Miscellaneous desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 10[edit]

Alexander the Great[edit]

Is it true that Alexander the Great would sometimes get so worked up that he would start smashing chairs (or other furniture) in anger? (Inspired by a Russian proverb which goes something like this: "Even though Alexander the Great was a hero, what's the use of smashing chairs?") 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that info ? StuRat (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The origin is from The Government Inspector (aka The Inspector General) by Nikolai Gogol and has been translated (by Project Gutenburg[1]) as:

GOVERNOR. And then I must call your attention to the history teacher. He has a lot of learning in his head and a store of facts. That's evident. But he lectures with such ardor that he quite forgets himself. Once I listened to him. As long as he was talking about the Assyrians and Babylonians, it was not so bad. But when he reached Alexander of Macedon, I can't describe what came over him. Upon my word, I thought a fire had broken out. He jumped down from the platform, picked up a chair and dashed it to the floor. Alexander of Macedon was a hero, it is true. But that's no reason for breaking chairs. The state must bear the cost.

This action was only ever attributed to the (fictional) actions of the history teacher and never to Alexander himself. Nanonic (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From our sister project Wikiquote's q:Nikolai Gogol#The Inspector General (1836):

Of course, Alexander the Great was a hero, but why smash the chairs?
- Epigraph; said of a history teacher who smashed a chair in his excitement when discussing the conqueror

As Nanonic wrote, it is the history teacher, not Alexander the Great, who was described smashing a chair.-- ToE 02:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, it wasn't about Alexander himself, but about a history teacher who got so enthused about Alexander that he started smashing chairs, right? If so, this is something which even most Russian people themselves forgot about (although anyone who has read The Inspector General should know). 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4157:9A2D:3A20:F1CC (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finger on the big red button[edit]

So now that America is celebrating the election of their new president to be, I can't help but wonder if there's any limits to the commander in chief's powers? How easily could he trigger a nuclear strike, for instance? Could he do it on a whim. Obviously our founding fathers put various safety checks in place in case a crazy did get in to office. Congress. The house of Representatives etc.

But what about that big, red button which could send the world back to the dark ages. He's going to get the codes, so how easily could he do it. Is there anything to stop him at all, if he felt in a really, really stupid mood (and let's face it, that isn't too rare based on his track record during the campaign) He's already spoken of his various desires. And now he's our president.

Apologies for any WP:BLP violations in advance (I mean, apologies to the trump supporters on this wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.138.29 (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is based on a false premise: We are already back in the dark ages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't answer a hypothetical question. However, I suggest that you read nuclear football and two-man rule.--WaltCip (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this protocol is still in place. Robert McNamara who was JFK's defence secretary was very aware that nuclear devices of that era could go-off accidently. Kennedy wanted to provide an 'immediate' response meaning there was all was a bomb in the air 24/7 increasing the chances that a nuclear mishap could occur. Such aircraft had to avoid areas of high populations etc. With the military being so finger-happy (for want of a better phrase) McNamara ensured that no offensive action could be taken until the President could be assured that it wasn't a home-goal nuclear accident. Don't know what the Presidential protocol is today but one can image it is similar to that portrayed in Crimson Tide (film). Meaning, even the President can't act unilaterally unless he has support from his aids and advisers. Donald isn't in power yet and unless he makes himself Der Führer he can not act unilaterally.--Aspro (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sleep, baby, sleep / The Sandman can linger / We know our buddies / Won't give us the finger..." -- Tom Lehrer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take comfort Bugs, that if we do get the finger We Will All Go Together When We Go ! (with apologies to Tom Lehrer). Just hope I get enough warning to down all my single malt whiskeys first– would not want that lot to go up in flames. --Aspro (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you meant own goal. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The President is the National Command Authority. Use of nuclear weapons is at the President's sole discretion. The order would come from the President through the Secretary of Defense. The legal role of SecDef in that situation is only to confirm that the order actually did come from the President. That's how the system is designed to work. There is nobody who has the legal authority to stop the President from launching nukes. With that said, theoretically, the SecDef could refuse to confirm the order. Anyone else in the chain of command down to the actual combat crews that turn the keys could theoretically refuse to carry out the order. However, all of those people serve at the pleasure of the President and could be removed and replaced at any time and for any reason. Presidential appointees who require Senate confirmation would be replaced by their deputies until the Senate could act. Sperril (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an analysis by The Brookings Institute from March, 2016, that seems relevant to answering the question. --Jayron 32 13:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the Brookings Institution doesn’t know what's contained in the current Operation Plans (OPLAN). Only those who need to know have read it. Whilst the 'political' decision remains with the individual whom is president elect, the Presidency is needed to enacts it. Of couse, s/he could fire the whole lot and replace them with yes-men but that would take time and the other levels of government would then get involved . Mutiny is a strong word and in the Hollywood film Crimson Tide (film) it only worked because charters like the Chief of the Boat took sides rather than doing their duty. So Donald would not have his finger on the big red any more than Hillary would nor her husband did. The code is only an authorization that hostility can begin on say-so of the presidency– but previous extracts from older OPLAN's state that there is also an obligation on all commanders not to escalate. So if no attack is detected nothing offensive happens. Also, MAD insures that a pre-emptive attack is no longer a viable option for either side.--Aspro (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, neither do you know what is in that plan, and while you're some anonymous nobody on the Internet, Brookings is a well-respected research organization who's entire raison d'etre is knowing answers to questions like this. So while we're deciding who's opinion is likely to be more reliable on matters such as this, I'll take them over you every day and twice on Sunday. If you have a link to a report published by an equally respected organization, (see WP:RS), please post a link to that so the OP can read it and arrive at their own conclusions based on the help you've provided to their research; however short of doing that, your own personal opinion in answering this question (or indeed any question) on the reference desk is beyond worthless and you'd do well to keep it to yourself.--Jayron 32 18:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you linked to a blog. That can't be taken as a Brookings Institution statement. Vladimir Putin is also followed about by a Cheget were ever he goes but even he does not have 'physical' possession of it. It is carried by an aid with cast-iron instructions as to when he can make the contents available. Just like the US body guards are indoctrinated to put themselves between the president and an assassins bullet if need be. When Princess Ann of England was faced with a kidnap attempt, her body guard did the same thing. These people are not recruited unless they take their duty very seriously. The politician/military build in safe-guards against anyone panicking in a moment of stress. Think of it like juggling eggs – miss one and it is difficult to gracefully recover one's composer. All these things are no secrets. The OP is asking “How easily could he trigger a nuclear strike, for instance? Could he do it on a whim.” Ask anyone at all in the armed forces if he can just launch a torpedo or fire a GtA on his own personal whim! What he might not want to divulge is the exact protocol that would enable him to perform a legal discharge. So it is up to the OP to question if my comments have helped.--Aspro (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GtA?-- ToE 12:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in GTA that seems to fit. Maybe he means "Ground to Air"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To pick a nit, the president-elect has no authority. (Hm, now I'm trying to remember what British TV show made the same error.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably thinking of the Doctor Who episode "The Sound of Drums", which seemed to mistakenly believe that "president-elect" was a grander title than president. Smurrayinchester 15:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vox says he could do it easily. They quote Dick Cheney. I hope they're wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Ho. How many times was DC right? Of course there are the things he doesn't know that he doesn't know he doesn't know.--Aspro (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also truthiness.--WaltCip (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]