Four ways Trump is trying to be king.

Sorry you do not defend our nation by the killings of hundreds of thousands or more civilians unnecessarily by using way more then needed size warheads to take out a military target.

In the beginning of the atom age the average targeting misses was in the range of miles and now it is in the range or yards so once more there is zero need to use very large warheads to take out military targets.

Ollie does because he lacks a normal conscience. Murder of innocents is just a military tactic to him.

Wartime strikes against military targets are in no way murder.

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, if someone sued Congress for declaring war and a court declared that particular declaration of war unconstitutional, do you think that Congress should appeal to a higher court? I do not.

I'm not sure that Congress would be the one to make the appeal. I'd think the executive branch would appeal any court order instructing them to not fight the war.

What you're saying is that if courts make decisions which are not even remotely within the power of the judiciary, such as sending troops into a particular battle, then no matter how immediate the need, even an urgent, immediate military need with battles in progress and tremendous military stakes, the executive should spend months going through an appeals process, no matter how grave the loss that results.

The point is that the courts are bringing about a Constitutional crisis by making rulings on the actions of other separate and equal branches of government in which they actually have no say.

At present, any local judge can override the executive branch in matters which the Constitution actually delegates exclusively to the executive.

If a court, based on a law suit, ordered the president to commit suicide, do you think the president should appeal the decision, or would it make more sense to decide that the court was acting completely outside of its constitutional powers?

I think that you have failed to quote anything actually written in the Constitution (not precedent) which states that the president is required to obey court decisions. You've simply quoted me statements that the executive branch enforces the law, but court decisions are not laws.

BillRM wrote:

Sorry you do not defend our nation by the killings of hundreds of thousands or more civilians unnecessarily by using way more then needed size warheads to take out a military target.

Stronger warheads do greater damage to targets.

The answer is no. Trump is not going to weaken our warfighting ability.

BillRM wrote:

In the beginning of the atom age the average targeting misses was in the range of miles and now it is in the range or yards so once more there is zero need to use very large warheads to take out military targets.

Half a megaton is hardly "very large".

Still waiting for you to come up with a military target that need such a warhead to take out by the way.

Such warheads are not military weapons they are terror weapons that are only useful in killing mass number of civilians in population centers an their use for such purposes are war crimes.

LOL when you compare it to what is needed to take out military targets or the number of people it can killed if aim at population centers yes it is large in fact damn large.

Such warheads are not military weapons they are terror weapons that are only useful in killing mass number of civilians in population centers an their use for such purposes are war crimes.

Already answered:
http://able2know.org/topic/515198-3#post-6845763

Any base with a one mile radius. Any industrial zone with a radius of one and a half miles.

And no. When it comes to thermonuclear weapons, half a megaton is not even remotely large. If you don't want to suffer collateral damage, don't start a nuclear war.

Whether a nuclear warhead has a target aimpoint within a city will depend on the details of that city.

If a city has a large industrial sector that turns out lots of heavy weapons, then that industrial sector is likely a target.

That does not mean that we do not also target important military bases.

You mention shipyards. What about shipyards that are within a city? About half of Japan's heavy warships were built at the Nagasaki Shipyards.

That is incorrect. Half-megaton warheads are quite effective at destroying military targets.

Given how we can now place weapons within feet of where we wish them to hit why the hell would we need even small nukes to take out a shipyard?
It take years to build a large shipyard with large dry docks so once the dry docks and other such infrastructure are ruin that is the end of the military usefulness for that shipyard for that war.

Nukes now that we have the technology to hit within yards of our aiming point with conventional weapons nukes except as terror weapons are in most repeat most cases are not all the useful.

That is incorrect. Smaller weapons do much less damage.