Usa

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Hopefully Trump doesn't start a war to rally public support to his besieged presidency. Kim Jong Un seems more rational and predictable than the US President.
That's a stretch. Unlike Kim Jong Un, Trump can be constrained by the US constitution and rational people within the US government. WRT to NK only, an eventual war may be necessary.
 

colay1

Member
AFAIK the US President can initiate armed conflict on his own authority without consulting Congress. So the Orange One has it within his power to start a war in everything but name if it suits him. Eventually Congress will have to decide whether to make an official declaration and fund it but that's another matter.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #223
AFAIK the US President can initiate armed conflict on his own authority without consulting Congress. So the Orange One has it within his power to start a war in everything but name if it suits him. Eventually Congress will have to decide whether to make an official declaration and fund it but that's another matter.
hopefully one of the US mods can chime in as they are better versed in constitutional constraints for POTUS

but I also believe that he can field forces without congressional input for something like a 100 days (??)
 

colay1

Member
hopefully one of the US mods can chime in as they are better versed in constitutional constraints for POTUS

but I also believe that he can field forces without congressional input for something like a 100 days (??)
Something like that... more than enough time to make a mess of things.
 

Ranger25

Active Member
Staff member
hopefully one of the US mods can chime in as they are better versed in constitutional constraints for POTUS

but I also believe that he can field forces without congressional input for something like a 100 days (??)
The US War Powers Act(1973) specifically designates the authority of the US Pres and congress when it comes to combat operations. It was a result of the post Vietnam War days and done to limit the power of the President to commit to military action without the consent of congress

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
hopefully one of the US mods can chime in as they are better versed in constitutional constraints for POTUS

but I also believe that he can field forces without congressional input for something like a 100 days (??)
Per request.

The relevant section of US law is known as the War Powers Resolution or sometimes the War Powers Act, Title 50 United States Code Chapter 33, 1541-1548.

In brief, the POTUS can deploy troops abroad, but with a few caveats.

the President shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth—
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Within 60 days of earlier of action commencing or submission to the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate, the action must either be terminated, approved by Congress (either via a declaration of war or other approval permitted by statute), or the President must certify an extension of 30 days is needed. No more than a single extension may be done without requiring Congressional approval (max 90 day duration).

In theory, this act permits the POTUS as CINC to action in response to a declaration of war or national emergency created by an attack, or other statutory authorization. It does not (yet, at least...) permit the POTUS to initiate hostilities with a foreign nation.
-Preceptor
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
I would question if the War Powers Resolution would even pertain to a conflict with North Korea.

Technically, and likely legally, the US is still involved in the the Korean Conflict with North Korea. The Korean Armistice Agreement merely established a longstanding ceasefire between the belligerents.

And, the North Koreans have publicly withdrawn from the armistice at least a half dozen times in the last few decades.No peace treaty has ever been agreed to.

Additionally, the current policy of the US government is that no peace treaty negotiations can even be conducted until North Korea has begun dismantling their nuclear weapons program.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I would question if the War Powers Resolution would even pertain to a conflict with North Korea.

Technically, and likely legally, the US is still involved in the the Korean Conflict with North Korea. The Korean Armistice Agreement merely established a longstanding ceasefire between the belligerents.

And, the North Koreans have publicly withdrawn from the armistice at least a half dozen times in the last few decades.No peace treaty has ever been agreed to.

Additionally, the current policy of the US government is that no peace treaty negotiations can even be conducted until North Korea has begun dismantling their nuclear weapons program.
There was no formal declaration of war by Congress during Korea. In fact, there has not been a formal declaration of War by the US since WWII.

During Korea there was the UN Security Council Resolution 84 which received appropriations funding from the US Congress. Now if breaking the Armistice would reactivate the resolution, then a declaration of War or use of 50 U.S.C. 1541–1548 would not be needed.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #230
from the Cipher Brief

"THERE GOES THE JUDGE: Turns out allegations that the British GCHQ had done the dirty work for the Obama administration in electronically surveilling the Trump campaign came to Fox News from Judge Andrew Napolitano. The Judge, whose story changed from “might have happened” to “definitely happened,” apparently was relying on three anonymous sources who Fox did not find compelling. So as of Monday, Judge Napolitano emulated Judge Crater and disappeared (well, at least from Fox News at the moment). The LA Times reports that the Judge is not expected back on the air in the near future. Meanwhile, outgoing NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett told BBC that the claim that NSA asked GCHQ to snoop on the Trump campaign was “arrant nonsense.” No further word from the White House – which may still be looking up “arrant.” Ledgett added that asking the Brits to conduct such an illegal act would be “epically stupid.”
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
from the Cipher Brief

"THERE GOES THE JUDGE: Turns out allegations that the British GCHQ had done the dirty work for the Obama administration in electronically surveilling the Trump campaign came to Fox News from Judge Andrew Napolitano. The Judge, whose story changed from “might have happened” to “definitely happened,” apparently was relying on three anonymous sources who Fox did not find compelling. So as of Monday, Judge Napolitano emulated Judge Crater and disappeared (well, at least from Fox News at the moment). The LA Times reports that the Judge is not expected back on the air in the near future. Meanwhile, outgoing NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett told BBC that the claim that NSA asked GCHQ to snoop on the Trump campaign was “arrant nonsense.” No further word from the White House – which may still be looking up “arrant.” Ledgett added that asking the Brits to conduct such an illegal act would be “epically stupid.”
Similarly, Adm. Rogers stated to the House Intelligence committee that there was no evidence of such action, or of any request to do so. He additionally commented that doing so would violate the 5I's agreements.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Mr Trump allegedly gave Mrs Merkel an invoice for 300 billion dollars to cover the cost of NATO
I am not a fan of the Donald but some of the quotes, especially that contain the word "allegedly", just give his Brightbard minions something to rant on. Everyone should switch to ignore mode and see what happens.
 

colay1

Member
Since Trump is so keen on settling old debts I guess he won't mind paying of the trillion dollar debt owed to descendants of American slaves. He can look at it as a stimulus to the economy.:cool:
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Can Australia send Trump a bill for the trade imbalance? By his standards the US is giving Australia a worse deal then Mexico gives the US.

1985 through to 2016 it was roughly $270b USD in the US favor.. add in some interest over that time and we will take his $490b bill from Germany :p
 

colay1

Member
climate change and the assoc fall out is listed as a critical vector in a number of western nations white papers...

its certainly in Aust, UK, NZ. the PACRIM gets attention for climate change impact for Aust and NZ
Trump just imposed his reality... Climate Change is no longer considered a threat to national security. Mattis should be getting the memo soon.:mad:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #238
Trump just imposed his reality... Climate Change is no longer considered a threat to national security. Mattis should be getting the memo soon.:mad:
will be interesting as Mattis has made direct reference to impact of climate change driven threats in a number of presentations

what a circus
 

colay1

Member
It will be interesting to see if this gets the nod of the Trump Administration. Maybe he'll agree to quiet criticisms that he's in bed with Putin. I can imagine SAMs and ATGMs may qualify as a lethal defensive system though Russia would likely not agree.


https://sg.news.yahoo.com/us-general-seeks-weapons-support-ukraine-162932475.html

US general seeks weapons support for Ukraine

The commander of US forces in Europe said Tuesday that United States should consider arming Ukraine with defensive weapons as it fights Russian-backed rebels in the country's east.

Ukraine has long sought supplies of US weapons, but was rebuffed by former president Barack Obama's administration, which sent US military personnel to train Ukrainian forces instead.

"I personally believe we need to consider lethal defensive weapons for Ukraine," Army General Curtis Scaparrotti, who is NATO's supreme allied commander and head of the US European Command, said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top