sherpa

He has cancer and the US has a very specific chain regarding the utilization of nuclear weapons, and the Sect. of Defense is an integral part. His cancer is not a consideration when protecting that chain.

I always am amazed when people here tell other people what they will do. I have never voted for Trump and will never do so. Insanity. Three minutes? You should have spent more time.

I can't believe you have actually dreamt this hypothetical. Are you completely unaware of the other players in this scenario? First, the US Congress would never pass a law that would commit the military to becoming an extension of some nut's campaign staff. Second, the military is not composed of a group of robots. The very first thing I was asked during my initial interview for Nava Aviation Officer Candidate's School related to political views and I answered that as a military officer I was to conduct myself in an apolitical fashion. While having views, which these highly educated skilled professionals do, the fastest way to lose your career is to express political or religious views in a work setting. Believe whatever you want, and those discussions among peers do occur, but never in a work scenario. It is an all volunteer organization, and people don't sign up and stay in to be used as political weapons. If that were to occur, the organization would disintegrate. Sometimes these views are like reading the comments section of Youtube. Interesting only because of the the shear madness expressed. I believe her strategy is going to unfold towards what you are suggesting if she gets enough traction in the early primaries to seriously threaten him. To add to your view, she, and any breathing Republican still in the race would destroy the man currently in office in any debate. That is the ultimate goal.

Because it's illegal. You'd make the order? You'd be impeached and convicted at the speed of light. The suggestion is idiotic, and the product of someone incredibly ill informed about law and the military. If understanding that, and trying to explain it to you and your wingy makes me a troll, so be it. I see it as a service.

Too much you don't understand about this. I don't have any interest in informing you.

I have no interest in responding to these ignorant fantasies. The issue is not with those who would not respond to an illegal order, it is with those who would issue an illegal order. They would be removed instantaneously, and the issue would never come to whether or not such an idiotic and illegal order was responded to.

Idiotic. You clearly don't understand this. I am repeatedly surprised by how little a couple of people who post here regularly know about these issues.

Ya I do know. The evidence is overwhelming that you have absolutely no idea about the UCMJ or what that entails. Similar to the red tail guy's claims months ago about the US using it's military to strike domestic targets. The same as you have absolutely no idea about weapons selection regarding mission goals, and how that issue determines what is used. No surprise there, but your posts are funny.

They wouldn't show up. She has said, repeatedly, that the man was OK when he was elected, but that time has passed and everything about him is surrounded by chaos, and we don't need nor want that. She says it all the time. She is correct, and that's why I like her. She certainly is not "spineless," per your claim.

I believe she has.

Not knowing the Secretary of Defense was not functioning is the final straw of many final straws, including not being able to know where he is or complete a coherent sentence. This Administration is dysfunctional, incompetent and needs to be replaced.

Two birds with one stone strategy. My plan is to tell my wife in the morning that I had a dream that if we had consensual....the Bills would win. If we didn't, it's on her.

Does this sacred pledge get equal consideration to "no more drilling?"

I don't agree, which is fine. My views are in my original post, and have not changed. One thing worth mentioning though. I think your expressed views on the military budget are grossly unrealistic. One of the things I've noticed about this forum is that there seems to very few people who actually understand what the US military is tasked with, and what that costs. Those items relate to ability to early detect, respond quickly, minimize loss of life, ultimately win and provide superior search and rescue in hostile areas, along with massive transport capability, air to air refueling capability, and a host of other things that are rarely considered by folks who aren't familiar with this stuff. If the desire is to decrease the defense budget, those capabilities must be diminished, or in some cases, disregarded. That is the reality.

Yes I can, and so can the rest of the world.

Are you serious? There aren't two people on earth who do not know that Iran is funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Maybe you are one. Who do you define as a "Christian Nation?" I'm unaware of any, let alone one who was attacked. Attacking, taking over an embassy, and holding the people there as hostages is an act of war. Are you aware of that?

Taking over an embassy, which is universally regarded as an act of war is "starting it." Blindfolding and parading workers in that effort makes it far worse. I have no sympathy re the Iranian Islamic folks who have fomented countless death in the pursuit of their caliphate.

Body counts are meaningless. That regime has been at war with the US for decades, and is responsible for many, many US deaths. I have zero sympathy for them. That view does not transfer to the innocent people who may have been killed.

Same minimums, just more cameras. Europe has more days of low visibility and the UK gets a bit breezy, but the US has more really violent weather than cannot be flown through. US thunderstorm activity is far more frequent because we have cold Canadian air colliding with warm, moist Gulf air. Just a technical correction. Automated systems do fly the airplane. An autoland is such an example. Very rare, and very few airports are certified, but the autopilot(s) actually land the thing. There are very strict crosswind limitations, but if the airport, airplane and crew are certified, you can autoland. It is useful in very low visibility situations with light winds. Very rare. The training to do it takes about one hour of sim time for an already qualified captain/first officer. At 1500' above the ground, three autopilots separate, and three electrical systems separate. Each compares it's data to the other two, and if there is any discrepancy, it is annunciated and you go around. All talk is scripted, and no unnecessary things are said. The captain keeps one thumb on the autopilot disconnect button, and the other on the thrust levers which have a "go around" option. Very quite, very tense, but works great. Scripted event, so only a few things are said, but they must be said. After touchdown, you simply make sure the thrust levers are at idle, the spoilers are deployed and you manually engage the thrust reversers, as always.

I feel real compassion for the victim's families, but for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? That regime is responsible for more death, mayhem and destruction than can be described.

That group has existed for years, as have others with similar goals. You have posted a bunch on this, and never seem to have any knowledge of how Israel has defended itself. You do nothing but literally post Monday morning thoughts, void of what they do. No acknowledgement of what is involved. Ignorant and pathetic.

Senseless. We should sue the victims of a terrorist attack because they should have known better? Can't wait for the victims and Hawaiian inhabitants to sue the US over Dec 7 1941.

I don't think it's a problem that the US' has less influence over Israeli policy. I think having less US influence, which is largely driven by the US political environment, is actually more likely to end this. Israel is not the US' family pet. They are a sovereign nation surrounded by enemies that want them destroyed. They should do what they need to do, much the same as any country would, removed from wacky American election year politics.

Sorry to hear that. A few weeks ago, if I recall, you claimed to have bee recruited by that three letter agency. You claimed they passed on you and offered an opinion, jokingly. When they found out about this claim, which they would have, it most likely would have disqualified you anyway, so maybe they saved you some time. I went through two thirds of that process before choosing another career, so I'm a bit familiar with it.

A few comments on where I think this is unrealistic. First, the discussion of a two state solution is currently without reality. If one state is Israel, who is the other? Simply stated there is nobody on that side for Israel to negotiate such an agreement. There is Hamas, who is beyond barbarism and intent on not only destroying Israel but every Jew on earth, and the Palestinian Authority which is, yet another, Iranian puppet with no desire for coexistence. Ergo.....There is nobody to negotiate with. Second....The defense budget. A 50% reduction is absurd. Beyond that, if there is a desire to reduce the defense budget, it has to start with the mission and goals the US imposes on its military, which is currently to be able to fight and win a two front war on either side of the world at the same time. Want to cut the budget? Change the requirements. Late edit. Regarding the desire of including a number of "relatively equal strength wester democracies" isn't realistic. There were none with the military capability or desire at the end of WWII, and there absolutely isn't any now. The UK is probably the closest, and they aren't close and about to get un-closer. Canada, France, Germany and a host of others are not in good enough shape to shoulder any of that burden at this time. As well, the more one understands how the defense budget is as much a jobs program and technology accelerator, the more one understands Congressional desire to keep it so. Dividing it up to their liking with funds to their jurisdictions is what Congress does. About "jumpstarting the economy," it doesn't need to be jumpstarted. Passing legislation that anchors it is one of the big problems, as well as constantly changing policy and tax law after every election is a gross waste of potential. An alliance with US businesses, which are the strength of this country, (certainly not our politicians), is the way to go.