15
   

Four ways Trump is trying to be king.

 
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2019 01:29 pm
@BillRM,
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".
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2019 01:30 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
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.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2019 02:35 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Wartime strikes against military targets are in no way murder.

And we wear uniforms. We do not hide our faces. A courtesy the enemy does not show us.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2019 06:44 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
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.

You've said a lot of stuff which I think is wrong, but this conversation is getting unwieldy, so I will just respond to this section.

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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2019 07:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

No. The President should get higher courts to make an emergency stay of the order.

If higher courts refuse to quickly block the order from taking effect, the President can choose to ignore the order, but he will have to answer to Congress for his actions.

Congress may well decide that the President did nothing wrong, and therefore choose to not remove him from office. But the President is still accountable to Congress if he chooses to ignore court orders.

I presume that by local judge you mean a federal judge. A state-level judge is not going to have much say over federal matters.


Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

I haven't noticed any such crisis.


Brandon9000 wrote:
At present, any local judge can override the executive branch in matters which the Constitution actually delegates exclusively to the executive.

I expect that if any judge tried to do this, higher-level courts would be very quick to stay the order.


Brandon9000 wrote:
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 would think that would be an easy appeal to win. Yes, the President should appeal and have the higher courts shut down the lunatic judge.

It would probably also be grounds for Congress to remove the judge from office.


Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

Court decisions are the official interpretations of the laws. The President's duty to enforce the law, is a duty to enforce the law as it is interpreted by the courts.
maporsche
 
  5  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 07:29 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, are you trying to come up with a defense of Trump disobeying possible a Supreme Court decision?

Just curious.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 07:55 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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".


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.

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.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 07:59 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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.
Already answered:
http://able2know.org/topic/515198-3#post-6845763

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


BillRM wrote:
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.

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.


BillRM wrote:
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.

Wrong. American thermonuclear warheads are quite useful for destroying military targets.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:07 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


So you wish to wiped out cities by calling them military targets an not military targets such as command and control centers ,shipyards or military bases and so on?


oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:24 am
@BillRM,
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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:27 am
I will admitted if there was only someway of not killing hundreds of thousands to millions of people it would be amusing to target every building and complex in the world with the Trump name on it with a half a megaton warhead.

But once more such warheads have no repeat no military use at all.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:33 am
@BillRM,
That is incorrect. Half-megaton warheads are quite effective at destroying military targets.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:42 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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.


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.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:45 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

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


An so are a lot of our weapons systems including non nuke weapons are just as effected in destroying military targets.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:46 am
@BillRM,
That is incorrect. Smaller weapons do much less damage.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 08:48 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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.

Shipyards are often massive facilities made of damage-resistant material.


BillRM wrote:
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.

Nukes are useful for destroying large areas built with damage-resistant material.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 09:02 am
@oralloy,
theyve not yet found a way to "harden" docks .

Anyway, theres only submarines and "Targets"
Below viewing threshold (view)
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 09:38 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. Smaller weapons do much less damage.


Sorry but once the a shipyard can no longer repair ships that is the end of the matter even if every building is not level.

There is no longer any military reason to do large area destruction to knock out targets such as ship yards.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2019 10:50 am
@BillRM,
If people start a nuclear war with us, we are going to destroy them with nuclear weapons.

You are free to dislike this fact, but it will not alter our response.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:58:12