MSNBC Military Analyst: If Trump Ordered a Nuclear Launch, Mattis Would Defy It

[highplainsdem]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/msnbc-military-analyst-if-trump-ordered-a-nuclear-launch-mattis-would-defy-it/

So what would happen if President Donald Trump actually ordered a nuclear strike on North Korea?

It’s a question that’s undoubtedly been on the minds of many Americans following President Donald Trump‘s “fire and fury” rant directed at the North Korean regime on Tuesday. The panel on Deadline: White House Wednesday offered their two cents. And during the discussion, Col. Jack Jacobs — an MSNBC military analyst — made a fairly stunning statement.

Jacobs, a Medal of Honor recipient, believes that Secretary of State James Mattis would break the chain of command, if it came down to that.

“You think Mattis would defy an order?” Deadline host Nicolle Wallace asked.

“Yeah, I think he would,” Jacobs said. The military analyst added, “He would say, ‘I’m not doing it.'”

-snip-

Editing to note the error there, Mediaite calling Mattis Secretary of State rather than Secretary of Defense (it was their mistake, not Jacobs's). The article at Mediaite still hasn't been corrected, though I noticed checking the comments that the error has been pointed out on their site.

[RKP5637]

1. The guy is a madman. Someone has to break the chain of command because of what is being

dealt with. Humanity must be saved.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Secretary of State James Mattis ?

[RKP5637]

5. That, was a DUH moment. WTF is he saying ... n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

22. To be fair, we don't have a Secretary of State.

We just have a Secretary of Exxon.

[RKP5637]

3. He's not Secretary of State, he's Secretary of Defense!!! n/t

[roamer65]

4. Not only could he refuse the order, he could defer to Dense as acting president.

It is Mattis's duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[Polly Hennessey]

6. Secretary of State,

Jim Mattis?

[Bradical79]

7. I hope so

And someone failed at proof reading their article, lol.

[Saboburns]

8. No he wouldn't

The most he could do is resign in protest, but the POTUS orders' would still be carried out. I know you don't want to hear that but if POTUS gives orders, they will be carried out.

[Cicada]

9. Pence plus majority of cabinet can remove Trump per 25th amendment

If trump orders nukes without thoughtful review they will remove him as crazy

At least I hope so

[ElementaryPenguin]

12. I don't agree. I don't think if made those they would be carried out.

Hopefully, we won't have to find out.

They have to impeach and remove this demented fucker quickly!

[Massacure]

16. It's hard to say if a nuclear strike would be carried out or not

When the President orders a nuclear strike, the National Command Authority requires the Secretary of Defense to authenticate those orders. The Secretary of Defense supposedly only has the authority to authenticate the orders and not the authority to veto them. No one really knows what would happen if Mattis refused to truthfully authenticate the validity of a nuclear strike like he was supposed to.

One possibility is that Trump could fire Mattis and then order the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Patrick Shanahan) to authenticate the order. If Shanahan refused Trump could fire him and order the next person in the chain of command to authenticate them.

If Trump went ahead and fired Mattis, Mattis could always call Vice President Pence and plead with him to invoke the 25th amendment. If Pence agreed and successfully convinced eight of the 15 cabinet secretaries, he could send a note to the Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan) and Senate President Pro Tempore (Orrin Hatch) declaring himself as Acting President of the United States. I do not know if Mattis could be counted as one of the eight cabinet secretaries in that case though.

[struggle4progress]

10. Nuremberg established some precedents about genocide and crimes against the peace,

and following an unlawful order is itself criminal

[Mme. Defarge]

11. Thanks,

this makes sense.

[Best_man23]

13. I'm betting the Officer carrying the football has Mattis' Cellphone on Speed Dial

And has orders to call him immediately if the President starts looking to use the football.

[lunasun]

14. Do we need to all contact Secretary of Defense gnl James Mattis

to beg him not to do trumps bidding?? Send pictures of our kids or SKoreans ? If that is what it takes I think it may be a better campaign than trying to get congress to do anything about him
We already know they are not in control anymore. If this is the guy who can stop trump at least with nukes, I don't know. Trump needs restraint he does have his own
Good sign Tillerson tried to quiet the war drums
Tillerson doesn't want to be SOS in this kind of conflict because Korea doesn't have oil

And NKs leader is just if not more unstable, but hopefully bluffing because NK is no match for the US . Other presidents successfully kept him at bay. This one is a perfect match for KJu

[Aristus]

15. There's a legal defense for doing so.

If any service member is issued an unlawful order, he is required by the UCMJ to disobey it.

Waging aggressive war is against Federal law.

[former9thward]

17. Really?

Maybe you can link to that "federal law"....

[stevenleser]

18. I'm curious as to where Aristus gets that too. The only way it might be illegal is that

The US has approved the UN Charter and thus has agreed that the UN is the arbiter of international law. Treaty commitments carry the weight of federal law. Thus, the various international agreements that are UN recognized like the various Geneva conventions and other international laws regarding unprovoked war and other war crimes could be considered to have the weight of federal law but that might be stretching it, a lot.

[former9thward]

19. This went to the Supreme Court a couple times during the Vietnam War.

Service members tried to refuse orders on the grounds the war was "illegal". The SC said they had to follow orders.

[Foamfollower]

23. International coalition went into Vietnam, thus not a war of aggression.

Under the Geneva Conventions, Vietnam did not qualify as a war of aggression.

Saddam Hussein's unilateral invasion of Kuwait, on the other hand, most definitely qualified.

[former9thward]

25. So if you can get at least one other country to join

then it is not a "war of aggression"? The UN did not sanction Vietnam. The UN Secretary General at the time, U Thant, repeatedly denounced it.

[Foamfollower]

21. See my post below.

[Foamfollower]

20. The United States signed and the Congress ratified the Geneva Accords Treaty

US Constitution
Article V
Clause 2
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Waging aggressive war is an international crime under the Geneva Accords and thus is illegal under the supreme law of the land.

[former9thward]

24. So you are saying the U.S. has to wait until

one of its cities is incinerated before it can respond? Sorry that argument would never fly in any court or anyplace else. I was certainly opposed to the Iraq War but even that was not successfully challenged anywhere.

[Not Ruth]

26. Oathkeepers are everywhere these days

[regnaD kciN]

29. But it's not unlawful for the President to order a nuclear strike...

In this case, you're arguing that an international ethical code supersedes U.S. law, and I don't see that as applying here.

[ecstatic]

27. That's a weird opinion considering the statement Mattis put out

in which he threatened that the US would destroy North Korea AND it's people.

F*cking disgusting and evil.

What type of nation could threaten something like that and then wonder why other nations want to arm up? SMFH

[David__77]

28. So, should progressives support refusal of such orders?

Resignation would be ineffective.