IT ISN'T ABOUT MONEY...

Seriously, were the last dozen Presidents the sanest people we could find, to have access to that nuclear football? That's a scary thought.

Fortunately, other people are also involved... and the U.S. military has sane people running the show.

Like the ones that invaded Iraq and AfPak ?

They were just following orders.

Seriously, were the last dozen Presidents the sanest people we could find, to have access to that nuclear football? That's a scary thought.

Fortunately, other people are also involved... and the U.S. military has sane people running the show.

Like the ones that invaded Iraq and AfPak ?

They were just following orders.

Sometimes the insane take over the show then 

Sometimes the insane take over the show then

Psychopaths are good at that, yep.

Seriously, were the last dozen Presidents the sanest people we could find, to have access to that nuclear football? That's a scary thought.

Fortunately, other people are also involved... and the U.S. military has sane people running the show.

And the President is legally the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces, regardless of his own military experience (or lack of it).

They were just following orders.

Deciding to follow the orders of an insane person does not a good case for sanity make.
(Or was that a deliberately sardonic reference to Nürnberg?)

Seriously, were the last dozen Presidents the sanest people we could find, to have access to that nuclear football? That's a scary thought.

Fortunately, other people are also involved... and the U.S. military has sane people running the show.

Like the ones that invaded Iraq and AfPak ?

I would like to point out here that the beauty of our society is that the armed forces have an iron tradition of following tho orders of their civilian leadership.
It was not for the sane people in the military to decide whether to invade or not, it was their decision to follow orders or retire.

Therefore, saying that because the military did the actual invading means that their leaders are not sane enough to stop a use of the nuclear football is wrong.

Most military leaders advised against invading Irag (except for the ones who were appointed by Bush/Cheney or who would specifically profit monetarily from such an invasion).

See, there are sane people in the military.  In civilian leadership, not so much.

I would like to point out here that the beauty of our society is that the armed forces have an iron tradition of following tho orders of their civilian leadership.
...
See, there are sane people in the military.  In civilian leadership, not so much.

Assuming for the purposes of argument that your assessment of sanity is correct, the iron tradition of military obedience is horror, not beauty.  If an insane president orders actions which are likely to wipe out civilization, somewhat saner military officers might recognize the wrongness of those orders, but instead of fighting them they resign.  Those officers will be replaced and eventually the orders will be carried out.

I would like to point out here that the beauty of our society is that the armed forces have an iron tradition of following tho orders of their civilian leadership.
...
See, there are sane people in the military.  In civilian leadership, not so much.

Assuming for the purposes of argument that your assessment of sanity is correct, the iron tradition of military obedience is horror, not beauty.  If an insane president orders actions which are likely to wipe out civilization, somewhat saner military officers might recognize the wrongness of those orders, but instead of fighting them they resign.  Those officers will be replaced and eventually the orders will be carried out.

This the ''Wermatch Problem'', before the world war the Generals hated Hitler's gut and didn't want all that conquer the world crap, they want Germany great but not an insane war.

What they did ? Piss in their pants, resign or have nervous breakdowns and actually failed of meaningfully preventing the war.

Lesson ? Don't trust the military to protect any republic, they won't do it

See, there are sane people in the military.  In civilian leadership, not so much.

Actually, I would say that the civilian leadership isn't insane so much as they are operating from a different perspective.  Invading Iraq was *not* insane for some goals that they had in mind.  The decision to invade was a political one, not a military one.

See, there are sane people in the military.  In civilian leadership, not so much.

Actually, I would say that the civilian leadership isn't insane so much as they are operating from a different perspective.  Invading Iraq was *not* insane for some goals that they had in mind.  The decision to invade was a political one, not a military one.

I agree.  "War is the health of the state" and all that.  I was merely saying that if CG's judgment of the relative sanity of military and non-military government officials is correct, then military obedience is not necessarily a good thing.

See, there are sane people in the military.  In civilian leadership, not so much.

Actually, I would say that the civilian leadership isn't insane so much as they are operating from a different perspective.  Invading Iraq was *not* insane for some goals that they had in mind.  The decision to invade was a political one, not a military one.

I agree.  "War is the health of the state" and all that.  I was merely saying that if CG's judgment of the relative sanity of military and non-military government officials is correct, then military obedience is not necessarily a good thing.

Your statement still applies.  A good political decision might be a bad military decision.