SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: National Security

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think the Committees have been given the power to amend legislation that has been entered into the legislative introduction thread. However, amendments could be crafted in committee and then recommended to the full Senate.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

That is my understanding as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is it your desire to have this in the emergency slot?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Is it your desire to have this in the emergency slot?

It's mine, if I can make the call.  This is an urgent issue.

[Napoleon]

If the PPT is unwilling to act on my suggestion from the other thread (which I would understand), maybe Ben can amend the text before introduction?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think we could amend the rules in time for this anyway. But yes, Ben could alter the text before I put it into the emergency slot. Though the flip side of that is that unless he does it fast (like in three minutes), I won't be able to bring it to the floor until tomorrow morning.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't think we could amend the rules in time for this anyway. But yes, Ben could alter the text before I put it into the emergency slot. Though the flip side of that is that unless he does it fast (like in three minutes), I won't be able to bring it to the floor until tomorrow morning.

I think I beat the time restriction.

[Napoleon]

I resign from my seat on the National Security Committee. The PPT/VP will be notified. It was fun, guys. Hopefully I'm still able to work with you in an unofficial capacity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Chairman Ben, do you at present have two members on this committee? If so, I wnat it to get moving again at the earliest possible opportunity. I will see about getting a third but there is a hang up with a vacancy on the Judiciary.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Chairman Ben, do you at present have two members on this committee? If so, I wnat it to get moving again at the earliest possible opportunity. I will see about getting a third but there is a hang up with a vacancy on the Judiciary.

I think I have two members, but only Nappy and I have posted since the start of the session and he has resigned.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am here

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ah.  Yes, I have two members.  Will be looking into stuff to discuss ASAP.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ah.  Yes, I have two members.  Will be looking into stuff to discuss ASAP.

Sounds good

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Clarence, explain yourself

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Thank you, Ben

The resolution I have proposed is very simple- it preemptively gives the President the authority in the event of a second Korean War to act as he sees fit in our national interest. I would contend that the North Korean threat is greater then that of Iran... it is clearly a rogue nation with confirmed nuclear capabilities. Whereas we had to worry less about Iranian nuclear weapons used in Israel due to the risk of them hitting Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem- North Korea has explicitly threatened to wipe Seoul off the face of the Earth

The facts here are simple...
1- North Korea has nuclear weapons
2- North Korea has threatened to use nuclear weapons
3- North Korea has threatened to attack us and our allies
4- Its rhetoric has gotten more bellicose, not less
5- The world is with us

It is reasonable to assume that war could break out at any moment... one shot into the DMZ- we could see nuclear war for the first time in nearly 70 years. At that point- the last thing which should concern our President and our military brass is legislative formalities

Let's show the world- especially Pyongyang- that we stand united and committed as a nation to facing this threat and giving our leaders the authority they need to protect us and our allies

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Would this resolution expire?  Is this a blanket approval for anything any President wants to do in the future?  What are the restrictions here?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I did some research on the Iran resolution from last year- you had added an addendum setting its expiration at the end of 2013... I would be open to an amendment setting the expiration for the end of 2014

As for other restrictions- there should be none for the immediate future... we are dealing with a nation whose military powers we can only guess- but we know it has a nuclear arsenal and over a million men in its army. All tools must be at our disposal

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Why is North Korea such a concern?  They're capabilities don't appear to be anywhere near ours, or any of our allies; why do we need to give blanket approval for 18 months to the President?  Isn't this an abdication of our responsibilities as the Senate?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Why is North Korea such a concern?  They're capabilities don't appear to be anywhere near ours, or any of our allies; why do we need to give blanket approval for 18 months to the President?  Isn't this an abdication of our responsibilities as the Senate?

To answer your last question- absolutely not... the President is the Commander in Chief... the Senate has no authority whatsoever to direct military operations beyond financing them and authorizing them.

North Korea is a concern because their capabilities are quite clear- though they do not match ours (no nation does), they are capable of inflicting misery on millions. For reference- I will attach an LA Times opinion piece at the bottom which explains better then I can. Many people have pointed out that their weapons are incapable of hitting the continental US... here is what they probably CAN hit-

1- Alaska/Hawaii/Guam/military installations in the area
2- Seoul
3- Tokyo
4- areas where millions of allied nations' citizens live

The answer to many questions on this issue is "We don't know"... and that is the point. The Senate is not an executive body- we cannot order the President to strike and even if we could, I would not support a bill of that nature. We can simply make it clear to the President and to the world that we give the President the authority to do as he sees fit...

Imagine the plausible scenario of our intelligence capturing missiles being armed or troops amassing at the DMZ... or imagine the far worse scenario of conventional, biological, or nuclear weapons being used on our people or our allies. WE CAN NOT WAIT.... Many experts agree that in 5 years, North Korea will have the power to strike our mainland- but even now, they can kill millions on a whim

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-pudgy-punk-20130402,0,5498167.story

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

My point is this- why would we wait until AFTER they had done so? Our intelligence is the best in the world... and any weaknesses we have are made up by our allies', particularly South Korea in this case. We will likely know if they are preparing a strike- and we cannot allow them at that point to kill millions of people before we lift a finger

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

My point is this- why would we wait until AFTER they had done so? Our intelligence is the best in the world... and any weaknesses we have are made up by our allies', particularly South Korea in this case. We will likely know if they are preparing a strike- and we cannot allow them at that point to kill millions of people before we lift a finger

Because even the best intelligence can be wrong.  Imagine this scenario: We already know North Korea has WMDs and is about to attack South Korea.  The invasion will presumably happen within the month, probably within the next two weeks.  Numerous intelligence reports suggest an attack is imminent and our top intelligence official tells the President that it is "a slam-dunk" that an invasion is imminent.  The President calls for a preemptive attack on North Korea and then what?  The North Korean government will have to be toppled until a new government is secure.  Also, we'd have to account for all of the country's nuclear weapons, least some go missing.  China will be doing God only knows what.  And then let's say in the midst of all of this we find out it was a bluff.  We find out that the North Koreans had no actual plan to invade.  We find out that South Korea was deliberately giving us false information and wanted us to invade so as to remove a serious regional threat.  We find out that we didn't know it was a bluff because our intelligence agencies didn't even know when Kim-Jong Il died (because of how isolated North Korea is, no one really knows what's going on there, I fear).  So with that in mind, my question is this: how do we prevent this scenario?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

My point is this- why would we wait until AFTER they had done so? Our intelligence is the best in the world... and any weaknesses we have are made up by our allies', particularly South Korea in this case. We will likely know if they are preparing a strike- and we cannot allow them at that point to kill millions of people before we lift a finger

Because even the best intelligence can be wrong.  Imagine this scenario: We already know North Korea has WMDs and is about to attack South Korea.  The invasion will presumably happen within the month, probably within the next two weeks.  Numerous intelligence reports suggest an attack is imminent and our top intelligence official tells the President that it is "a slam-dunk" that an invasion is imminent.  The President calls for a preemptive attack on North Korea and then what?  The North Korean government will have to be toppled until a new government is secure.  Also, we'd have to account for all of the country's nuclear weapons, least some go missing.  China will be doing God only knows what.  And then let's say in the midst of all of this we find out it was a bluff.  We find out that the North Koreans had no actual plan to invade.  We find out that South Korea was deliberately giving us false information and wanted us to invade so as to remove a serious regional threat.  We find out that we didn't know it was a bluff because our intelligence agencies didn't even know when Kim-Jong Il died (because of how isolated North Korea is, no one really knows what's going on there, I fear).  So with that in mind, my question is this: how do we prevent this scenario?

That scenario is every one's fear... my answer to you is frank- we can not be sure that we will avoid that. There is much unknown in every situation involving war... the best we can do is be safe. When a nuclear state explicitly threatens to use those weapons against us and our allies- my view is that we must make it clear that every option is on the table

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There is a difference between making sure we don't limit our options and making ourselves look stupid, unnecessarily so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Mr. Chairman, what is the situation here?