"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Charles Buckley wrote:
Maybe, and maybe not. US policy for a long time (and possibly still
today) was that detection of incoming objects -- even lots of them --
wasn't sufficient grounds for a retaliatory strike...

Can you honestly expect this administration to react any other way
then how Pat described it?

Actually, yes. Now, some members of the Administration might or might not
start screaming for the immediate nuking of Tehran or wherever... but one
of the reasons that there's a considerable body of *rules* about how these
things are done is precisely to require angry or frightened politicians to
slow down and think and get concurrence from others. Those rules can't be
bypassed by Administration fiat, not even Presidential fiat.

No, but the CinC is the ultimate legal military authority.

Failure to obey a legal order from him could resort in a court-martial.

You are correct, it could result in a court-martial. But in the
meantime, refusing to follow the order puts a speed bump in place.
(We used to have a joke that ended: "If you do that, they'll court
martial you!" "So? That means I survived.")

The CinC can't simply turn to the #2 man as say "well, Admiral X won't
do it - will you General Y?" as they do in the movies. The folks the
next level down know dammed well that Admiral X should be giving the
orders, and will not obey General Y without an indication that
authority has been properly transferred. (And no, the CinC simply
stating that "Admiral X has been relieved" does not constitute proper
transfer.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL