like the idea of assassination of principle. But, on a grand scale is an assassination ethically worse than bombing a City to achieve the same objective less directly? Its an ethical/philosophical question that hopefully does not need to be considered beyond academics.

Quote: missedhervee

We would be able to respond with nukes if attacked.

There's simply no way they could paste us with nukes without us learning about it and responding before the nukes fell upon us.

That 2010 missile 35 miles off the California coast is a good example.

Had it been a nuclear missile, it would have landed in LA within two minutes. Picture a half dozen subs off our coasts, capable of launching a simultaneous nuclear attack.

There is no way to avoid an attack.

The other issue is, who do we attack if we can't confirm what nation attacked us?

Twelve years later, we still don't know who fired that missile.

"Russian troops close in on Ukraine's largest nuclear power plant as authorities warn of potential for disaster"

Quote: Tanko

The other issue is, who do we attack if we can't confirm what nation attacked us?

I thought we had the ability to detect and track all of the subs, planes and ships, 24/7?

If not, why not?

Quote: Tanko

Twelve years later, we still don't know who fired that missile.

Maybe you don't know, maybe I don't know. But the CIA knows. There's no particular reason to publicize it, if there is it will be in all the papers 24/7. Might have been Vlad saying "see, I told you they were quiet".

A Ukraine nuclear plant was hit, and now there is a fire there.

I guess the meltdown there will match the one Vlad Dracula is undergoing.

I sure hope somebody kills that SOB ASAP to put an end to "Putin's War."

Here I thought Trump was bad news: his Master "trumps" him by leaps and bounds.