Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The few who’d openly go though with such orders are incredibly rare, yes they exist even in the military but they’re not in positions of power. Trump can’t go to a military base near the Canadian border and ask for volunteers to go shoot at Canadians, he’d be giving an order to the White House staff who’d pass it to the joint chief who’d pass it down several layers of command.such an order isn’t getting past the top level.
His hardcore base wouldn’t mind but they are incredibly few in numbers. If Trump wanted to use his base to attack Canada he wouldn’t give military orders, he’s just tweet that anyone who shoots a Canadian will get an instant pardon from him.
![]()
He did declare Canada a nation security threat with the tariff stuff, but beyond that no, I think this all started because one person who unjustly freaking out about the possibility of war, now we’re bogged down in a semantic debate about Trump’s ability to actully start one if he totally lost his shit.
It’s much more realist to worry about Trump ordering a nuclear strike on Iran than his starting a shooting war with Canada.
edited 14th Jun '18 2:02:31 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI didn’t claim that anything was better, just more likely/realistic, both the Twitter ordered terrorism example and the nuking Iran example are horrific, absurd and unlikely. Now the possibility of a conventional war against Iran is getting more and more likely, but I do worry that if an initial invasion stalls than Trump might try and order a nuclear strike.
edited 14th Jun '18 3:51:41 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI think the US congress has only officially declared war like five or six times in the country's history. There are many ways to get around that.
In the wildly unlikely event of America launching a military attack on Canada, the country would quite probably end up in a war with at least Britain and France as well. America would become an international pariah. I doubt even Putin or Xi would approve of such aggression.
They'd approve of it in a sense of America destroying their own credibility, leaving them to fill in the void as the economic and military leaders on the international stage. But I doubt they'd actively support America in this scenario, they'd just take advantage of the fallout.
In any case, it's a moot point because it's not going to happen. Trump's base would never approve of going to war on their own border with English-speaking white people.
Nixon ordered military action while drunk in the middle of the night, he got ignored until he’d calmed down. That’s the closest example of temporary rage leading to insane orders.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran^^Yep, but is there example of it being done for "absurd" reasons as in without lot of propaganda and lot of tension being built up between nations or groups?
^Ah, ok that is good example. Though in that case, you'd have to be kind of insane to follow orders from someone obviously drunk so that might not convince everyone.
edited 14th Jun '18 4:59:22 AM by SpookyMask
![]()
Sure but you’d also have to be insane to follow order from someone obviously having a temper tantrum, Trump having a temper tantrum is going to be very similar to Nixon getting angry drunk and trying to order a nuclear launch.
If Trump decided to attack Canada at this very moment, it wouldn't happen. I'm less confident about what would happen if he spent a year or so doing everything in his power to ruin US relations with Canada first. Remember, Trump's not particularly hawkish, military action would only come after lots of economic bullying and insults
No offense, but you're saying the as of Congress (as it currently stands pre-Blue Wave) would stop him. Or that the "go through Congress" requirement itself would. Hasn't just about every conflict we've been involved in post WWII not been an official, declared by Congress, war?
edited 14th Jun '18 5:17:58 AM by sgamer82
You have a point,I looked it up
"Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the President cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, Presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (which happened in Vietnam and Korea).
So President Trump could send troops to attack Canada without Congress's approval..that's a pretty scary scenario,though Canada could appeal to the United Kingdom for aid,whether we would risk going to war with the USA just to defend Canada is another question,we certainly wouldn't do it without the back up of another superpower
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverNot without triggering another civil war, or a soft military coup. Invading your largest trading partner, that less than 5% of the public has a negative view of is not sustainable for a democracy. At best you get an instant economic depression and massive riots, and that's on a good day.
Canada could invoke Article 5, which would either trigger World War 3 (US vs UK/France in particular) or at least cause the US to become a global pariah and booted out of NATO (which becomes a European alliance stuck between autocrats). And the military obeying an order to attack a longtime ally is not the same thing as striking Vietnam or the Middle East (Korea had UN permission). And again, there is no way to pull off even a limited/punitive strike by surprise, not while NORAD exists... kinda hard to sneak up on the guys you've integrated your airspace defense system with.
In somewhat relevant news that isn't blatant alternate history; Pence is receiving some backlash...from the Southern Baptists. Essentially; some of them didn't appreciate him using their convention to do nothing but shill Trump. Here's an Op-Ed that gives a decent overview.
While I don't expect these types to actually reject Trump, it is strange to hear them denouncing Pence of all people.
edited 14th Jun '18 5:47:12 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
Trump can't just say war and a war starts, though. The president does have a degree of authority over the military, but any order is going to be passed through several layers of WH staff, then reviewed by the Joint Chiefs and evaluated by various military planners, and finally disseminated to the forces involved.
An order to attack Canada probably wouldn't even make it past the WH staff, much less to the military. Even if it did make its way to the military, it wouldn't be followed. Not only are their practical issues with carrying something like that out, military personnel are actually required by law to refuse unlawful orders.
edited 14th Jun '18 5:45:02 AM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.> military personnel are actually required by law to refuse unlawful orders.
Refusing to follow the orders of President would mean violating their Oath to obey to orders of the commander in chief,though they could make the argument that they were honouring their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States,the difficulty is in deciding if Resident's orders are truly unlawful,given that he's the authority and they are hypothetically disobeying him
have a listen and have a link to my discord server

Did Trump threaten to do anything besides insulting Trudeau to Canada while I wasn't looking? This whole thing is ridiculous, you can use "but it's Trump" to justify anything, it's disingenuous, a war with an ally is not going to start over a trade row.
Life is unfair...