Transgender ruling

Admiral ready to launch nuke

duty personnel, with about 1500 more in the military reserves, according to a Rand Corporation thinktank study cited last year by Obama’s Defence Secretary, Ash Carter.

“To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military,” Carter said yesterday, noting the existing ranks of transgender individuals serving “capably and honourably”.

Advocacy groups said Trump’s policy was open to legal challenge under the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Joshua Block said Trump had rejected the “basic humanity” of transgender service members.

“There are no cost or military readiness drawbacks associated with allowing trans people to fight for their country,” Block said. “The President is trying to score cheap political points on the backs of military personnel who have put their lives on the line for their country.”

The House of Representatives’ top Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, noted that a Pentagon-commissioned study determined the cost of providing medically necessary transition-related care involving transgender service members would amount to about one-100th of 1 per cent of the military’s healthcare budget.

The study put the cost at US$2.4 million ($3.2m) to US$8.4m a year of the more than US$50 billion the Defence Department spends on healthcare.

“Once again, President Trump has shown his conduct is driven not by honour, decency, or national security, but by raw prejudice,” Pelosi said.

Retired Colonel Sheri Swokowski, 67, the highest-ranking openly transgender veteran, joined the criticism. “Transgender people are serving today knowing that their leader frankly doesn’t trust them,” she said. “The bottom line is that this does great harm to people who simply want to serve their country.” The US Pacific Fleet commander said yesterday he would launch a nuclear strike against China next week if President Donald Trump ordered it, and warned against the military ever shifting its allegiance from its commander in chief.

Admiral Scott Swift was responding to a hypothetical question at an Australian National University security conference following a major joint United States-Australian military exercise off the Australian coast. The drills were monitored by a Chinese intelligence-gathering ship off northeast Australia.

Asked by an academic in the audience whether he would make a nuclear attack on China next week if Trump ordered it, Swift replied: “The answer would be: yes.”

“Every member of the US military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and to obey the officers and the president of the United States as commander and chief appointed over us,” Swift said. “This is core to the American democracy and any time you have a military that is moving away from a focus and an allegiance to civilian control, then we really have a significant problem.”

Pacific Fleet spokesman Captain Charlie Brown later said Swift’s answer reaffirmed the principle of civilian control over the military.

“The admiral was not addressing the premise of the question, he was addressing the principle of civilian authority of the military,” Brown said. “The premise of the question was ridiculous.”

The biennial Talisman Saber exercise involved 36 warships including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, 220 aircraft and 33,000 military personnel.

It was monitored by a Chinese People’s Liberation Army-Navy Type 815 Dongdiao-class auxiliary general intelligence vessel from within Australia’s 200-mile exclusive economic zone. — AP