Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LudwigPastorius

(8,943 posts)
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:30 PM Feb 2017

No President Should Have Absolute Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons -Union of Concerned Scientists

A compelling argument, especially considering the nut job now occupying the Oval Office

After Donald Trump took the oath of office, he was given the codes that allow him to order the launch of nuclear weapons.

At that point, Trump inherited a deeply flawed system: one that gives sole and absolute authority to the president to launch U.S. nuclear weapons - and puts extreme time pressure on him to make that decision.


During the presidential campaign, the public seemed shocked to learn that the U.S. president has the authority to decide - on his or her own, for whatever reason - to launch nuclear weapons, and that no one has the authority to veto that decision. There are military and political experts in advisory roles, but the final authority rests just with the president.

It's time to change that policy. The reasons behind it are now outdated.


More here: http://www.ucsusa.org/aggregator/sources/24#.WJupWRiZMo8
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No President Should Have Absolute Authority to Launch Nuclear Weapons -Union of Concerned Scientists (Original Post) LudwigPastorius Feb 2017 OP
I absolutely understand their concern, but, if it helps, I understand whathehell Feb 2017 #1
The Secretary's role is to verify the authenticity of the President's order. LudwigPastorius Feb 2017 #2
Okay, thanks for that information.. whathehell Feb 2017 #3
re: Cuban Missile Crisis LudwigPastorius Feb 2017 #4
I understand the impulse, but historically, that would have made nuclear war more likely. FBaggins Feb 2017 #5

whathehell

(28,969 posts)
1. I absolutely understand their concern, but, if it helps, I understand
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:45 PM
Feb 2017

that, in actuality, one other person, the Secretary of Defense, is needed.

LudwigPastorius

(8,943 posts)
2. The Secretary's role is to verify the authenticity of the President's order.
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 07:58 PM
Feb 2017

I guess a SecDef could deny that such a strike order came from the POTUS when it actually had, but I don't believe he, or she, has the legal authority to do so. (I would hope they would do it any way.)

Or, as the article mentions, they can preemptively instruct those in the DOD to disregard such an order, but right now, all of humanity's eggs are in one crazy-assed basket.

whathehell

(28,969 posts)
3. Okay, thanks for that information..
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 08:22 PM
Feb 2017

This SecDef, Mattie, actually seems like the only sane and/or decent person in Trump's cabinet....He has a reputation as an intelligent, thinking person in both parties, so, yeah, I'm sure he'd save us from this crazy ass if he had to, but I know just how you and the scientists feel....I'm age 67 and was 11 years old during the Cuban Missile Crisis.... I've not been this afraid of any political situation since then.

My husband is retiring next fall, and if this loon isn't out of office by then, we're leaving the country,
.

LudwigPastorius

(8,943 posts)
4. re: Cuban Missile Crisis
Wed Feb 8, 2017, 11:21 PM
Feb 2017

I was a few months late to that party, having been born a few weeks later that year.

Yet, I didn't know the specifics about the B-59 incident until recently. Sure, they taught us the general info about what happened, but I don't ever remember hearing that we avoided nuclear war by the mere vote of one Soviet submarine captain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

I hope Mattis would bring some sanity to a similar knife-edged situation.

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
5. I understand the impulse, but historically, that would have made nuclear war more likely.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 01:21 PM
Feb 2017

It certainly fits the Constitutional standard that says that Congress declares war, not the Executive.

But "Mutually Assured Destruction" kept the superpowers from attacking for decades... and that relies on the certain knowledge that the U.S. would be able to launch a counterstrike within moments of detecting an offensive nuclear launch. That wouldn't be possible if, for instance, the Senate had to hold a vote first.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»No President Should Have ...