No question in my mind: Take the authority from Trump. And, actually, this ought to be true of any President. The authority is too much of a burden and too risky to be held by one individual. And so what if the US can't strike back immediately? The world will be ending anyway.
In a governing system that relies on checks and balances, the power of the president to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons may strike some people as odd?
Odd? This may be a slight understatement. It strikes me as scary!
The Senate has to question whether a crotch grabbing reality star should be in charge of the nuclear football, really.
2
Trump hasn't pushed the button yet, has he? But he might. Isn't that how deterrence works?
This man in the highest political power office on the globe has demonstrated again and again that he is willing to do anything to satiate his narcissistic mentally ill needs. We should never allow any one person, ever, such power much less a person that is absolutely unfit. Such a power for anyone is desperate for check and control as is demonstrated by the times that have evolved. If our government were ever to live up to responsibility this absolutely is it.
The only thing more terrifying than Trump having sole first-strike capability is Trump learning that Congress is thinking about taking it away. ( Not, God knows, from the NY Times, but Fox News. Or a phone top from Steve Bannon. along with advice to "use it before you use it.")
If people in Congress are worried enough about this to hold a hesring, why aren't they acting quickly??!!
1
Every day we wake up I ask if he has blown up the world yet?
2
Congress already has the power of declaration of war.
THIS toddler should not have this power. Too immature, uninformed, and irresponsible.
2
Requiring more than 1 person in order to launch a first-strike is a great idea, for many reasons beyond the current need to keep the president away from the "button". If the US were to put this into law, it would provide a space for other nuclear armed nations, currently all on high alert for a surprise strike from the US, to hold off on retaliating too quickly to a false alarm. It would be best for all countries involved, including China, the US, both Korea's, Japan, England, France, and Russia, to take several steps back from the ledge
It is unbelievable that this question come up. Take this away from the president and you'll regret it to no End.
Seems it would be easier to impeach trump and get him out of office for being a nuclear threat to humanity than change the rules of when he can inflict God-like powers on the rest of us.
If little Kim thinks trump will strike first, he may as well Make America BOOM first himself.
2
This has to to be the number one consideration on the senate's docket.
I mean we cannot have a person whose daily behavior models his inability to maintain any kind of emotional balance and who many psychologists as well as just common sense people know is psychologically not capable of rational decisions that concern the Common Good. His self centered focus is overwhelmingly on display every day.
Please Mr. Senators, think about the children, the humans that would disappear in any kind of atomic bomb use at all. The Hiroshima explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people. There were practically no remains of these people.
2
Absolutely in favor of the Markey-Lieu bill. I strongly believe America's first strike doctrine was one of the most destabilizing features of the Cold War, making the Russians far more prone to a catastrophic screw-up or response than they should have been. The only reason it was ever even adopted was because of NATO's huge weakness compared to the Warsaw Pact on conventional deployments in Europe -- and that particular phenomenon is now much more balanced because of the former Warsaw Pact switching sides, so to speak. First strike was always dangerous; it is now obsolete too.
1
No one human should be given the power to destroy another country with millions of other humans in it.
1
How about giving the football to two mothers with children in Moscow and New York?
1
It is insane not to take action immediately about trumps sole power to commence a war. All indications point to his willingness to do so. And he is not going to wait
1
See?
Donald Trump is finally bringing some sanity to the United States.
Had Hillary won, Congress wouldn't even consider curtailing the powers of the Imperial Presidency, just like they remained silent when Obama was expanding executive powers beyond belief.
Hopefully, "American people have been alerted to the scope and potential peril" of ANY President's powers.
Giving any one person the power to destroy the planet is and always has been completely insane.
Thanks, Trump, for getting the ball rolling to Make America Sane Again.
2
I believe in addition to 45th, you need approval from Defense Secretary and one more individual ( I really do not know who that be, either VP or any other person in chain of command) to pull the trigger. It has been always like that, Thank God we have a good Defense Secretary, we can rely on more than 45th.
I remember during the Watergate crisis when Barry Goldwater and other Republicans met with Nixon at the Whitehouse to urge him to resign. Nixon said to them, “Don’t forget I can walk out of here and launch a nuclear attack.” Goldwater and the others at the meeting were deeply shaken. As they should have been.
I loathed Nixon, but the nuclear threat is greater now than it ever has been. Never before have we had a Commander in Chief so obviously and publicly disturbed and incompetent. We need to do something to check his power to destroy the planet, and we need to do it soon.
2
Mueller! We need to know what you know. It's okay if the last several chapters are incomplete, but at least offer up enough to get Donald and his people out of there. It's a violation of your oath of office to allow such compromised actors to keep the highest security clearances and meet with word leaders on our behalf.
1
It is a sad comment on the election process and the media's role in it that no-one managed successfully to connect these dots or present this case BEFORE that fateful day in November 2016.
Trump hasn't changed. He is the same unstable and anti-intellectual bully he was all along. So, that making him President would mean investing him with the power to rain down destruction on a Biblical scale, was clear, too.
Of course this is beyond grave. Of course this is a disaster waiting to happen. But what is proposed seems noble but can't be realized, it is therefor pointless even to discuss it. All it does is give false hope to the desperate.
Or does anyone really think that the profound change in legislation that is laid out here can be elevated into the Law of the Land? With all that entails. Agreement on a text. Eventual approval in both Houses. And being signed into law by the very President whose authority this new law expressly seeks to constrain.
NOT GO-ING TO HAP-PEN! (Until it's too late, that is...)
Long overdue. If this leads to slowing down the process of destroying the humanity Trump's election will have accomplished something worthwhile, albeit inadvertently and kicking and screaming.
This is one case where a new stop sign needs to be installed before, not after, a car accident.
1
When Mr. Trump was elected, I was under no illusions as to his capacity to act as President (minimal, at best), but I told despondent friends and relatives that this event might be a blessing in disguise, by providing the impetus for Congress to finally make some laws to constrain the President's power within its proper Constitutional limits.
I am glad to see that at least some members of Congress are waking up and starting this process.
Who knows? Donald Trump may go down in history as the great President who influenced the country to move away from the "imperial Presidency" and back toward its democratic roots.
2
I believe that a Congressional majority should be the only granting authority for the potential use of WMDs against a named threat/crisis. Congress may grant this authority to the President under specified conditions. This authority should be be temporary and require re-authorization.
One condition is that no President or cabinet member should have the ability to individually or collectively authorize the use of WMDs without periodic certification by a board of qualified psychiatrists that they are free of significant mental illness or other mental incapacity and are capable of making rational, evidence based decisions. I am not certain Trump would pass this test, and as such would not be included in the approval chain despite being President.
Being of sound mind, a President in the event of an escalating crisis- could request from the Congress temporary authorization for the the preemptive use of WMDs in the event of, and only in the event of, an imminent WMD strike from a named enemy/crisis. The final decision for a strike should include senior military and civilian officials such as the Secretary of State, Defense and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Vice-President, etc.
What we are seeing today clearly suggests that additional safeguards are needed. What the aforementioned are enough is also unclear
Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting him back in. The American people created this nightmare when they committed civic malpractice and failed to evaluate temperament properly in electing Donald Trump. The Republican Congress will posture and issue platitudes and bromides (thoughts and prayers!) but will ultimately do nothing. The only solution is a wave election in 2018 that gives the Democrats control of the House and Senate so that this monster can be impeached. Pence is repulsive but more trustworthy with nuclear codes than Trump. 2018 will be the test for the American electorate. If it fails, then I am not hopeful about the future of the planet.
1
Did this commenter actually read the article?
"Trump may, unwittingly, lead Congress to further curtail the powers of the Imperial Presidency."
All the article actually said was that a couple of Democratic members of some Senate committee have introduced a bill to limit the President's authority to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Do you have any idea how many such bills have been introduced in the Senate -- always by a Senator whose party is out of power.
It's fashionable these days to "backdate" the responsibility for the Vietnam War so that Kennedy and Johnson are no longer considered responsible. Eisenhower, of course, was to blame, and I've actually read "analyses" that assign responsibility all the way back to William McKinley (naturally sweeping in Herbert Hoover along the way but exonerating all Democratic Presidents of any responsibility).
Back to REALITY for just a moment: The US got into World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, when a DEMOCRAT was President. We can do all sorts of analyses that lay the blame on those Democratic Presidents' Republican predecessors (conveniently ignoring all Democratic Presidents in this analytical "look-backs," of course), but the REALITY is that the US got us into all those wars when a DEMOCRAT was President, NOT when a Republican was President. And the only country in the world ever to use nuclear weapons was the US, and we did so when Harry Truman -- a DEMOCRAT -- was President.
That's REALITY.
As worrisome as the thought of President Trump's access to the Nuclear Launch Codes may be, the real problem is the weapons themselves. This "Bomb Power" of the president (see Garry Wills' book) has been bestowed on each occupant of the oval office since we first armed ourselves with these awful, world-ending weapons. Nor is a possible solution to be found in the proposal that the Bomb Power be shared by others in the government hierarchy. The real solution has been staring us in the face for decades: Abolition in Our Time. Before we are out of time. The Nobel Peace Prize was recently awarded to a leading Nuclear Weapons Abolition organization (ICAN) leading to the hope that this goal can be accomplished before it is too late.
Check the president's power by requiring a second approval. This could rotate amongst the Cabinet secretaries and the Congressional leadership but the cosigner (as it were) should be unidentifiable. This way an adversary would never know whether or how much to take seriously a threat by the President, and there would be a check on the President which itself could be the subject of an institutional review.
Given that Trump can neither control his mouth nor his twitter finger--why oh why should we assume he can control himself with nuclear weapons? Already GOP Senators have publicly called his chief of staff Kelly, McMaster and Mathis --the adults and the minders. Would any of us let our children needing minders play with nuclear weapons?
(And, as to the generals being adults -- that is asking them to go against their engrained lifetime discipline of obeying the chain of command -- Trump.) I do not believe any of these men will recognize the danger Trump displays to the entire world until missiles are in the air. Trump DOES know he will be the most protected American of all; why should he worry?
1
'But Brian McKeon ... told the committee that the president could appoint a new general and defense secretary to carry out his orders.'
As that could not possibly be an instantaneous process, if to be remotely legal, it greatly undercuts the argument for unrestricted, instantaneous launch authorization; clearly the situation isn't as time-limited as painted.
Or maybe, more likely, 'everyone knows' that with near certainty, orders would be obeyed - however reluctantly in some cases.
It's not just the preemptive use of NUCLEAR weapons that needs to be checked. The Legislative branch also needs to place a firm check on presidents conducting wars without a formal declaration of war by Congress.
1
Congress needs to think even further ahead. If the Trump presidency ends abruptly, what will an unstable person like the president do?
Congress seems to be playing with marbles, while allowing someone unfit to even being a hotel clerk gets to play with nuclear weapons. Why doesn't Sen. Markey's and Rep. Lieu's bill have more sponsors. The need for passage is immediate.
1
This is nothing more than politics, again; this time over nuclear weapons. The NYTimes and Dems and some Reps in Congress will do anything, will say anything, to 'resist' Trump. I'm not a Trump fan, but wasn't an Obama idolizer either. Obama promised Russia that he would get rid of the nuc stockpile when caught on-mic talking to the Russian representative. Something he had no right to say. Trump says a lot of things one wishes he wouldn't say, but either way, we are in the 21st century when anything can travel the Internet and social media in seconds.
The idea that a president can, alone, decide to push the button is quite frightening. However, I'm thinking the law was put in place to defend the nation against a nuclear weapon aimed at the USA - that would have to happen in seconds, not days or months while the baby, tantrum wielding Congress of both parties try to figure out if it will affect their re-election. And would hit help or hurt their party standing. There is no integrity in DC, no honesty, and least of all, no affection for security on the global dance floor
Should Trump or any president have the right to call for a nuclear strike? Only in defense of a nuclear weapon already dispensed against us or our allies. But that's across the board - one cannot say it's okay for Obama, but not Trump. Change the law if it's not clear (one page), but don't change it because you don't like the president. That would be the height of dishonesty and partisanship.
Presedent's authority to launch nuclear weapons to retaliate if USA is attacked is a problem as well. Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident of North Vietnam supposedly shooting at American ships that led to Vietnam war and millions of casualties? This incident later turned to be fake. The only beneficiaries were the weapons manufacturers and of course current buyers of shirts and other cheap imports we get from Vietnam.
1
I don't think the editorial board knows anything about what the "American people" have been alerted to unless considering their track record on elections and policy to do exactly the opposite of whatever hare brained idea the armchair warriors come up with. The scope and peril of their misinformation and belief in propaganda an idiot could see through is well documented. Just ask President Hillary Clinton and Mayor Weiner.
"Senate Questions the President’s Power to Launch Nukes."
Isn't "the Senate questions Trump's power to launch nukes" more accurate?
Political legitimacy is a simple idea -- even Trump can grasp its meaning. Legitimacy is consent of the governed. It's why Trump lies about rigged elections, voter fraud, inauguration counts, etc. He knows he's illegitimate, a fluke at best or worse a fraud perpetrated by Putin.
All he's done, said and tweeted confirms his illegitimacy. His cynical and open defiance of institutional integrity is rooted in his nightmare fear he'll be unveiled as a cheat and imposter.
By all means, Trump's catastrophic power to end history as we know it must be taken from him.
Ironic when the threat of nuclear annihilation comes not from obvious and capable enemies, but from The White House.
More ironic is our nuclear frenemies are unlikely to launch missiles with an ally like Trump who'll cripple America more than multiple waves of incoming ICBMs. National suicide is more efficient and there are no fingerprints.
Foreign leaders now know from their up close and personal moment with Trump that America is no shining city on a hill. Peel back the stainless steel veneer of our democracy, past the bright glare of equality and fairness, and there's the soul of a banana republic kleptocracy. (Apologies to bananas.)
Trump is the wink that tells corrupt, murderous dictators they have a friend in The White House. And like him, they can get away with anything.
3
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice any service member can ignore and or refuse an immoral or illegal order from his superior officer. This includes the Commander and Chief.
That having been said, it's not likely Trump will order a first strike as the Republicans will probably not get their tax cuts for the rich or another chance to remove healthcare for those who need it the most with the world engaged in a global thermonuclear war.
How could the Republicans further deregulate everything from financial reform, to healthcare to the Clean Air Act with nuclear material settling across the planet?
I'm not suggesting Trump is in any way mentally stable or should be within 100 miles from the White House, but a nuclear exchange would disrupt the Republican agenda to make the nation one of indentured servants begging for scraps of food from the one percent.
I do believe these hearing should continue and the policy be reviewed by sane people on a daily basis, but the only real solution here is for Trump and his corrupt cabinet be removed from office as soon as is humanly possible.
Hopefully the officer in possession of the football is a Democrat.
I have to leave now so I can continue work on the shelter I'm building and stock up on clean water and dry goods. I suggest everyone else do the same. You know.............just to be sure.
1
Uh, professional alarmists, they don't launch on his say-so, but are launched with the consent and approval of the military.
You're dead wrong. The President has total discretion to launch nuclear weapons. The Secretary of Defense can approve the POTUS' decision but can't veto it. The military has no power of consent and approval. The Secretary of Defense is civilian not military.
Checks and balances are great, but given congressional paralysis and the potential need to respond to a nuclear attack on the United States or a NATO ally in near real time, waiting on a gridlocked and partisan congress more concerned with reelection that what is best for the country any nuclear war would be over - and American a smoldering ruin - long before congress even held a vote. And there may not be time for a smaller group to confer and agree. Can you imagine if this debate was going on during the Cuban missile crisis? It would have projected weakness and indecision to our enemy the USSR, that never would have turned around at our blockade. And the same debate could embolden NKorea now, who is already misreading the situation after a decade of American timidity regarding its nuclear program.
2
During security briefings, as the Rep candidate in the general election,
dt questioned if we have nukes why don't we use them.
Clearly unfit !!
6
Sure, asking questions makes him unfit, ask Socrates.
You know what’s insane in this country? You need a license to drive a car but someone entrusted with the lives of potentially billions of people doesn’t even have to show a cursory interest or knowledge base in regards to their charge. How illogical is this? Extremely illogical and apparently we are ok with it.
7
"You need a license to drive a car ..."
That's a very bad analogy. Driver's licenses aren't issued to a driver after months of campaigning while under the intense scrutiny of the press and public.
"Extremely illogical and apparently we are ok with it."
Apparently you are not "ok with it", but you didn't suggest any alternatives.
Putin doesn't want nuclear war, so he will save us.
My God. Is this where we are?!?
4
Americans have always believed that our leader would be a thoughtful individual who, in times of imminent peril to the nation, would act appropriately. That changed with the election of Donald Trump. Conceding that he cannot be trusted with sole access to our nuclear arsenal is also an acknowledgement that he is not fit to be our president. The rules that have been in place since WWII were there for a reason, as a deterrent against an unprovoked and rapid nuclear strike by another country. That has gone by the wayside now that we have an unstable leader who loosely talks about "raining fire" down on other countries and contradicts himself several times in the same sentence. Now we are the treat to the world. Trump sows confusion in situations fraught with enough danger already and could bring the world to the brink of disaster without the sense to know that is what he has done. It is clear he is capable of starting an international conflict just because of a perceived slight to his ego. Millions of lives and the future of the world are at stake. The laws do not need changing, although a few additional safeguards under the present administration would be a very good idea. What needs to happen is the removal of this President from office by any legal means possible, as soon as possible.
6
..., oh, America; how could you?
6
Everything Trump has said in this regard leads me to believe that he wants to use nuclear weapons. He's cruel enough and crazy enough and, like all sociopaths, is completely without empathy. He has spent a lifetime cheating contractors, bankrupting businesses, degrading and abusing women, defrauding people (see Trump University), etc. He is a very small man with no positive accomplishments--but he could go down in history as the greatest mass murderer ever. If there is anyone left to write the history, that is.
9
Narcissistic sociopaths with severe and demonstrated impulse control and anger issues, who keep score, and who take revenge, who can't string together a cogent sentence, and who take everything as a personal slight should be afforded comprehensive, residential mental health services (assuming their healthcare hasn't gone bankrupt) and should be completely restricted from any access to guns or nuclear warheads
Period. .
8
Oh yes, and from the presidency of the nation.
Scary, is having impediments to using the force of the military. Rule by committee is never the answer to swift and decisive action. If and I say again If there is a concern that the President is unfit for office we already have a process to address that issue. The larger issue is this, in the example of PRK we have a madman that is somehow being painted by the press as the reasonable person in this situation, yet there are political work camps, starvation, and assassinations that are happening around the globe under his direction... The President has historically had the power to use the military in a "First Strike" capacity, Drones, bombs and other means of projecting the force needed to save American lives is the charter of the office. Nukes "may" one day be a necessary tool to be used, the lawyers in the mix will also quickly point to the limitation of the President under the "war powers act" also could be extended to conventional weapons. It is a dangerous president that weakens the Commander in Chief's tool belt. Waiting for LA or NYC to be hit with a nuke, or have one heading in; before the President has the ability to act is an asinine response to a bad political situation and will result in Americans in mass being killed.
Please confirm or deny your relationship to the late Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who you somehow channeled uncannily in your comment.
1
I fear you too are "painting a madman as a reasonable person."
1
Let’s take a careful look at this. If Kim jung Un decides to preemptivey attack us and Trump does not have the ability to counter launch then it is too late for us. By the time Trump meets with Defense and State Kim’s missies would have reached us. So, this scenario is not acceptable. If Trump retains the sole ability to respond he would probably do so. But, even if Trump dispatches our arsenal, our defense does not have the capability to intercept NK,s missiles and destroy 100% of them. Reports are that we can only hope to intercept and destroy 50% of them. The remaining incoming missiles would destroy us. This is the scenario we are faced with now.m
If we give congress or the military the ability to respond, the situation would be the same. However, we cannot let Trump preemptively strike because likely he would do so over some insult fro KIm. His ability to unilaterally press the button is totally unacceptable. If we cede the ability to strike to two people from congress and two from the military, several conditions are likely to result. By eliminating Trump, the North Koreans could rest easier kowing that we do not have a madman at the controls. It would also relieve anxiety around the world that the acopolypse is here. Form a coalition of the world’s nuclear powers, including NK, and have them negotiate a safe agreement to prevent nuclear war.
1
Congress Congress Congress!
Protect us from this mentally ill President intent upon doing whatever he wants. Destroy the middle class and poor, build personal wealth for family business, destroy the world with no sense of environmental peril because of coal money and his money money money and then destroy mankind with a nuclear move. God he’s beyond science fiction. So is the GOP.
5
The mentally ill should not manage American nuclear weapons and that certainly includes the president and even some other individuals in his government. Remove the president from office. He is a frightening menace to the whole world and the whole world---except for our Congress---knows that.
5
According to our propaganda (which may be true) the average North Korean on-the-street believes the Kim regime's propaganda that, not only would North Korea survive, but would win "victoriously" a nuclear war with the U.S.
As for the rest of the world believing Trump is a frightening menace, look at some of these comments, and I don't just mean the trolls. Look at the number of people who do not see Trump as a frightening menace and instead perceive him as some kind of actual leader whose concern is saving lives. They are your and my neighbors in this forum, and they are inviting us over for a tall glass delicious of polonium-flavored Kool-Aid. (They had some today and so far feel fine.) Propaganda is a neutral term and works both ways.
Either this will play out of people's fears or eventually will be broadcast internationally as a hoax created by paranoia that President Donald Trump is creating on his own with his inability to see what is real and what is not by focusing on imaginary assumptions that what goes up must come down as in a nuclear weapon.
No one person should have such power, not just a clearly unstable one, but no one. Everyone has their breaking point, even the normally rational.
1
Of course these are hard questions to address! Here is one good reason to take the buttons out of the reach of our maniac-in-chief: 320 million Americans and that's just for starters. Every bit as important are the rest of the planet's occupants.
Congress will most likely dawdle around and let politics interfere with common sense, but tying Trump's hands would do wonders for our peace of mind.
1
Here we go. We know this President is unstable so why hesitate. Republican's put this crazy in the White House thinking they will control him.
He can and WILL blow up the world if he sees fit everyone knows it. He does not give a thought to anyone but himself and his unfettered ego.
They had better act fast!
2
I am so proud of my congressman Chris Murphy. You are a shining example of being a person who truly represents those who elect them, not their big donors. The launch of nuclear missiles involves the whole world and should not be left to an immature man/child.
3
Yes, question why trump can launch a missle..have we all lost our minds? Question away.
1
Why don't you question China or Russia? Pretty soon North Korea and Iran.
Hogwash.
There is nothing Trump has said or done to indicate any increased risk of the use of nuclear weapons.
Jack Kennedy brought us a lot closer to Armageddon, and none of the Democrats whined about it.
Funny how that works.
Let's get down to brass tacks.
Use the 25th Amendment and remove Trump---before it is too late.
Period.
4
The current "president "is clearly an impaired, mentally ill man who has never sought treatment . He displays clear DSM signs and symptoms that if treated may improve the quality of his dismal life. It certainly would improve mine. Then perhaps I could sleep again.
4
You can't sleep because you're a neurotic American citizen being brainwashed daily by the newspaper of record and its easier to program you when you are sleep deprived.
The Atomic Energy Act was signed by President Truman August, 1946.
Donald Trump was born June, 1946.
Who would have guessed that little baby at the time in 1946 could end up being the most dangerous man in the world in 2017?
Wonder what Truman would think and do now.
3
He'd probably not fire MacArthur which started the whole mess.
A method should be devised for including all living former U.S. Presidents in the decision to launch nuclear weapons.
2
I applaud this action. Trump of all people should not have his finger on this kind of power. Yeesh!
1
If this Congress doesn't act, then surely the world's leaders must unite and force action. This gravely affects the entire world, not just this nation.
3
America has not legally prepared itself for having an unstable, viciously malignant imbecile in the White House.
Amendment 25
1
November 16, 2017
The nuclear club and its history surely power politics at the highest for international relations, and as times change and personalities take command, then lest stand by the factor that produced this discussion with great concern indeed for reevaluation. Our election process has generated the Trump presidency and all that continues to be confronted rightfully. So voters surely give great thought to all factoring for their choice and so here we are and significantly examining the matters that are in the cross-hairs for execution for delivery and at what standards of operational procedures - and that is for all of us - the five branches on governing must demand enlighten control and for history the justification to who we are in character and valor to ourselves and the world for all times.
1
I do not see the problem with giving the President free reign in returning nuclear fire but compelling him/her to consult with other cabinet members or Congress for a first strike. We are the inventors of the nuclear weapon - and while acknowledging they dared strike our country first, we also carry shame for hitting Japan with such devastation when we were already in the midst of ending WW2. That is enough of a negative nuclear legacy for our country. And besides - the President is not supposed to declare any war without the agreement of Congress. I think a pre-emptive nuclear first strike on any country without a Congressional declaration of war first should cause any President to be impeached, imprisoned, and tried internationally for war crimes. We already have the world’s most awesome and terrifying military without the nukes. Nukes are for deterrence only.
There is no such thing as a preemptive strike. Hasn't been since the late 1950s when missiles first got 'hardened' or installed on submarines, or even carried by the SAC. Today, the low-budget version puts missiles on trailers.
There is no way to prevent an enemy strike by hitting all their launchers. All that such a strike does is called mass murder. It is the guarantee of mass murder that has worked so well as deterrent all these years. Not strategic or tactical attack.
Even a timely (that is, very fast) response to an attack is pointless. Our weapons are immune to that attack, and we can strike back days or weeks later and still kill everybody. Given that we almost certainly can't fend off a missile attack, or at least a good part of one, responding quickly does not save lives or destruction here.
The destabilizing development, which hasn't appeared yet, is the ability to effectively shoot down missiles. That's what would need automatic, instant launch. And only against the missiles.
Just eliminate that football. It is more dangerous to mankind than a killer asteroid, and serves no deterrent purpose whatsoever.
Glad that Trump's historic danger has brought the issues to light.
1
First - Trump was not elected. Neither was Pence. Massive voter suppression engineered by Kris Kobach's "Interstate Crosscheck" kicked at least one million legal voters off the rolls in 29 states. Overwhelmingly Democratic, minority, poor and inner-city. Kobach has been hired by Trump to do the same in all 50 states. Get them out of office. Crisis! Investigate Electiongate.
The U.S. threw out a king in the 18th century, and then quickly endowed the president with king-like powers [which have become god-like.]
It is difficult to fathom at times.
When you're ill educated and ignorant of your own government and proud history. No wonder Civics was the first to go, history and economics are going and English and logic will follow
This nuclear war stuff is NOT FUNNY. Hillary Clinton was far more war-like than Trump. She voted to back George W. Bush in the US invasion of Iraq. She pressed Obama to help the Libyan rebels more. And she vowed to establish a "no fly zone" over Syria, thus risking thermonuclear war with Russia over a jerkwater country whose war most Americans do NOT want us to get involved in.
Would she have backed down in Syria? Probably (sticking with positions has never been one of HRC's strong suits). But the situation almost certainly would have escalated before she did. Undoubtedly she'd have blamed it all on Russia, insisting that Russia was forcing her hand, but the reality would have been that HRC's demonstrated pro-war tendencies would have brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Maybe we'd have all felt better blaming it on Russia as we were being vaporized, but we'd still have been vaporized.
In short, while Trump MAY be a loose cannon, we already KNOW that Hillary Clinton is.
Sadly, our do nothing Congress may make some noise and then, yet again, do nothing. This is a question that needed to be reviewed even without an unfit President .
1
Frankly, I don't worry that Trump will actually attack North Korea, with nukes or without nukes. And I sure don't object to his standing up to the NK dictator.
Every other tin horn dictator is noticing that the NK dictator is getting a lot of attention, and asking himself: "What's that guy in North Korea got that I don't have?"
The answer, of course, is: "He's got nuclear weapons."
If Moammar Qaddafi had it to do over again, do you think he'd have agreed to give up his pursuit of nuclear weapons? How did that work out for him?
It amazes me that Trump supporters don't realize how much more dangerous the world became the day he was sworn in as president. Hopefully we won't have and world shattering "I told you so" events before we can get this guy out of office.
2
The minimum end result of Trump's twitter war with Kim is the reinforcement of North Korea's rationale for the possession of nuclear weapons: to deter an insane and unstable regime with delusions of divine authority from wiping them off the face of the earth.
2
Allowing this ridiculous fool anywhere near the nuclear arsenal is a recipe for disaster. All the more reason for complete world disarmament. We as a species are simply not equal to the responsibility.
1
Power? Try "Questions Cognitive". Trump just reversed ban on trophies from elephant hunts because JR needs another endangered species head. Trump won't go against Moore even though he leads GOP and the Country needs his voice. A man who cannot protect his country because he is afraid of negative association is unfit to lead. But, Yeah, he got the UCLA Students released which am sure Americans held abroad, in prisons for less, are cheering right now
1
Simple question: Would this even be a consideration if Hillary Clinton were President? Or any other President since the dawn of nuclear weapons?
1
The president is mentally deranged so of course he should NOT----definitely not have control of the Nukes. The House and Senate both know the president is dangerous so why haven't they impeached him? it is long overdue.
3
The US is being tested for the first time in it's history of putting a dumb, vulgar, self-serving and completely thoughtless person in office as the president.
We need to ask ourselves, "How's that working out for you?"
2
No one man should be able to launch such a deadly arsenal!!! A new system must be developed to require a minimum of 3 people to make the decision.
The vice-president is too close to the president. Secretary of Defense and
Secretary of State would be better choices. We need to change this and it
needs to be done now.
"...he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.”
Hard to imagine a nuclear strike that wasn't out of step with U.S. strategic interest, if the strategy is to keep our arms and legs and heads attached....
1
Who's likely to object to any Congressional reforms that add a degree of safety checkpoints to a "first-strike" capability? The Republicans, of course! This is a nasty and very dangerous game they're playing: Using this 'Presidential Poser' to achieve their own ends and means while hoping (and gambling) that their selfish game doesn't end with the total destruction of our planet. Hey Republicans...are tax cuts for the rich really worth it? VOTE! Your life depends on it!
2
Formally consider limiting this President's power to launch an all out nuclear attack? Formally consider????? At this point in time each and every member of the senate should be storming the halls of the capital as they hold dear in their hearts the lives of their wives, husbands, children, neighbors and the sacred treasure of humanity-at-large. This President has the social, emotional and psychological skills of a two year old child. If he were a five year old at kindergarten, his parents would be called in for a conference to discuss the danger their child was to himself and others. His inability to filter, his inability to show any form of impulse control, his inability to understand the effect of his own actions would be the subject of extreme concern. A five year old does not have access to setting off nuclear holocaust. A President of the USA does. In this case, and in any future cases, this decision should be made by the entire body of congress. In fact, the decision to launch nuclear war should never be made at all. We have evolved past the point of might makes right, that is what negotiations are for. Mr. Trump has made and continues to make billions off the sale of weapons of destruction. He also wants to go down in history for having launched his phallic missiles and reigned down destruction on half of the planet. That is what he wants. Now please. Do not consider taking this power out of his incapable and greedy hands, but TAKE IT. @johannaclear
4
The solution is not to cut the president's power to launch nukes. The solution is to cut the unfit president from the White House. The Senate should be working on it and take responsibility instead of working around the clock to make the 1% richer and the poor sicker.
I would rather face the whole different set of issues that Pence would bring as president for 3 years than to continue to suffer Trump for 7.
1
If a president can't be trusted with the nuclear arsenal, can he be trusted with anything at all? Short answer: No!
2
Donald Trump. Nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
3
This is one of those rare situations where I say "May God be with us". Please save the innocents from these warmongers.
2
One more thing. Senate should revise the rules to prevent any POTUS from launching nukes unless they have actual military experience.
Without that, they do not have a good understanding of war, especially nuclear war which is unfathomable. These POTUS like Trump couldn't even comprehend the horrors of war when they escape being enlisted with multiple deferments, have no children in actual combat.
Follow the Brits where the royal family have their children in the front line like Prince Harry and Prince Andrew in Afghanistan and Falkland island wars.
A POTUS with his own blood line in the frontline is much less likely to go to war recklessly.
Of course the world is not perfect and not every POTUS have this kind of war criteria. In this case, no POTUS should ever launch nukes alone except in a Cold War scenario against comparable strength enemies like China or Russia, but against a smallish country like N Korea with no MAD capability, POTUS like Trump must have at least the head of Senate, Speaker, VP, Defence Chief to override him if he is seen as actually being a clear and present danger to US herself due to his reckless behavior with poor understanding of enemy cultural sensitivities and perception of danger which is vastly different from American way of thinking.
Institute a law that after the President, the Vice-President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense must also unanimously agree to the use of nuclear weapons. If any of them are not available, the National Security Adviser would act as the 4th person.
We should never have been in this situation in the first place. Our laws and procedures should always have taken into account that a crazy, impulsive, ignorant, demented or impaired person might one day hold the office of POTUS.
Which is where we are right now.
I remember Trump's interview last summer with Chris Matthews of MSNBC in which Trump could not understand why not to use nuclear weapons in Europe.
He seems to think nukes just make a bigger noise than conventional weapons v-- and hasn't the slightest clue of the permanent and horrible damage they do to humanity. The man's a total dunce.
2
donnytreason can't be trusted with a key to the executive washroom because he is working with Vladimir to cause chaos in our country and make Russia great again.
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
I am comforted that he has an experienced advisor in Stephen Miller. Aren’t you all?
2
No one would be asking to restrict the presidential power to fire nuclear weapons if Trump were not president. And the idea that this could be made safer by requiring his hand picked VP and SecDef to concur is only marginally better. The fundamental issue is Trump, his defective personality, his divided loyalties, his lack of competent advisers (Bannon? Ivanka? Jared? Really?), and his constant lying to us and probably to himself.
Congressional Republican leaders now believe the women accusing Roy Moore of child molestation and sexual predation, and they feel he's unqualified for the senate. Trump is already a self-admitted sexual predator and teen beauty pageant creep, and he has more accusers on the record than Moore (so far).
Donald Trump is the problem, not the current nuclear launch procedures. Fix the real problem. Remove this cancerous president before he causes a world-changing catastrophe.
1
"...[Trump] could say N Korea’s ICBM ... was an “initial attack”, and off we go. That’s how Johnson handled the Tonkin incident."
I forget: WHICH party was Johnson In? How about Truman, the only US President ever to authorize the use of nukes -- which party was he in?
Presumably the new rules would apply to Hillary Clinton if she'd won -- ESPECIALLY since she voted as a Senator to support the US's invasion of Iraq, as George W. Bush had asked her to do.
This is NOT FUNNY. Maybe -- maybe -- Trump would do all sorts of horrible things, but keep in mind two important points:
1. Hillary Clinton has ACTUALLY DONE these things.
2. So far, Trump hasn't.
Error: Logical Fallacy.
2 Blues (exhibits A and B) did bad things, therefore all Blues are bad; Red is not Blue, therefore Red Party good, ergo sum Red guy good guy.
Also see: Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good.
The government is incapable of removing small arms from the insane public which all-too frequently slaughters its own people. Do we really think it can remove nuclear weapons from the hands of an insane president?
It'd better, however, before the world gets to witness mass slaughter, American-style, on the world stage. Wrong side of bed...boom!
And if, by chance, government should succeed in this endeavor, is that not proof itself -- once again, as if we need it -- of the man's insanity?
Obviously the country is faced with a troubling situation with the troubling behavior of the president as well as the Congress...but the greater issue might be ....how did someone who caused so much drama during the campaign and since the election....how was he elected...who voted for him..??.....and.....will they do it again....???....this kind of fiasco can't occur again..???....Can it..??
Would Hillary Clinton have changed her ways if she'd won? I doubt it.
Let's not forget: Trump MAY be pro-war (even though he claims otherwise and hasn't done anything so far -- just talk), but we KNOW Hillary is. She voted to with George W. Bush to invade Iraq. She pressed Obama to give even more aid to the Libyan rebels. And she vowed to establish (and presumably enforce) a no-fly zone over Syria.
Those weren't "MAYBE" actions by Hillary Clinton. She actually did all of that. True, Trump MAY (though he hasn't), but Hillary actually DID.
This is NOT FUNNY. Had Hillary Clinton won, the odds of us getting into yet another stupid Middle East war (or maybe a war with North Korea) would have been substantially higher. It baffles and annoys me that she's now being portrayed as the "peace candidate."
Hop hope they work fast ! BV, NC
A method should be devised for including all living former U.S. Presidents in the decision io launch nuclear weapons.
1
the fact that the us senate is discussing the issue is a signal that even the GOP is worry with prospect. It is unbelievable that such mighty power lies on one´s man will. When you see such decision in the hands of a "senile adolescence" bullying against his NK psycho counterpart, it makes me wander what the senate is waiting for.
Could prove C.I.A. killed Kennedy and Jimmy Hoffa too.
After reading:
"C.I.A. Documents Describe Lee Harvey Oswald’s Visit to Mexico" "By GLENN THRUSH, SCOTT SHANE and PETER BAKER NOV. 3, 2017", NYTimes "Politics" at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/cia-documents-jfk-assassi...
Trump has less mental and emotional stability than the typical middle school bully. Yet he has the power to end all human civilization, and he'd do it if some equally demented dictator wounds his exquisitely sensitive and fragile ego. 1914, meet 2017.
If Duterte believes a North Korean War would be “The End,” maybe trump might listen to him. Evidently trump doesn’t listen to our US advisors.
Either he blows up the world or his portrait forever hangs in the Whitehouse on the wall with Washington and Lincoln. Lose lose scenario.
Congress has been unwilling to declare NK a threat to the US. They are hidebound lazy do-nothings who believe it's better to allow NK to blackmail America and threaten Americans than to use military force against a dangerous and evil gangster.
Wake up and smell the fecal matter coming out of the Legislative branch. NK has been and continues to be a threat to America and Americans since the end of WW2. They declared war against SK, and we defended them. Now NK is nuclear-armed, and is testing launch vehicles that can actually reach the US. Bribing NK to be "good" only gives it more time to achieve its goal of threatening America with nuclear destruction. Because that's how NK got to be a nuclear power - Clinton, Bush, and Obama kept bribing it, and kept discovering that NK kept moving closer to being an intercontinental threat.
The idea of a nuclear-armed intercontinental-capable NK should be frightening. Why does Congress continue to ignore this? Why does NYT think a nuclear-armed intercontinental-capable NK is a good thing? Because the NYT hates America for its success, and cannot see past that.
1
danger narrowly averted? Trump is totally toxic, a one man Armageddon, and what will stop him? His impotent generals? Are there watchdogs in govt who can secure red phones and nukes so that our pathetic Potus can't destroy the world? Now we all feel complicit!
2
It's true and tragic. Bye USA hello crazy dictator.
Either this will play out of people's fears or will eventually be broadcast internationally as a hoax created by paranoia that President Donald Trump is creating on his own with his inability to see what is real and what is not by focusing on imaginary assumptions that what goes up must come down as in a nuclear weapon.
What happened with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the newly released JFK Assassination files that Trump has authorized released and documents withheld still because U.S. Intelligence warned some documents not be released and probably the ones that were should not have been released. See who is playing who here?
Could prove C.I.A. killed Kennedy and Jimmy Hoffa too.
After reading:
"C.I.A. Documents Describe Lee Harvey Oswald’s Visit to Mexico" "By GLENN THRUSH, SCOTT SHANE and PETER BAKER NOV. 3, 2017", NYTimes "Politics" at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/cia-documents-jfk-assassi...
I can imagine a post holocaust world where the survivors hunt down rump and any politicians who supported him. What I can't imagine, is any republican who can look himself in the mirror in the morning and say, "I can support this guy. He is absolutely qualified to keep America safe and prosperous. He's a decent fellow, just misunderstood. Mu children will be proud of me for what I have done. History will laud us for what we have done."
An ignorant unstable Donald Trump having Nuclear power at his fingertips is very scary. Congress need to act now more than ever to keep Trump and others like him in check. I’m sure there would more like him in the future.
1
" The missiles are flying. Hallelujah. Hallelujah. ". The DEAD ZONE, by Stephen King. Book-1979. Movie-1983.
Thanks, GOP.
1
The lunacy of trying to rein in a President while being intellectually void on real world activities.
Way to go NYTimes, once again you show your lack of deep thinking for the politically approach!
"Mr. President, we have a situation and must act quickly. As you know the Chinese and Russians have developed new submarine proposal systems and, unfortunately, we did not detect them being so close to our shore line. But now, with the new 4 person approval system, we need to react quickly as the situation is escalating. The CIA intercepted their pre-authorization to strike. We need to show them we know and will react in force."
Mr. President says, "Sorry Tom, I know we have minutes to react but we just cannot find 2 of the 4 for approval. And although Congress tried to be smart about it, the 5 and 6 are not readily available. One, the Senator from California is massaging salmon in the wild to speed procreation and the Speaker of the House is in the Bahamas on a 165' boat with the lawyers for the right to class action special interest group."
1
The safest way to deal with Trump and nukes is to simply get back to the SMART talks and just whittle them down to zero. They are world killers- launch one and soon everyone is launching one.
Or as Gen. Buck Turgidson said, "Say, we need to get one of them Doomsday machines!"
It should be made clear to President Trump that a nuclear war would negatively affect his weekends of golf in that it would likely kill the grass.
1
Dangerously stupid idea
When political theater crosses over into national security we need to hold those responsible accountable. Limiting the President's ability as commander in chief or even the suggestion of such limitations is a threat to national security. It sends the wrong message to the world.
I am certain that America's enemies are heartened by this chatter and will exploit it. Perhaps with fatal consequence.
I understand that this is a childish reaction by those who lost the 2016 election, but it goes beyond the protests where idiots howled their disapproval on the anniversary of Trump's election (although it is equally illogical). It is in fact, dangerous
Ted Lieu is a total idiot and should be removed from Congress
We question just about everything Donald Trump does. His obsession with Barack Obama and the Clintons. His constant lies and ability to convince 62 million Americans that everyone lies but him. He wants to help the poor and broken but he’s supposedly worth billions but won’t disclose his taxes. His millionaire, white male adoring people that work under him.
Why wouldn’t sane people worry about his mental competence and his ability to wipe the human race off the face of the earth with a push of the button?
This is America in 2017 and it’s so far from the stuff we need to do to make the future great for all people that it’s sickening.
1
If Republicans in Congress cannot take a stand to save their own children and grandchildren from nuclear war instigated by as warped, ignorant, irrational man...they are just as warped, ignorant and irrational.
1
This man is totally unfit for the presidency and way too unstable to be entrusted with nukes. If the Republican Party were anything other the embodiment of cancerous greed, they would already have impeachment proceedings under way.
1
With impeachment underway, Trump could withdraw to Mar a Lago and nuke Washington.
Yet another foolish attempt by the left to diminish this nation’s ability to effectively defend itself.
The mere thought that an ignorant, and mentally unfit, clown can yield so much power so as to destroy the world is appalling. Something must done before trumpaggedon kills us all.
1
The easiest solution to the problem of having a loathsome deranged narcissist with his finger on the nuclear trigger is to impeach him.
1
The senate had better come up with something. Can you imagine what he'll do if/when that tax plan doesn't pass? Another blow to his already fragile ego.
1
In addition to carrying the football, the duty warrant officer must have the pentagon on speed dial. Could it be that the Senate is starting to indicate a realization that the White House is in the hands of a dangerous, unstable sociopath? Naaaaaaa!
1
Donald Trump's a mean, ignorant, impulsive moron who ran for president without understanding the job or any knowledge of foreign policy. We could have elected anyone pulled off the street and they would have known just as much about diplomacy, foreign policy and history as Donald Trump does. And maybe if we'd done that, the random person, unlike Donald Trump, would have been sobered by their new responsibility and would have been willing to listen patiently to their national security briefings, hired a seasoned diplomat to run the State Department, made intelligent appointments to the now empty jobs at the State Department and surrounded himself with experts in foreign policy with longtime experience dealing with North Korea. And in all likelihood the new random person president would not have put his ignorant son-in-law in charge of foreign policy. Nor hired a crook who represented a foreign government to be their National Security Adviser. Somebody who didn't think it was smart to call an unhinged dictator threatening us with nuclear weapons rude childish names (actually, we would have had to search every kindergarten in the country to find a bigger loudmouthed moron to handle that part of the job the way Trump has).
Trump should have nothing to do with any decisions regarding the declaration of war.
1
impeach now.
2
Any person, leave alone a member of Congress, who doesn't question Mr. Trump's suitability to handle nuclear codes has more than a few screws loose. Why was this never an issue before - simple, no one could have ever imagined that such a person as Mr. Trump who ever occupy the White House . . .
1
Whatever deterrence there is to be had with nuclear weapons is in the form of a possible retaliatory strike. The threat of a first strike for any reason is inherently destabilizing!
If the world knows to not wake the sleeping giant, all the better. If the world is constantly worried the the giant may go off half-cocked at some slight provocation, well, no good will come from that.
Get rid of trump, pro
Is this country mad? This discussion should never have happened because we should never have allowed this fool in the White House.
I'll tell you one thing, Republicans, the anti-Christ Barak Obama would never launch a nuclear strike. Your boy is so unstable that even you are worried? Are you not ashamed to still float him?
Oops, I forgot, you and your constituents, the 1%, are immune to radiation poisoning and fireballs. Never mind.
Trump der amerikanische Fuehrer is always right! When Hitler knew it was time to squelch the feeble representative branch of Germany's 1933 government, the Reichstag with its deputies, he simply had it torched. And conveniently blamed and hung a hapless Dutch person working in Berlin. Trump has no more regard for the American republic, its constitution or his own constituents than Hitler would have. And like any other fascist, he wants to scorch the earth beneath his many enemies' feet. Whatever the cost.
1
We can't control the unhinged thug in North Korea but we can keep the nutjob in the White House from launching nukes for no damn reason except for pride and petulance.
Do it, Senate.
I believe the president should not be allowed to unilaterally order a preemptive nuclear strike. Further, I don't think requiring agreement with sec-def, or VP are of any use, as they could be co-opted, as mentioned in the article. I think the two people who should have to concur should be the highest ranking member of the house and of the senate, FROM THE OPPOSITE PARTY. Maybe even throw in the supreme court chief justice.
Yes, this might be a high bar to pass, but for a decision that would change the face of the world, it should be an exceptionally high bar.
The safety of humanity shouldn’t rest on the hope that the President of the United States will not be able tear open the packet that contains the nuclear codes. Watching him hold a small water bottle with two hands while drinking does offer some hope that his small hands with short fingers are too small to do the task without assistance.
1
Give control of Congress to the Democrats in 2018. Send Trump home in 2020.
We get the government we deserve.
2
America is caught in trap of its own making. Playing chicken with the nuclear football is madness. Trump has the authority to launch a nuclear attack - period. The Secretary of Defense could slow the order down but not countermand it. The military mindset typically does as they are told.
2
Twenty-five years ago I had a passenger in my cab in NYC who disclosed in conversation that he had once been a member of the Atomic Energy Commission. Realizing that I had a rare opportunity, I mentioned something to him that had been on my mind for a long time. "Why," I asked, "are people today not nearly as concerned about the possibility of nuclear war as we used to be when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s?" His cryptic reply was, "A country that's worried about a nuclear war is a country that won't buy a new car."
I concluded that what he meant was that there's no point in getting people agitated about something they have no control over, anyway. It's bad for the economy. After much consideration, I decided he was probably right and stopped worrying so much about it myself.
Now it is clear that the man from the Atomic Energy Commission was wrong: a country that ISN'T worried about nuclear Armageddon is a country that could put a mentally unstable egomaniac in control of the nuclear arsenal.
Congress, act. There is no issue that is anywhere nearly as important on your plate as this.
https://cabsareforkissing.blogspot.com
5
No one person, however moral, ethical, or wise, should ever have sole power to to set into action the deployment of a weapon that could kill thousands or millions and could begin a Third World War. Certainly an unconscionable, immature, and irrational man, given to outbursts of temper and showing signs of becoming totally unhinged—as is our so-called president—should probably not even have a partial say. As a world-leader Trump is dangerous enough without such unchecked power.
Our nation's voters have shown themselves to be rather inept at picking leaders worthy of the term. The more we can do to rein-in the Trumpet, the better for us and the world. If we ever get a President and Vice President who have integrity and a combined IQ of over 100 back into office, adding the Vice President to the mix might be helpful—but in the case of the current executive branch, having a Toady in that role isn't helpful. Adding the Leader of the Senate might be helpful in the future but for now it would be just another Toady. The Attorney General?—another reptile. We're truly in trouble, aren't we?
Perhaps both the majority and minority leaders in both the Senate and the House should weigh-in, and a "Yes" vote would have to be unanimous. This is no minor matter. We're talking about the fate of the planet. Several elected officials from different states with more than one party represented might assure us of a wise choice.
2
As ridiculous and scary as it seems, humans may need a nuclear war to finally come to their senses. A limited nuclear confrontation might get people to take a close look at the human belief system and its implications. It's fairly obvious that we aren't willing to consider all beliefs as the problem at this point, and it might take the loss of a few million people before we're willing to acknowledge the true destructive nature of beliefs in the human mind.
See:
RevolutionOfReason.com
TheRogueRevolutionist.com
4
I was surprised when I saw Senator Murphy refer to Trump as "so quixotic," and the word jumped out at me when I saw it in print in this editorial.
I've just never thought of Trump as quixotic. The dictionary defines "quixotic" as "foolishly impractical in the pursuit of ideals; especially marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action."
There is nothing noble or chivalric about Trump. Cynical is more like it. Petty, petulant, small-minded, short-sighted, erratic, and hypocritical -- definitely. But Trump is no Don Quixote.
2
Senator Murphy has an excellent vocabulary. Perhaps the strain of trying to get this somewhat urgent issue some sunlight, got the better of him. Poor Senator Corker was practically firing off magnesium flares to get attention on Trump and nukes weeks ago. Senator Murphy wrote some thoughtful pieces on the probability that Mr. Trump, surrounded by bigly military men, might be more likely to explore military rather than diplomatic solutions to complex problems. I gather he's a tad concerned about the gutting of the diplomatic corps. And the lack of ambassadors in Asia.
Time is wasting, the threat grows daily. Can they please act like this is the emergency that it is?
2
How about we leave things as they are, complete with the launch button in his office but cut the wires without telling him?
6
Senator Corker and Senator Murphy do us an essential service in bringing the issue of nuclear safety and a re-examination of the decision making process back into national attention. If ever there is a situation where President Obama's Don't Do Stupid rule applies, this is it. Whether the Markey and Lieu bills move forward, or another solution is found, the concentration of such power in any one individual, has to be addressed.
We live in a time of fake news, cyber warfare, and disinformation. Mr. Trump understands little about nuclear weapons, and a great deal about carrying grudges. Mr. Trump also seems to be compromised to some degree by outside forces that don't wish us well. Our intelligence services are under strain; even a well-informed, thoughtful, younger President might be susceptible to mis-information and error in a scenario requiring an immediate response. This needs to be revisited, and a thoughtful, bi-partisan solution needs to be found. Now. And the media can do its part by continuing to focus on policy, rather on twitter wars.
2
No one person should be able to engineer the destruction of entire cities, millions of people, period. There should be no option for preemptive strikes without bipartisan Congressional approval, meaning more adults in the room than just people appointed by the one man likely to ask for one. We would all like to believe that our system of choosing leaders automatically leads to selection of the best person to make such decisions, and that it would insure they were well advised by others with similar qualifications to think strategically and sympathetically, with humanity as the client they serve. We have yet to evolve such a system, let alone such people, as our current situation shows. When a society allows each individual the power to kill others at some distance, without risk to themselves, in large numbers and in mere minutes, it is a certainty that the collective would allow wholesale slaughter of others in lands oceans away, that they know and care even less about than the neighbors they kill - at least, they could be led to believe it necessary, as in Iraq with the WMD threat. Some of us would like to believe there are at least a few Americans evolved enough and wise enough to lead us to away from willful killing or threats of death and destruction, towards more humanity at home and across the world, more love... but they are not the ones we elected.
1
As much as I dislike our president, I do not see his incendiary language as any more than that. I found it more troubling that we had three carrier groups in close formation and (possibly?) within range of hostile missiles. Who ordered that potential turkey shoot? On the topic at issue, we have had a pre-emptive doctrine since 2002, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. This issue is overdue but to hang this around Mr. Trump's neck is playing politics with a serious issue.
You are right, and that needs to go, because a doctrine is not a law, it is a policy. And applying that policy to this case is a moral disaster and a crime against humanity. We are not talking limited conventional weapon strike on an airfield as punishment for using chemical weapons on your own population, or destroying the enemy’s defense tunnels (and were those extra-Congressional uses even justified by a need to prevent a strike on our homeland?). We are talking nuclear devastation.
This issue recalls a favorite movie "Crimson Tide" where a Navy nuclear ballistic sub gets a valid order to launch. Then it receives a second message which is garbled. The Captain wants to go ahead and launch; the XO says: "wait, the second message may be a recall." But the Captain persists. Then the crew takes sides; some with the Captain, others with the XO. Thankfully, it is just a hypothetical drama, but it raises serious questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Tide_(film)
Trump is not the only unstable person to become President. Certainly LBJ make huge mistakes regarding Vietnam. So did Nixon who continued the war.Then there is the Mideast quagmire created by George W and continued by Obama.
What do the critics propose to prevent accidental nuclear launch? A committee of politicians & generals would never come to a timely agreement.
All the alternatives are bad. The best that can be said is that the system has worked for many years. In an imperfect world, that is all we can hope for..
J. Bailey, ex Titan II launch officer
1
This is a slow news day type article. First, the president can push the button all he wants. Nothing happens. No birds fly. All the button does is release the weapons to the national Military Command Center. From there, the commanders of NMCC and NORAD have to agree on launch. If they do, all the people in actual control of the weapons (bomber crews and launch control facilities) also have to be given codes to arm the weapons and proceed to assigned targets. If those people do not agree, there is no launch.
We saw this happen during the Cuban Missile Crisis where a Russian submarine crew was given orders to launch nuclear weapons, only it took 3 people on the sub to initiate the launch, and one of them said No.
The exact same thing would happen with a US order to launch. The Human Reliability program of the USAF and Navy weed out trigger happy people and continually monitor the rest. I personally believe that a launch order would be ignored by virtually all, unless there was clear evidence of a strike or incoming strike on the US.
I don't understand how we even got here. Only Congress can declare war (except like now when they default that power to the President.) Pre-emptive nuclear war is clearly a declaration of war.
The only exception should be when we are certain an attack has been launched against us, in which case having mandatory approval by 2-4 people should suffice.
Is the law similar in other countries that have these types of weapons?
1
The only thing more appalling than the fact that the current resident of the White House has this power is the reality that we've been living under such a paranoid and capricious process for so long.
3
Control of a nuclear first strike should be in civilian hands; why not consider as consultants the first three people in the presidential line of succession: the Vice President, Speaker of the House, and President Pro Temp of the Senate?
1
This commenter doesn't get the risk posed by Hillary Clinton:
"But none of the actions Mrs. Clinton supported are anywhere near equivalent to a NUCLEAR attack."
True, when you invade Iraq, or give arms and money to Libyan rebels, or declare a "no fly zone" over Syria, you're not actually ordering a nuclear attack on those who disagree with you -- not right then, at least. But others predictably WILL disagree with you – Russia, for example, when you shoot down its planes over Syria. So you end up either backing down (as I expect HRC would have done if she'd won and imposed a no-fly zone over Syria) or upping the ante.
And "upping the ante" eventually means nukes.
We'd have had two choices if Hillary had won. Either (1) she'd back down (most likely, in my view); or (2) she wouldn't back down, in which case the situation would escalate -- over a jerkwater country that most Americans can't point to on a map -- and she'd soon be faced with a "nukes or no nukes" choice. At that point, of course, she'd explain to us that the dastardly Russians had forced her hand, that it was all their fault, not hers.
That would be a considerable consolation to all of us as we were being vaporized in a mushroom cloud brought to us by Hillary Clinton.
Let's not be so anti-Trump that we ignore reality here. Hillary Clinton backed George W. Bush by voting to invade Iraq. Later, of course, she said she was OPPOSED to the Iraq War, but when her view actually mattered, she voted FOR it.
Sorry, wait, what? At what point have our confrontations jumped to nukes since WW2?
Continued Trump Derangement Syndrome from the left. If Clinton, Bush and Obama had done their job the United States and the world would not be in the mess it is with North Korea. Does the world really want a North Korean nuclear power, does the world want the people in North Korea to continually live in poverty and subjugation? Obama did nothing at all, during his presidency the North Korean government improved their missiles and nuclear weapons. Trump will bring China, Russia, Japan Vietnam and other countries together to place pressure. Hopefully with a good outcome, that will be up to the North Koreans.
Finally there are rudiments of light sparkling in the Senate, even if they are among the Democratic minority. I do not know how the capability of an imbalanced President to launch a nuclear disaster can be replaced by a fast consensual decision of several rational individuals, but it must be done, and done quickly.
"such changes could affect the country’s ability to deter adversaries... they must be carefully considered."
Please, when studied in any depth, not one, not one argument for nuclear weapons stands up. Deterence has been declared obsolete and increasingly dangerous by many "retired"... heads of state, Defense Secretaries, and heads of Strategic Command, Gen. Lee Butler, Gen. Lord Montbatten, Gen Colin Powel, Pope Francis just this past weekend was very astute and inspired, as our greatest leaders of 70 yrs, about this secret world sans democratic process.
Lobbying a year ago Sept. all US Rep's offices in the Armed Service Com. and Appropriations Com., 3 things were clear:
1. No one had an idea of the unfathomable cost to tax payers of this omnicidal industry.
2. No one had really thought about the capacitiy of total destruction of just one detonation, by accident, cyber attack, crazed individual, or by design. We have over 7000 ourselves. There would be no worse set back for Climate, Environment, nor civilization.
3. Not one had any idea of the 150 countries for the past several years working very hard trying to educate us on the Impacts of a very limited exchange.
Most replied, "What about North Korea?!" The reality we don't see: They are following our reasoning, example and playbook to the tee.
The Nobel Cmte and citizens of the world have other urgent priorities. Study and Support the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. "Responsibility."
1
The idea that there is any situation where nuclear weapons can be used is insane. From Trump to Obama to Clinton to McCain to Lindsay "The carnage will happen there not here" Graham to the editors of the Times to Breitbart News to every pundit that appears on television to every person in the street who agrees, there is a level of madness that is hard to grasp. This is true of all weapons of mass destruction (all weapons in fact) but let's start with the nuclear ones for the moment. Mass carnage, nuclear winter. To save the world by destroying it. Yes that is the option that is always "on the table."
1
Senator Chris Murphy speaks the truth about the urgent need to disarm the President. Who in Congress is listening? Who in Congress cares?
1
A complete and total waste of time and energy. There will be no invoking of the 25th, there will be no Mueller Miracle, there will be no impeachment, and there will be no legislation curtailing the Presidents power.
Stop the delusional insanity and start dealing in reality. Find a way to deal with him, to nudge him in your direction, to contain him, and even to manipulate him. Learn from the Chinese. Appeal to his vanity.
Above all, accept the ironclad fact that he is the President. He does have the power---all the power, and you will be dealing with him for at least the next three years. The next seven years if the democrats do not start addressing the real issues facing working Americans.
This effort to curb Trump's ability to launch a nuclear strike is a waste of time. He is more likely to provoke an attack on us, with his unpredictable name-calling, bullying and ignorant statements.
Let's focus on fixing Congress, which is currently run by those who clearly are in it to preserve and enhance the corporate class.
Assuming we are still alive in the next couple of years, Trump will either self-destruct or be stopped by Mueller.
1
A well deserved intervention by legislators. Belligerent declarations, taunts to North Korea, macho statements + reckless name-calling got us to this point.
Clearly reaffirming Mr. Trump doesn't have the temperament for this job:
As a point of fact, at his first U.N. speech, he bellowed he'd ‘totally destroy North Korea’ and called Leader Kim Jong Un ‘Rocket Man.’
The North Korean delegation? Seated at the U.N. as Mr. Trump claimed North Korea's people suffered under Kim's rule, he then said he would destroy them all. Sounding quite unglued.
1
Giving any president the sole power to launch a nuclear strike seems more in keeping with a dictatorship than a democracy. And giving this president that power is downright dangerous. Trump admires dictators and has shown without a shadow of a doubt that he would like to be one too. He attacks the media, the judiciary and the few lawmakers in Congress who are not too cowardly to oppose him. He has shown himself to be unstable, impulsive, thin-skinned and vindictive. He shouldn't be anywhere near our nuclear codes.
2
Are our public servants reading the book by 28 psychologists, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump”?
This negative must produce positive change. This situation is not normal. This situation is not one party against another. This situation is about democracy. This situation is about patriotism. We all need to check our anger and look at this clearly for what is and come together so we can move forward not backwards “again”.
2
This is scary to say the least.
This is the Achilles heel of a democracy - an unloved child with bullying tendencies is elected president.
The Republicans are slow to act and are overlooking their responsibilities. They are risking the nation's future to provide prosperity for the rich where the alternative is Armageddon. We will not survive with such erratic creatures at the top. Somehow, we must defend against the ignorant populace voting for the thing that resembles them instead of the good of the country. With checks and balances, such defense was supposed to be congress. The electoral college was supposed to be the bulwark but that has failed twice.
Courageous people must step up and do the right thing. This is not politics as usual and congress needs to quit thinking it so.
The senate knows, as does 62% of America and the entire world that he shouldn't be president. A minority in our country won the election and that is a failure of the system. Other remedies must be used to neuter the behaviour of this president. Give him his iPhone and let him tweet the hours away but, for sanity's sake, wrest the powers of the president from him.
1
First strike use of nuclear weapons is an extension of the infamous Bush Doctrine. It's pretty easy to understand, unless your last name is Palin. VP Cheney put it succinctly: if someone is pointing a gun at you, shoot him first. (Which makes me think - Did Cheney's hunting buddy accidentally point his shotgun at Cheney?) The doctrine of preemption, as the Bush people called it, depends on one thing - credible intelligence forewarning of imminent danger. As it turned out, the intelligence leading to the invasion of Iraq was wrong and look at the mess made there. Imagine a first (preemptive) strike with nuclear weapons based on faulty intelligence. Do we really want Donald J. Trump making THAT decision?
2
So with many past presidents, we accepted that this power is concentrated in the hands of one citizen. We may or may not agree with that person's politics, policies or philosophy but we trusted their soundness and judgement. Only now with THIS particular citizen do we worry. He is a badly diseased and unfit president. Everyone knows this but many do not care or think they can put up with it to get some petty political win. But the nukes trump everything. Pass a bill on this now.
1
Having just toured the places in Virginia where our democracy began, I was again reminded just how far we have fallen. The men who gave us our start- they were all men, white men - were men of honor who mostly gave all they had to form a nation. This "man" who currently sits in the White House and tweets is a shell of what our founders were. To leave the decision to launch nuclear weapons to this "man" is insanity. Yes, he should be prevented from access to nuclear codes. But he should also be removed from his seat in the White House.
1
Funny how the traditional military powers of the president only deserve change when a Republican is in the White House.
I usually have a lot to say - but the reality that Donald Trump has the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons leaves me speechless...
2
You are unleashing a most important, and timely, discussion about the danger, and horror, of an unstable and unscrupulous president, our current vulgar bully in chief's case, in pushing the nuclear button for no good reason, and without considering the consequences. A 'preventive strike' may trigger not necessarily a response by the very nation taunting us...but allied regimes feeling threatened by a superpower that may have them in it's sight as well. Some of us do consider a dereliction of duty the fact that congress is unwilling, reluctant, to assume co-responsibility to find ways to best defend it's land and people....short of nuclear armageddon. Or are we too busy in banalities to assume control of our own destiny, based on democratic values, justice, freedom, and peace in society? Have we given up in our solidarity with other countries by way of diplomacy (deeply degraded right now by an irresponsible and selfish ignoramus)? These are important questions, worth discussing...so that we are prepared if the implausible happens, of which we may be closer than we think.
The US Senate is the problem....not the President.
The US Senate is fighting hard, willing to sabotage any effort to drag the US screaming and kicking into the 21st Century.
Currently we have no idea who is actually pressing the buttons when TWITUS goes off on a twitter trumper tantrum. The rants are unhinged, petty, and unaccountable (and more and more: surreptitiously withdrawn - how does that square with maintaining all government communications?)
How do we know which minion actually has the password - or the codes and would be the one to press "the button."
The US Constitution does not allow for an emperorer. And it vests the power to declare war (yes, calling for a nuclear strike is a declaration of war) to Congress.
NO president - far less a petty tyrant fake president - should have this power.
'' War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. ''
Certainly, if there are nuclear weapons hurtling towards anywhere in the sky, then defensive mechanisms are vested to be initiated by the Commander in Chief, however to initiate a first strike without a declaration of war by Congress is an act of treason.
Make that clear to this President and all future of Presidents.
1
There is a wonderful Carl Sandburg quote that has application here: "What if somebody threw a war and nobody came?"
You wouldn't let a 3 year old manage the barbecue would you? Why would you let the equivalent of a 15 year-old self obsessed teenager manage the countries nuclear weapons? This is a serious case that can have real world implications if the North Korean leader decides to say something Trump doesn't like, there is no doubt in my mind an ego-maniac such as, Trump would fire one away with no thought. It is a very sound and needed idea to suggest that a declaration of war would be needed to fire a first strike. Something must be done, and soon if we'd like to avoid Nuclear War.
25
"It is a very sound and needed idea to suggest that a declaration of war would be needed to fire a first strike."
A first strike must be done quickly, so waiting for Congress to act is waiting for disaster.
Anyway, the War Powers Resolution already gives the President the power to act in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's a fact the Times fails to note.
50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
To those who continually respond to such issues by offering up Hillary Clinton as rationalization for what Trump may do, I ask this. If Trump releases nuclear weapons or even starts a conventional war and thousands of people are killed, are you still going to say "Hillary Clinton would have done worse things" ? You need to stop looking back at your perceived demon and start dealing with the demon sitting before you. She is not president. She doesn't hold the nuclear codes. She doesn't have any authority to do anything. But you still act like she does. Stop dealing with the country's problems with a "What if?" mentality. What you see before you is what you get. And if disaster results from his decisions and actions, it's all on him. And you.
24
"To those who continually respond to such issues by offering up Hillary Clinton as rationalization for what Trump may do, ..."
The editorial doesn't even mention Clinton, so you appear to be creating a straw man, unless you identify and quote "those" you seem to be addressing.
More to the point, do you have anything definite to say about the editorial itself?
Truman was faced with a fait accompli by the military in the dropping of the atomic bomb and he never expressly approved its deployment before it was dropped. The real danger of nuclear war lies in the command structure of the Pentagon which to this day, in weird consistency with the regime set out in Dr. Strangelove, and as emphasized with the recent revival of Operation Chrome Dome by the USAF to meet the so-called North Korea threat, it takes only an order from a Gen. John Hyten, head of US Strategic Command, or Gen. Lori Robinson, head of US Northern Command, to unleash a thermonuclear war upon the world. The Pentagon's penchant for treason, e.g. the September 17 2016 airstrikes on Syrian Army units which destroyed a US/Russian truce, is well-documented.
3
"Truman was faced with a fait accompli by the military in the dropping of the atomic bomb and he never expressly approved its deployment before it was dropped."
That's irrelevant to the present legal authority of the President, because "The president’s sole control of nuclear launches stems from the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 ...", which was passed *after* the end of WWII.
Further, the War Powers Resolution, which was enacted in 1973, gives the President the power to act in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's a fact the Times fails to note.
50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
1
In his extraordinary memoir on the Cuban missile crisis of 1962--Thirteen Days— Robert F. Kennedy described the considerable disparity in recommendations to the president about the use of military power, including nuclear weapons. What was so critical about that decision making process was the presence of some highly deliberative people, some having been especially seasoned by combat, and not least of all the president. Thankfully cooler minds prevailed. Trump's military experience, if it could be called that, is limited to some form of training in an academy. As for whether there's much deliberation in any of his decisions there is little evidence. If we can surmise anything from his incessant tweeting we know of his inclination to the impulsive and thoughtless. Something had better be done before it is too late. He can push the button and there is really nothing much that could be done presently to stop him.
1
This article only describes the overt method of launching a first strike. However, a covert method may exist as a cyber weapon. That is, the ability to break into an adversary's system to launch their weapons against a third country. This would have a political advantage in the aftermath of the conflict, by making it appear that someone else had been the first to launch.
This, of course, is one of the paradoxes of the Nuclear age. That is, what moral obligation do we have to protect the Nuclear capability of another country, to prevent an accident or a preemptive first strike by a third country? In the age of mutually assured destruction, protecting one's adversary also means protecting one's self.
These sorts of cyber capabilities don't necessarily have to directly access a launch capability, either. For example, could a submarine crew be 'tricked' into into turning (or not turning) their missile launch key?
1
No one person, be it Donald Trump or my beloved President Obama, should have the power to unleash a preemptive, first-strike nuclear attack - Armageddon.
I can see the efficacy of allowing a critical decision about a retaliatory or defensive missile launch to be streamlined this way, but there is no argument for the same system to be in place if the decision to launch is ours alone, absent an equal and imminent threat to our existence; a launch made as a policy decision.
When there is time, time should be taken in such a momentous decision, and when there are many minds with information and expertise - and alternatives to offer - they should be a mandatory part of that decision.
Being a nuclear power comes with great responsibility - the lack of which is the very reason we cite to deny other countries from entering the "club".
Allowing one man or woman, no matter their political qualifications, to
preempt that responsibility for the people of the United States - and the world- is simply not wise.
2
But there's a bright side, albeit long term: Over 60 million years ago a large object struck the earth from space and wiped out the dinosaurs and nearly all other life. This made room for mammals to evolve, eventually arising to us.
Well, we haven't done a very good job maintaining our home; we could even be considered the worst species on it as far as stewardship. Now Trump said during the campaign that only he can solve our problems. And he can do it by nuking everything so that we become extinct.
Several million years later another species similar to us will likely arise. They will also have intelligence and hopefully, unlike us, compassion and wisdom. Cheers everyone!
1
I'm not as concerned about the fact that this power rests with a single person. After all, the president usually arrives in office with the blessing of the American people, and the expectation is that he will act for the good of the American people. In that sense, it's not strange to give him launch authority any more than it's strange to give him the power to negotiate treaties on our behalf. At some point, someone has to sign on the dotted line, and the prospect of asking a committee to add their signature is almost surely a recipe for disorder and inaction (just look at Congress). What we should do, instead, is look for ways to better ensure that the person holding the authority is fit to do so. We could mandate a psychological exam for presidential candidates, or pass a law requiring them to disclose financial info, to ensure they're not entangled in a way that could lead to armed conflict. We could require candidates to have a degree in international relations or at least training in nuclear weapons specifically. There are a number of ways we could safeguard against nuclear war by ensuring the winner of the election is fit for command. There are very few jobs in the marketplace that don't have minimum requirements in terms of experience or education, and it's odd to me that the presidency of the United States doesn't have such requirements.
3
The government was elected to represent the people. I'm pretty sure the
people don't want to wade through a long, drawn out argument before their representatives decide whether or not Donald Trump should be able to launch the atom bomb if he feels like it. What is there to argue about here?
1
A presidential veto can be overridden to maintain the balance of power. One would think the Founding Fathers or representatives who followed would have foreseen the possibility of a rogue president resorting to extremes and provided a way to do the same.
No service member has any legal obligation to obey an unlawful order and following orders is not a good defense in any courtroom. I am no longer in the Military, but I would consider any order for a first strike an unlawful one. I doubt I am alone in that assessment.
3
This issue is as important as the tax bill and health care, if not more so. This editorial is so important, and it really should generate more comments than it has so far. I’ve got lots of health problems, take quite a few meds and used to care a lot about articles in the NYT about blood pressure, exercise, and so forth. There are a lot of recent ones, in fact, but I’m done with them. Even my hypochondria is waning. Why? Because for the first time in my 61 years, I’m truly afraid of a nuclear conflagration caused by Mango Unchained. My own government is a mortal threat.
2
Natasha Fatale,
And Kim is just an all around nice guy who woke up one morning
and found he had nuclear tipped missiles ?
The best, and least expensive option, would be that we had no nuclear weapons to launch. Then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
Very glad to know that this matter is being made the subject of serious debate. But I have to wonder at the same time whether new legal restrictions would matter to this 'president' in any event. I suppose that a new system would make it easier for those receiving the order to determine its illegality and thus to recognize their obligation to disregard it -- but isn't a nuclear first strike already illegal under international law? For rules to matter, we need a president who is willing to play by them.
1
Any pre-emptive nuclear strike by the President would be considered an act of war by anyone else. The President does not have the power to declare war. Only the Congress can do that. So, the queston is moot - unless the strike is in retaliation for a strike already launched against the US.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump appeared to stumble during a December 2015 presidential debate when asked which leg of the nuclear triad was most important.
Trump didn't answer, instead saying, "I think we need someone we can trust who is total responsibility who knows what he or she is doing that is so powerful and so important."
"But we have to be extremely vigilant and careful when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear changes the whole ballgame," he said.
The biggest problem is nuclear proliferation and "having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon," he said.
When co-moderator Hugh Hewitt gave Trump a second chance, Trump replied, "I think for me nuclear – the power, the devastation is very important to me."
Hewitt then turned to Sen. Marco Rubio, who decided to explain what the nuclear triad is.
Hopefully Trump has brushed up on his knowledge of nuclear proliferation since that debate. Frightening.
2
Face it. 60 million Americans voted for an idiot. Which makes them exactly the same
2
This is a serious question raising both constitutional and political issues.
Would the US constitution allow Congress to limit presidential power to launch a nuclear weapon - first strike or not? Should it?
I wish the editorial board would address these issues without resorting to anti-Trump invectives.
As for Trump, the only thing he has said is that he would not promise never to use them - a prudent public position consistent with what every other US president has said since the 1940s.
1
It all comes down to trust and yes, Mr. Trump was elected president with those awesome powers but he has not earned the trust of 63 percent of the American people based on his performance, temperament and questionable intelligence since being elected.
If launching a preemptive strike, then under Article 1, section 35 of the Constitution it is Congress's job to declare war as any preemptive strike would be an act of war. So the President should not be able to launch a preemptive strike, however in defense of our country the President should have the sole authority as C&C to order the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation against any enemy that has attacked any part of the U.S.A.
Can't wait to see how this plays out.
The statement, “The Republican-led Congress, which has shown few signs of pushing back against presidential powers, may end up taking no action” needs to be amended: “against Republican presidential powers.” The Republicans, especially Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Leaders John Boehner & Paul Ryan did everything to undermine Democratic presidential powers – suing, shutting down Government, threatening to blow up the nation’s credit. They impeached a Democratic President over a consensual affair, but ignore blatant impeachable offenses for high crimes and misdemeanors and threats to national security by a Republican whose “election” was accomplished by fraud and theft. Everything about Trump has been unprecedented and he has demonstrated over and over again he is unfit for office, let alone having the nuclear codes. Congress must act.
Thank you Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts (my Senator!)
Here's a link to the text of the actual bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3400/text
Nothing could be more important.
And thank you my Massachusetts for being so beautiful, & sane.
1
Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a restoration of the responsibility and power of the US Congress, especially in military matters. For too long our legislators have been happy to allow the President to make all decisions regarding the exercise of U.S. military might. For example, look at the current prevalence of drone strikes. Presidents Bush and Obama decided that the president could decree who the enemy combatants are in our current "war on terror" and order drone strikes to kill them. Anwar al-Awlaki was the first US citizen to be intentionally executed by drone on presidential order. There was no trial, on official charges, just the president declaring him an enemy combatant and then acting as judge, jury and executioner. Al-Awlaki was, by all evidence, an evil man and may have deserved what he received. However, a precedent was set. Our current president now has that same power. I was horrified when a Constitutional scholar like President Obama took that step. Now I'm terrified since President Trump (and any future President) has the power to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant and order his/her execution without trial. It is long past time for the US Congress to take back the Constitutional authority that has been willingly relinquished to the Executive Branch over the past seventy plus years.
15
Great that congress is beginning to address some of the deeper questions posed by the combination of an unstable president and nuclear weapons, but the real underlying issue is a system of international security based upon mutual assured destruction.
122 nations just signed an agreement at the U.N. outlawing nuclear weapons. The U.S. boycotted the whole process instead of leading it as it could have, in the process helping North Korea to feel less threatened.
Everyone loves how well deterrence works to prevent WW3—until deterrence breaks down, as it inevitably will, especially as more and more nations deploy nukes even in the face of the possibility of nuclear winter.
There is no way out of our planetary dilemma but a gradual, reciprocal, verifiable standing down all the weapons of the nine nuclear powers. It might take a generation, so we should get started as soon as possible. If the nations of the world continue to drift downriver instead of paddling together toward shore, we will soon hear the roar of the waterfall ahead.
Re: Corker's comment. We really don't have the leisure to see about it in a few months. It's like saying that I will fix the short circuit in my house's wiring when I get around to it.
Corker, Collins, McCain, Flake, etc., may be better than Trump and McConnell but, really, we are so desperate we are grasping at straws and leaning on frail reeds, hoping that these people who have only morally failed 98% instead of 100% or 900% are going to save us. It's a delusion. They will not.
1
Well, one foreign enemy government that will always be secure from a spur of the bellicose moment Trump nuclear attack would be Russia. Putin can sleep soundly at night.
I agree with the proposed Markey/Lieu legislation and think that all three, the VP and the secretaries of state and defense must concur with such a decision. Yes, America has no real worries about 'hawkish generals' with trigger happy impulses, just their president.
How reassuring, Trump is a recognized threat to our national security yet he remains in office thanks to a ruling GOP more worried about wealth than annihilation. Maybe I will move to Russia to get a restful night's sleep.
Honestly, the GOP doesn't care about hindering Trump's access to nukes, unstable as he appears to be, as long as he endorses their tax cuts and repeal of the ACA.
This is an opportunity for the Democrats to reach across the aisle to Republicans and put all differences aside... Congress needs to talk quietly and honestly to each other about what's at stake here.
1
America and its Congress had better wake up. When anybody mentions nuclear war, folks, we are not talking about WW2 large land battles which go on for months and one side"wins". Nuclear war is much different, mostly because many different countries now have nukes and interlocking security/defense agreements: one gets attacked and all retaliate. Such a war would be over in a few hours. There would be many more casualties than survivors. The structures of the world as we visualize them would disappear amid smoke and flames. Radiation clouds would form and be carried around the world by the winds. In not too long a time, there would be no living things left, unless they happened to be way underground when the exchange started, and they would live only as long as their supplies lasted. Simply put, it would be the end of mankind.....most quickly and then drawn out by radiation. Not a pretty scenario. Congress and world leaders better get their heads on straight. I am glad to be very old right now..........
1
How can a President start a war when the power to declare war is in the Congress alone? A law contradicting Art. 1 Sec. 8, would be invalid as unconstitutional.
1
The authority to launch nuclear weapons should have a process and protocol. It should not be unilateral. Luckily up to now we’ve had relatively stable, intelligent people in office — but with Dr. Strangelove, we can’t assume that rationality, let alone common sense, will prevail in the heat of a crisis.
That the Senate is considering this now just goes to show that there are enough people who think that Trump has no understanding of — and can’t be trusted with — the heaviest and gravest responsibility a president has: making the decision that will literally spell the end of the world.
Reason No, 1,000,000,000 why the man is unfit for office. Let us all hope the worst-case scenario does not happen on his watch.
It was ridiculous to begin with to empower a single individual with the power to initiate a nuclear first strike.
There is no circumstance under which a nuclear weapon should be used. Certainly, a first strike would be the catalyst to end civilization as we know it. It is folly to think that attacking another country's nuclear weapons would be enough to save America. It would not be. All it would do is to unleash a chain of events, from radioactive fallout to other nuclear powers launching their own weapons against their enemies (think India and Pakistan), that would render the planet uninhabitable. And launching nuclear weapons as a response to being attacked with nuclear weapons would do nothing to preserve the homeland. It would just compound the horrific damage to the planet coming from that first strike, and would extinguish humanity forever.
In short, nuclear weapons and the MADD strategy are not workable. Every last nuclear weapon on earth should be dismantled.
The risk associated with nuclear weapons is compounded catastrophically by having an person in power who is as unstable and frankly insane as Donald Trump. It is not enough for Congress to create more "rules" or "procedures" to make sure Congress is part of the decision to use nuclear weapons so that Trump can't do so impulsively by himself. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will NOT be used is to remove the immediate threat to use them, which is Trump himself. He must be removed from office if humanity is to survive. We are all in this existential crisis together, and it is very real.
2
Glad to see the word 'existential' being used properly for once. And, of course, you're right about the cure.
Nixon was the first unstable president to drive this same concern. Donald Trump is the second, and probably not the last. Should we not re-consider routine psychological/psychiatric evaluations both to qualify to be a presidential candidate and while in office as well? The nuclear option is not the only way a deranged president can inflict untold harm.
This is problematic at every turn, and shouldn't be the issue it is. And the real issue is this president, who is clearly not qualified and not mentally balanced. Beyond that, this president has broken with every rule, and has brought ruin to the white house. His political party is complicit and is now attempting to make work-round legislation to "fix" the problem. The problem is the president and his party. We all know what needs to be done, and it isn't the easy course.
1
The only thing more dangerous than Trump's finger on the button is these hare-brained proposals for nuclear war by committee. They assume that Trump politicians will be wiser than Trump alone. They assume that the circumstances preceding a nuclear launch can be accurately predicted in advance. They assume a level of secrecy that does not exist in Washington. What if Trump calls Pence to propose a preemptive strike on Pyongyang and the call is intercepted? What if Trump has a discussion with an advisor and the room is bugged? What would Trump's Twitter feed look like if he proposed a nuclear strike and was refused by the vice president, generals, or Congressional leaders? In any of these situations, the US would still find itself in a nuclear war, but striking second instead of first.
It's goid to review, but more importantly, we should begin impeachment proceedings to prevent trump from doing anything against the interests of the US and our Constitution.
It should't be one person, or even five people, to decide to launch a unilateral attack - we're not talking about defence here. And it shouldn't be one party in Congress either. In fact, there is no justification at all for the USA, or any other country, to have a policy of pre-emptive nuclear attack. (Especially if the president seems to nurse something like the the Anton Chekhov theory of weaponry: if it appears in Act 1, it must go off in Act III.)
That's an usurpation of the president's duties and rights as commander in chief. You want to try to change it, you can pass legislation and get the president to sign it. Trump isn't going to sign it and even if you override, it probably is unconstitutional - it has long been held that the president has the primary duty to protect the country from attack which is inherent in his role and it might include a first strike when necessary - what are you going to do - subpoena the SECDEF and hold a hearing if we have 15 minutes to act?
I realize that the proposed legislation comes from the minority party, but, really, you two reprehensible parties - you gave us the two worst pairing of candidates in our history and now you are concerned the winner is reckless? If either one of you had nominated a Kasich or a Webb or some other normal human who isn't already ruined by partisanship and politics, you wouldn't have to worry. But, the solution isn't to question his authority. We already have rules in place - and you've turned a blind eye when they were violated. Try using those first.
I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but I don't want to see 200+ years of a democratic republic and rule of law go the way of the dodo because our parties are so irresponsible. And frankly, I like that he speaks the truth to Noko. What did appeasement do for Obama, Bush and Clinton?
6
You call it "appeasement", a better term is "keeping civilization from ending".
I and many others on this planet, could care less about your 200 years of a democratic republic going the way of the dodo if it means your dodo is responsible for us going the same way.
Placing additional restraints on launching nuclear strikes does not undermine "..200+ years of a democratic republic and rule of law...". They are talking about PREEMPTIVE strikes, where there is no "15 minutes to act". Retaliatory strikes would be unaffected.
As a student one of the things I learned, and admired, about America was its system of checks and balances that were intended to produce an even application of power. Putting the ability to launch nuclear strikes in the hands of one person runs counter to this otherwise admirable system and is something that should be corrected as soon as possible. The faith of a lot of people in the United States has been diminished over the past year. Taking the nuclear trigger out of Trump’s hands would be a good start to restoring that faith.
1
It seems simple to me. For a preemptive strike, a larger committee that involves top military and top executive people. For a reactionary response strike, a smaller committee for a rapid decision. In either case the President can agree with the committee's decision but cannot override it.
4
Unilateral presidential power to launch a nuclear strike in order to deter adversaries is not a convincing justification for placing such deadly power in a single person's hands. Such godlike power over life and death is not only supremely dangerous but it is totalitarian and even immoral. Of way more concern and danger than a possible failure to deter is the enormous threat presented by an unstable president--or proxy--with such powers of destruction at the tip of his hand, as our current situation suggests.. I still think there must be a secret back door, that the system cannot be so vulnerable to failure by relying on one single decision to launch. It is so surreal and irresponsible that it is hard to believe. Kennedy, a "normal" president, much more mature and stable than the current child commander in chief, gambled and took us too close to the abysm during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Some scholars and politicians have argued that it was perhaps a needless close call given US's vastly superior nuclear arsenal then (and now) and its own rockets directed at the URSS from Turkey and Italy. No person in the world should have such vast powers to put humanity at risk. Let's not play with fire. I think the pusillanimous stance of Congress may be due to the belief that the military can refuse the order. The system must be more rational than what it seems. I won't sleep tonight.
89
tdb,
Not a single word about Kim, who by the way, is the one who
began the threats of Nuclear War.
Perhaps you should stay up late at night reading up on Kim.
John F. Kennedy plus Nikita S. Khruschev saved us from Armageddon.
Trump is the most ignorant, immature, incompetent, inexperienced, intemperate and insecure American President in history.
3
@Cassandra
You don't know your history nor facts.
You sound like Dick Cheney. Dick and W missed 9/11/01.
W declared North Korea, Iran and Iraq part of an axis of evil followed by the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. America has troops and military bases in South Korea and Japan in the waters nearby.
Mr. Kim reasonably and rationally wants to remain in power. None of the Trump boys have ever brave, honorable and patriotic enough to wear the military uniform of any American armed force.
1
A couple of points/questions:
a) Can the US of A actually launch/deliver thousands of warhead
at a moments notice. I think the number of missiles that can be launched
and the number of warheads might be far less than the Editorial Board
supposes.
b) It might be impossible to find the members of the group who,
all together, have to agree to launch missiles before an enemy completes
their preparations to attack us with Nuclear Weapons.
c) Trump is not Kim.
So far he has not had any of his Uncles machined gun to pieces.
Does not execute on a whim.
If you really think Trump is as bad/dangerous as Kim you should
be calling for his immediate impeachment - day and night on your Front Page and have nothing else on your Front Page until Trump is no longer President,
3
The US military has missile installations on scores of bases across the country. It can, indeed, launch thousands of warheads at a moment's notice. Remember, too, that today's nuclear arsenal makes the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs look like firecrackers by comparison. An unstable President -- like one we accidentally elected -- really is capable of wiping out entire civilizations and creating a worldwide dystopian nightmare. Imagine how that prospect -- "fire and fury like the world has never seen" -- thrills the mind of a petulant five-year-old in an old man's body.
Trump is of similar ilk as Kim i.e. a sociopathic narcissist
He would most cerainly engage in all the activities you describe if he could
Fortunately for us, we have the NYT and the bulk if Americans to restrain him
Point a is completely worthless, a few hundred will do the trick. That’s one Trident submarine. And yes trump is a menace and should be impeached post haste.
"Mr. Corker says he does not see a legislative solution at the moment, though “over the course of the next several months one might develop.”"
Over the course of the next several month, with Trump in charge, we may all be dead.
17
We could be destroyed, if we relied on some other chain of command. We have hard evidence our lawmakers are dysfunctional. No matter what side of the isle your on nothing got accomplished with 8 years of a President who was popular except by mostly executive orders. Now an un-popular President is in office and we continue to get nothing done. Not a very secure feeling if China tells NK to launch those American cities or such as Guam they could reach.
2
I think that while they’re considering legislation towards this, they might want to consider passing legislation that mandates all presidential candidates to pass a thorough and exhaustive mental health exam as well!
33
Elena Maria
I wholeheartedly agree. Who cares about Trump's high cholesterol levels when his psychiatric diagnosis is so grim with such dire consequences to the world.
1
Trump's entire life has been about sowing disruption. If impeached he'll go nuclear (literally). This (GOP) Congress will not put up any roadblocks.
12
Past presidents and presidential candidates have been men of honor. They've taken the office of the presidency very seriously and all have understood the immense responsiblity that comes with being a nuclear power. No one wants another Hiroshima.
Trump is the first president who has forced us to question our absolute faith in the president especially if we're under attack. Frankly that's a good thing. We've been a little too casual with our military engagements abroad especially since 9/11. His erratic behavior is forcing Congress to remember their responsibility in protecting our country.
The founders wanted Congress to be responsible for declaring war because war is a serious matter and something we should be united behind. I like the idea of requiring the president, vice president, and secretaries of defense and state to all be required to agree to a nuclear launch. Doing so will not only act as a check on presidential power but will allow rigorous debate before proceeding.
64
America has not declared and paid for a war by a Presidential request and a Congressional declaration since FDR for World War II. Beginning with Vietnam through today there has been cowardly, dishonorable and unpatriotic duplicity and deception. Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to wear the -military uniform of any American armed force. No Trump ever was nor will ever be among them.
2
Ami,
It is 9:35, satellite images show North Korea is preparing to launch 15 missiles.
How much time does the US have to decide to respond.
The VP is off hiking, the Secretary of State is sleeping in Paris,
the Defence Secretary is flying to Guam...
now what do you do ?
1
Obama was a president who forced me to question his loyalties.
A fantastic photo caption. Simple, elegant, creative genius.
4
The problem here is not in the power of the Presidency itself. It is in the person of the President...and just the fact that Congress is having this discussion is an admission that our current President is not fully equipped and fit to hold the office, for at the very least he is not inspiring confidence in his people and, at the very worst, he's clinically not well. The fact that Congress is not acting to remove him is just as dangerous as the man himself; either way, the entire world is at risk for the destruction of our species. Is that really worth risking, so that we get a few political wins under our belt before the next election cycle? If it is, perhaps our species doesn't deserve to continue.
16
Indeed. He is clinically not well. Objective fact. Congress could pass a resolution demanding that Trump undergo psychological screening. This would provide a formal basis for removal of nuclear authority as well as removal under 25th amendment provisions. It is their duty. McCain would be a perfect guy to champion this effort.
2
Trump’s Impaired Judgment + Impulsivity + High Need for Control + High Tendency to Perceive Slights + Exclusive Ability to “Press the Red Button”= Extremely High Risk for Nuclear War.
14
When the constitution of your people was written, limitations to the power of The Presidency were not just built in, they were considered essential, they were terrified of a king. This should be welcomed.
8
It is embarrassingly obvious. Thank you.
I believe our President should have full authority to launch our nuclear arsenal. I don’t believe this particular president should have that power, but he won the election. This should have been taken into consideration back when Trump announced he was running. Long before the election anyone paying attention could see he was a loose cannon, in no way capable of responsibly managing our foreign policy. He has no business having a finger on the nuclear trigger. All of us must suffer because of this Republican abomination.
10
I think we should operate under the assumption that Trump will launch a preemptive strike. The man is crazy enough to do it- and it's what the evangelical Christians always wanted anyway... an excuse to think the apocalypse has finally arrived.
14
From a governance perspective, one individual with authority to use first-strike offensive nuclear weapons is, regardless of the person with the authority, may be the worst decision ever. This is not an opinion on any President - past or present.
7
Do Nothing Congress is more concerned about their personal stock portfolios and their donors than the well being of the nation. Trump might press the button, but God forbid that the ACA remains in place and they have to pay taxes!
9
Senator Corker "sees no legislative solution at the moment, but 'one might develop over the course of the next several months.'"
That the problem even exists means we may not have several months, and therefore the only available, and immediate, legislative solution is impeachment.
7
In this age of such powerful weapons and the potential destruction of lives, I am happy someone is talking about the irrational law that allows one person to make a decision to launch a missile without some collaboration with other knowledgeable authorities. I think of the millions of innocent people and magnificent landscape and clean air being destroyed at the whim of someone's need for power it is frightening.
10
I am very much in favor of removing Trump as the decision maker for the reasons stated here. But I am very much against the requirement of a declaration of war by Congress. There has been extensive study regarding when the use of nuclear weapons is and is not appropriate. A peacenik who calls for no nukes can put us in danger of being struck unnecessarily. When all intelligence indicates that an attack is imminent, the experts on nuclear strategy call for a preemptive strike. Imminent means several minutes. And at that point, the choice is us or them. There is no time for Congressional deliberations if this happens. So a single decision maker is needed unless you believe we all should die at the hands of the Russians. (I assume those who disliked their election tampering would really dislike their blowing us off the face of the earth.)
Trump's volatility is good reason to open this question, but the simple fact is that we have gotten lucky for 70 years. At any point in that time, due to mistake or deep personal flaws, a President could have started a nuclear war without effective checks on that authority. There is no one person who should wield that kind of awful power, ever.
12
That Mr. Corker, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, does not see a legislative solution to this most pressing issue, does not bode well -- in any sense.
Yes, Trump is impulsive; yes, Trump's decision making, which Senator Corker has publicly called into question, is quixotic, etc. The simple fact of the matter is this: the danger inherent in failing to resolve this issue through legislative means, as was done with the recent Russian sanctions bill, leaves unchecked the continued rise of what Arthur Schlesinger rightly called the "Imperial Presidency."
Trump will not be our last despot wannabe; Congress must be willing to act to reign in the expansion of any president's unwarranted belief in the power and expansiveness of his office by reducing the power of the presidency to that of a co-equal branch of government.
Then, and only then, can the American people, as well as the remainder of the world rest assured that an unstable mind, such as the one Donald Trump demonstrates daily, will not -- cannot -- lead the world to nuclear conflagration out of pique.
8
This would be a good time to reread the October 28, 1999 Times Oped by Paul Nitze, the Cold Warrior par excellence and tough strategic nuclear agreement negotiator. He concluded that he saw "no compelling reason why we should not unilaterally get rid of our nuclear weapons. To maintain them is costly and adds nothing to our security." He went on to say he could "think of no circumstances under which it would be wise for the United States to use nuclear weapons, even in retaliation for their prior use against us." If Paul Nitze, a pillar of the defense establishment, could think such thoughts, then those with lesser connections should not be afraid to do so. We don't have to think in terms of unilaterally renouncing the weapons, but we need to make it a serious goal. It is the only way out of innumerable nuclear predicaments, including the obvious one we find ourselves in now.
8
We should think about how to downsize our nuclear weapons program before it bankrupts us, morally and fiscally. That's a lot of fat contractors but also honest-to-goodness workers and thousands of scientists. Congress won't ever vote for disarmament so long as the river of federal money continues flowing to states. It's up to us and our representatives in Congress--especially from the states most invested in the program.
1
This war is coming, there's little doubt about that. Why curtail our ability to launch a preemptive attack now?
He may be bombastic and crude but trump is not suicidal.
1
Unless he launches first........THAT is suicidal.
Some of us are as worried about the rest of the world as we are ourselves. Are you ok with millions of Koreans, from the north and the south, dying because the president feels slighted? He may not be suicidal but he is bat shush crazy.
On the service, this really does appear to be a fairly simple decision to make. In other words, lets say out of nowhere our country is attacked, like Pearl Harbor. Who would object if the president retaliated immediately? But we’re no longer living in that age. Unless it was a suitcase nuclear weapon, we’d have time to at least think about what was going to happen. Nuclear weapons could in fact destroy most of humankind if enough of them were launched. This is a weapon that must be guarded by consensus, not one very unstable person.
Assigning people from the same party or affiliation isn’t the answer either. Just look how Trump’s appointees like lap dog Pense and others do and say anything he ask them to. Having the full Congress make that decision probably isn’t the answer either, but one suggestion might be by committee that is non-political and astute in government affairs. The converse and best solution is to elect a rationale and real President the next time.
4
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I actually agree with Bob Corker for once. These are hard questions. You can't really legislate nuclear authority around the current President. We're talking about altering a law that has stood the test of time since the dawn of the nuclear era. Trump is a blip on the radar by comparison. He's a dangerous blip but a relatively inconsequential blip in the broad scheme of things. You can tell him I said that.
I'd offer an alternative solution. Why doesn't Bob Corker and the Republican Congress enact measures to prevent electing a man like Donald Trump as Executive? We wouldn't have to worry about the Atomic Energy Act if erratic blowhards were preempted from obtaining nuclear authority in the first place. Theoretically speaking, the founders created an electoral college for exactly this purpose. Just a thought.
1
"...especially now that the American people have been alerted to the scope and potential peril of Mr. Trump’s powers."
Oh, please. Does Mr. Trump enjoy 'powers' that previous presidents in the nuclear age did not have? No. Shame on the American people, overwhelmingly Democrats, who are only now aware of the potential 'peril' of presidential power. If the worry is over Kim and North Korea perhaps a more worthwhile focus for Senate Dems would be how NK has gone from "zero to 20 nuclear weapons, plus the missles to deliver them, over the past 30 years". While at it they might also want to look at the Iranian nuclear program over the past, say, eight years.
Bottom line: when you kick the rogue nuclear nation can down the road you shouldn't hamstring the administration that has to eventually deal with what your fecklessness has wrought
2
Long overdue. The whole idea of a single person going around with "the football" in case the button needs to be pressed is just absurd and terrifying.
6
The piece notes, "The president’s sole control of nuclear launches stems from the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, passed when there was more concern about hawkish generals than elected civilian leaders." This, in turn, was simply the extension of Henry Truman's order issued August 10, 1945, in which he said that no more atomic bombs could be used without the President's explicit permission.
The idea that Truman decided to use the bombs was a myth that Truman, Henry Stimson, his Secretary of War, and James Conant, President of Harvard and former administrator of the Manhattan Project all helped to concoct and perpetuate. This is old news. But this is a good moment to note that the first two uses of nuclear weapons in war were made under military and not presidential orders. We need a balance.
Or better yet, we need to get rid of them.
3
Study the man, his background,. education, the last 50 years of his
business experience, his marriages, his bankruptcies, and you
have an unsettling picture of Trump. The fact is the three generals
in his cabinet McMaster, Mattis, and Kelly have been
silenced by Trump and have little or no influence on his public
statements regarding N.Korean nuclear strategy, Trump continues the
Roy Cohn strategy of attacking any critics and never admitting a
mistake. The GOP leadership has to find some way to tone
down the Trump nuclear rants. The Mueller report might
contain some answers.
5
I don't think he will like this at all, once he hears about this proposal. It would have formost a negative impact on his membership levels or fees at Mar-a-Lago, as prized photo op's or selfies with the nuclear football won't be availabe anymore to anybody roaming the grounds. Sad!
3
Perhaps a first step could be making the president meet the requirements of the Personnel Reliability Program, which ensures that those involved with nuclear weapons in any capacity are regularly evaluated and found to be reliable, sane, and balanced. Currently, the president is exempt from such evaluation.
https://broadviews.org/2017/10/20/how-to-keep-the-nuclear-reins-from-the...
5
The president should not be given totally free reign on the use of nuclear weapons except in the case of responding to a nuclear attack upon the USA. It is incumbent on our Congress to remedy this condition as quickly as possible. I would also like to point out that for all the commentary against North Korea, deterrence between the USA and Russia has worked for many years. There is no clear reason that this would not also apply to North Korea. The loose talk of a preemptive nuclear strike against Kim Jong Un and his minions is mistaken and should be ignored. The one time nuclear weapons were used against Japan, the USA had thousands of troops poised for an invasion of their homeland. The cost to both sides would have been measured in millions of killed and wounded. There was also no possibility of a nuclear response from Japan. The right-wing extremists in and out of our current government are given to much twisting of the truth to justify their goals. We cannot let that be applied to our nuclear capability.
55
Meanwhile,
North Korea adds more missiles to its nuclear arsenal and the threat
become greater and deadlier.
All your reasoning will not stop Kim and if the missiles are launched
are you talk of detente with North Korea will be nothing more than the
radiation floating through our now atomised world.
What's "worked for many years" is no guarantee of the future. That Russia/US deterrence was based on an assumed global world order and a knowledge of all the players and their motives. We have seen in the last 30-40 years disruption after disruption on a global scale: steamrolling past assumptions about everything from information flow, technological limits, societal acceptance of common truths, common belief systems, common morality, trust in 'real news', rising powers, the ultimate infallibility of democracy (how could someone like Trump even be considered for office ?) , and so on. We assume deterrence will work because it "seems" reasonable right now. But data from the course of centuries of history shows wars, wars, and more wars, being fought on a never increasing scale with ever increasing destructive capacity. Our current nuclear age is only 70 years old.
So many people are worried that it is crazy for Trump (or any one person) to have the power to launch a nuclear war. I share this concern, but the larger problem is that it is crazy for a hundred people (such as the U.S. Senate) to have that power, let alone a handful of cabinet members. For that matter it would be crazy for the American voters to have the power to destroy much of global civilization through a nuclear war and possibly a resulting nuclear winter.
It might be impolite (or impolitic) to say this, but democracy does not mean that Americans should have life or death power over the entire human race. I know this will sound like some kind of heresy to many (or perhaps most) Americans who are fed a daily dose of national hubris by our political leaders and mass media.
Perhaps the prospect of an unstable, egomaniacal President like Trump destroying everything will make people think about a serious anti-nuclear movement, one that does not demand that everyone else divest themselves of this power while leaving it in the hands of our own country and a few allies.
It is pretty much unthinkable that our national leaders will initiate such a movement, given their commitment to U.S. global hegemony. It would have to come from large numbers of ordinary people who wake up to the fact that we have been living in the shadow of an active volcano for decades, and we can't afford to put such power in the hands of any present or future government, democratic or not.
4
Mr. Friedman, I appreciate your suggestion that we the people wake up once again and create "a serious anti-nuclear movement". It's not for nothing that for decades our country's military lived with the acronym "MAD" (mutually assured destruction) in the event the US and/or Russia precipitated a nuclear strike - both nations would go down.
This past January, generations of women and their legions of male supporters had to take to the streets and protest the President's Inauguration and to revitalize the Women's Movement, which clearly bore fruit this past Election Day. I don't doubt the No Nukes Movement could be reassembled, too, for the sake of the world.
The Congress will take away more power than that from Trump before this nightmare is over. Hopefully his freedom as well.
Ever norm will need to be written into law.
2
Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe tell it all -- the first the ability of a civilian with the power to destroy the world, the other a general abusing that power. One can make an intelligent argument that nuclear weapons have forced the world to abandon unimaginable destruction, as there have been no repeats of World Wars I and II (of course far too many tragic lesser conflicts). Of course there will be not opportunity for should-haves if Trump or his successors allow their narcissism to overcome our right to survive.
Can/will Congress do anything? Right now, their focus is on passing a tax plan with no justification that it will benefit the country, only that it will increase the purse of those who feed the Party with funds. As they avoid dealing with climate change, they will not deal with the future of all life on Earth, as it might cost them a few votes or campaign contributions.
3
Yet, the President has sole authority to order the launch of a nuclear attack; however, he can only legally authorize it within the bounds of international law, which would have to mean in defense against an immanent or already launched attack on the US or allies under its nuclear umbrella. Even without a change in the existing system (ie, legislatively or an executive order that would delineate some sort of agreement to launch by other national security principals) the military command can ensure that any strike/launch meets these requirements by refusing to obey any order to launch that isn't accompanied by incontrovertible evidence--which obviously would have to be provided by the highest echelons of the national security/military apparatus--that an attack is in the process of occurring or has occurred. Without such proof in hand, everyone involved in executing the command would open her/himself, along with the President, to the charge of crimes against humanity and even genocide. This alone should be enough to prevent a legally unjustifiable launch, even by Trump.
1
During the campaign Trump was asked a question about the nuclear triad; he plainly had no idea what the term meant.
Trump is also volatile, impulsive, vindictive, and frequently enraged; he may well be delusional.
To entrust the nuclear codes to an individual so grossly unfit for the responsibility is a form of insanity; it may also prove to be a form of mass suicide if we do not quickly do something about it.
4
The other side of the coin: As the US has already reached un-governability at the Federal level, and is lurching toward a constitutional crisis with the nuclear chain of command at the center of it -- when does the calculation for Putin tip to a Russian pre-emptive strike, which might be masked by the claims of uncertainty of Trump's moves? Or the Russians use N. Korea to strike first with an EMP, and then follow up in the midst of the chaos. Would US submarine commanders be able to sort out what happened and retaliate on their own authority? Or would Putin get away with it?
2
Hillary Clinton sounded the alarm, in no uncertain terms, that a man who could not be trusted to tweet could not be trusted with the nuclear codes. Yet most Congressional Republicans supported him anyway - and that was before he had any real power.
It's hard to imagine any of Trump's associates in Congress now stepping on his toes to help secure the nuclear football.
3
45 is not fit to be president, but that does not mean that the president is not fit to have this power. The value of these weapons is deterrent. If an adversary believes that any hesitation on the US's part may leave an opening for a first strike against the US, then the arsenal loses some of that deterrent power. It is the loathsome nature of these devices combined with the fact that only someone crazy would use them, but that they could be deployed right away and at any time, that minimizes the chances that they will in fact be used. That said, I believe 45 likes absolute power, and I can envision scenarios in which he would actually like to issue the order to use them, even if it meant he would meet his own end literally going up in flames. In other words, I think he has murderous tendencies.
1
Since the USA is never justified in the use of nuclear weapons, there is no reason for the president to have this power. If there were a massive first strike against the US that threatened our ability to respond in kind, do we really want the president to destroy the whole world? What sort of insanity is this?
3
I have been afraid of what will happen with Trump in office, since he is a narcissist with an unstable and perhaps fragile personality structure ... could he have a *real* meltdown under pressure? The news media have often described Trump has having a meltdown, when he gets into an irrational conflict - but that's not a real meltdown. What if he really loses it - like a rejected lover who murders their ex?
Trump spends a lot of time on defensive behavior. He deflects by attacking Hillary Clinton and other people, often of the same things he's guilty of. He plays a lot of golf - lots of idle time protects his stability.
What happens if those defenses fail? What happens if the extreme narcissist is finally nailed by Mueller, his crimes displayed to the world? If impeachment becomes a serious threat? Would he order a nuclear first strike, as a last desperate attempt at distraction? to go out in a blaze of destruction and self-destruction?
2
For a country to find it necessary to consider legislation against just one individual – its own head of state, no less – is an admission of the level of political and constitutional desperation it finds itself in. This has to be unprecedented.
3
Clearly Trump is not fit to have his finger on nuclear trigger that can end human civilization. However, the problem does not end there. Even in the case of a rational and wise president it is insane that one person should have the fate of humanity in his hands. The problem is with the possession of nuclear weapons and lack of international laws that can prevent their use.
While America already possesses the most modern and the deadliest weapons capable of destroying the world many times over, President Trump has signed a mind-numbing $1.7 trillion nuclear buildup. So here we have the extreme danger of nuclear weapons plus the military-industrial complex.
Instead of building up nuclear arsenals there is an urgent need for limiting their scope and putting some safeguards on their use. We should move towards what both presidents Reagan and Obama called a world without nuclear weapons. That would take time, but in view of the rising tension between the United States and Russia, we should make internationally-binding laws on no first use, no nuclear use on non-nuclear states, a complete ban on testing, prohibiting the tactical nuclear weapons that facilitate crossing the threshold, and a serious effort to cut the number of nuclear weapons leading to their eventual annihilation. That would at least buy us some time. This is a deadly race between humanity and nuclear weapons, either we destroy them or they will destroy us.
4
It would be reasonable to require approval from 3 other qualified people, before launching a nuclear attack, but also to assure that the 3 qualified people would be accessible to the President within 5 minutes, at all times. VP, plus Secretary of Defense, plus Secretary of State would be a reasonable core group.
3
The Senate should question President Trump's mental health and emotional stability. But in addition to hiding his income tax returns and business records Trump is hiding his mental and physical medical health records from the American people. Does Trump have known deleterious mental or emotional problems? Is Trump taking any medications for these conditions?
I have heard and read that all American military personnel involved in nuclear weapons from the so-called "football" to those with control over missiles, planes and submarines go through rigorous continuous scrutiny regarding their emotional and mental health. But Trump is excused? Why?
After that disturbing farce of a speech at the White House on the imagined successes of his Asia trip one must question Trump? Much more effective caricature and satire than any comedic impersonation of Trump.
5
That Trump, who overestimates his ability to grasp and control the events that confront him, represents a high risk president is extreme understatement. There is also a measure of irony that T may push the nuclear button when he won't touch the buttons of Russia, China, cybersecurity, climate change, national debt etc. etc..
3
I sincerely hope that even this president will not use nuclear weapons without a formal declaration of war by congress but I worry that he will resort to such weapons if he gets bogged down in a war he cannot win. He only likes to win and if he ends up in a situation similar to those we have seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. etc., he will see nukes as the only way to win. So we need more than just requiring a declaration of war by congress, but what?
2
With stories such as this the media is distracting our attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed in these times. The problem with this is that by keeping our attention preoccupied with sex offenders and unlikely nuclear war scenarios, the media also becomes derelict in the job it is entrusted to perform. America is struggling with the fallout from a counterfeit political establishment, and in this critical period will not tolerate a media that continues its support of this malevolent agenda by obstructing the real issues that challenge us.
2
I'm more concerned about the possibility of the Leaders and military using nuclear weapons against our own people. It is a plausible consideration that must be addressed along with diluting autonomous power.
2
The law should have been changed at the end of Eisenhower's administration. The nuclear responsibility is too much for any one person, especially when we consider who currently has the power to start WWIII.
3
Excellent piece by the NYT Editorial Board.
No President (especially Trump) should have the authority to conduct a nuclear first strike without a formal declaration of war approved by a 2/3 majority of both the House and the Senate. Legislation denying the President's unilateral authority to conduct a nuclear first strike should be enacted (over a Presidential veto, if necessary) with all deliberate speed.
Has not the time come for the NYT's Editorial Board and other prominent voices in the progressive media to begin the call for Donald J. Trump's removal from office for the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors?
2
America's military are fully in their rights to refuse illegal orders. If there is no fundamental danger to the United States a preemptive strike order by Trump will not be carried out. Trump's order to kick out currently serving transgender troops was not followed, they are still serving while a "study" is being conducted meanwhile a judge has blocked the ban.
1
Some fear that Congress would be too slow to act in a timely fashion. However, the Gang of Eight and Chairman of JCS has the intelligence and the capability to make a critical decision. They may in tern want to put it to the whole Congress. The Joint Chief of Staff input is required to determine if the military can support such an action.
1
Trump who should never have been allowed with the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons should now be stripped of his power by the Congress as soon as possible.
We as Americans must be concerned with a man who wants to destroy North Korea without consulting his generals or his cabinet, should now be told to hush up and say no word to provoke a nuclear powered nation who can strike a nuclear tipped missile within a minute to destroy Guam which is within a short distance of Kim-un-Jung's mainland.
And the first hearing of it's kind in 41 years that unfolded on Tuesday in the Senate was really a welcoming sign that our elected officials have finally come to their senses like most of the leading psychiatrists of our country have already concluded that Trump is a mad man.
They also concluded that Trump is delusional to the point of possessing the mind of a child of ten years when it comes to the point of taking an important decision to carry out a nuclear attack without any provocation from North Korea or any other rogue nation.
So it is really the duty of the Republican led Congress to pass this measure in both the chambers of Congress to take the power out of Trump's hand where he can unilaterally launch the first nuclear strike even before we're even attacked.
And the entire country should support that measure after they sincerely concur that our illegitimate president Trump, who should've never won the election, is nothing but delusional to the point of no return.
1
The Constitution already has a remedy in place for a president who is not fit to be responsible over our nuclear arsenal. It’s called the 25th amendment. Of course all of this could have been avoided if we would further amend the Constitution and remove the anachronistic electoral college which has led to the current state of affairs.
If the framers of the constitution set out to limit the power of the president by creating a separation of powers, they really dropped the ball on this one. The constitution requires the president to get congressional approval to declare war but not to start a war. Makes no sense, especially now that the man with access to nuclear codes is mentally and emotionally unstable.
1
History will not forgive those who demonstrated such recklessness and lack of basic common sense by voting this man into office.
1
There’s a clear and present necessity to limit and restraint the president’s, any president, total and fully-independent control of the decision to launch a nuclear strike, first and most, but not solely, of the “first-strike” type. Trump has given solid reasons to suspect the soundness his judgment in matters of life and death for humanity. Nevertheless, the Editors prudent advice self-destruct by falling into a common and insidious trap of the nuclear strategic discourse: it inflates both the presumed nuclear dangers to the U.S. and the chances and risks of lowering American deterrence capabilities.
Describing Kim Jong-un as having the capability to threat the U.S. with “an arsenal that has gone from zero to at least 20 nuclear weapons, plus the missiles to deliver them” is a blatant example of a “worst-case” nuclear alarmism. It actually plays to the hand of the nuclear hawks which are bound on keeping the option of the president launching a surprise “preemptive” nuclear attack on NK “on the table”.
And advising careful consideration about changing the current nuclear decision-making chain-of-command because it allegedly “could affect the country’s ability to deter adversaries with the threat of a rapid nuclear attack” is another facet of nuclear-alarmism. Any type of “rapid” nuclear attack is an instrument of nuclear dominance and has nothing to do with deterrence (which is about projecting the capability to massively retaliate after an enemy’s attack).
I support the President. I support Trump. He and he alone should decide when the weapons are launched. Thank you.
"We’re talking about the authority to unleash THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons within minutes". What??? Nuclear war should not be that kind of an option, EVER. What kinds of toys does the Pentagon think these are? Of course, Congress should rewrite the President's power to launch nukes. But this conversation needs to go much further than protecting America and the world from an unhinged war-mongering president. We need to get to seriously negotiating disarmament - or the earth will surely be blown up. End of story - Scared to death.
2
A toddler with. gun doesn't worry about consequences, he just thinks this is a cool toy and now he's going to see how it works.
2
Trump has the codes. That was on the ballot. Yes he can incinerate the earth should he choose. But this is why we have elections. If North Korea does not behave there very well may be nuclear consequences. Trump is capable of giving the order, be it by phone or tweet, to set off a nuke. So get over it. He is the commander in chief.
1
The important point that needs to be emphasized is that the real issue is the use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive first-strike. For years the U.S. eschewed the use of such weapons in a first strike and relied on a huge arsenal that would survive a first-strike from the Soviet Union and be able to retaliate in an equally devastating second-strike. The policy called MAD for Mutual Assured Destruction was based on the theory of deterrence by a nuclear adversary. All U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican, adhered to this policy during the nearly half century of the Cold War and such "strategic patience" was rewarded with the collapse of our major nuclear adversary, the Soviet Union. This policy has changed under President Trump who has signaled his willingness to engage in a pre-emptive first-strike against North Korea. The Congress, which under the Constitution (Art. I, Sec, 8) has "the power to declare war," could and should make it clear that a nuclear first-strike violates the Executive's powers since it's a declaration of war. At the risk of a bad pun, this should not be "rocket science." It's simply following "the rule of law" in our foundational document. The U.S. as the world's foremost nuclear power should, in fact, go one step further and announce once again that it will never use it's atomic weapons in a military first-strike.
Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he can change his mind, contradict himself, in the space of a single muddled paragraph, and that when the sun rises, he has usually forgotten most of his statements from the day before. But he remembers insults. He never forgets those. They pierce him.
This is a man who feels no sympathy for other people (German or French people, Syrian people, Philippinos, South Koreans, Californians) because he really has no imagination for any personal hurts and joys and hungers and perspectives apart from his own. He likes looking down on cheering, anonymous crowds and parades of matching soldiers and does recognize his most loyal servants ... and that's it.
Should this individual, Donald Trump, have the power to launch a nuclear weapon at a distant country where people live ... in shelters of one kind or another, among their children and elders and old creation stories, in a certain terrain, cooking meals familiar to them though "foreign" to others? No. Please no.
The whole world, for Trump, is a stage for Trump ... and his manhood. If our electoral laws enabled this hollow, echoing, lonely, dishonest person to become president of the United States, though he did not win the popular vote, we should revise our system of checks and balances through legislation. Persistence. And checkmate Donald Trump.
179
@Deborah: This is one of the most cogent, insightful and beautifully written comments I have ever seen. Thank you.
2
One nod from Trump will ultimately demolish the world. The idea is sheer insanity. The only good outcome is that he'd be gone too, along with the rest
of us. Isn't there a less drastic way of getting rid of him?
1
Is Donald Trump mentally ill or emotionally unstable?
Is Donald Trump being treated for or taking any medications to control his mental illness or emotional stability?
Is Donald Trump suffering from senile dementia or other deleterious mental conditions that impact his cognition and comprehension?
Is Donald Trump being treated for and taking any medications to treat those conditions?
2
We need something like the gadget people convicted of drunk driving have on their cars to prevent the car from be driven if the driver has a certain blood alcohol content.
Perhaps the computer could ask a series of questions designed to determine competency.
2
There is no out-of-the-blue scenario in which the President of the United States alone needs first-strike authority to employ nuclear weapons against another nation. Without a doubt, Russian oops I mean American intelligence agencies will provide the necessary information in time to make a rational decision about employing nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis.
Should such a decision become necessary, an approval process involving the President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Senate and House Leaders for the Party opposite of the President, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could approve such a decision.
The decision doesn't have to be unanimously approved, but should include approval by the President, the two leaders in the opposition party and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A first-strike use of nuclear weapons does not guaranteed the safety of the United States, thus the nation should err on the side of a deliberate use of nuclear weapons and not on a rushed and possibly irrational use of such weapons.
1
The first step in what is likely to be a significant curtailing of the power of the presidency. The US may survive Trump, but it's unlikely that the powers of the presidency will.
11
In his instance, that’s a good thing. No one person should be allowed to decide to launch nuclear missiles.
I studied nuclear weapons and their destructive power--kill thresholds, MIRVs, throw weights, etc.---in college courses that also reviewed the complex agreements and negotiations in place to keep the world's arsenal in check. This education gave me a sober understanding of the massive, mind-numbing destructive power of nuclear weapons. And also the conviction that anyone-- anywhere--who threatens to use nuclear weapons at any time for any purpose --clearly doesn't understand them. And is also quite insane.
93
"I studied nuclear weapons and their destructive power--kill thresholds, MIRVs, throw weights, etc.---in college courses ..."
None of those are unique to nuclear weapons. The only characteristic that uniquely distinguishes nuclear weapons from conventional weapons is that they expose targets to high-energy nuclear radiation.
"And is also quite insane."
You should read up on the extensive use of firebombing to destroy cities during WWII and then tell us who was "quite insane". You can start here:
"The fire : the bombing of Germany, 1940-1945" by Jörg Friedrich.
With unstable minded and impulsive President like Trump at the helm the US is forced to revise and supplement its security doctrine of nuclear deterrence with another kind of deterrence i. e. how to prevent presidential access to nuclear button and ensure better security for America.
18
What Trump does not understand and will never understand is that his bombastic insults to the leader of North Korea, to the country itself, is taken very seriously there. Today it was reported that the people of North Korea desire a 'death warrant' for Trump.
From their perspective, as I understand it, their leader is sacrosanct in that society. Insults to him or threats to their nation are seen as a provocation, possibly to war.
Let us hope that our appointed leaders have the common sense and integrity to immediately implement a structure where Trump does not have the ability to, by himself, launch a nuclear attack against North Korea or any other nation state.
Donald's temperament varies from day to day, from moment to moment, like a bipolar person. He is narcissistic and vain, and has proven time and again that he is truly capable of saying anything, no matter how much it damages the office of the presidency and our standing in the world. It is his possible future erratic actions which are so deeply concerning.
40
Lots of Trump's problems point to bi-polar disorder, including his lifelong chronic insomnia which leads him to crazy tweet storms in which he rants and threatens people.
Bravo. Trump should never have the ultimate authority to launch any Nuclear Bomb. Congress should, only after a Declaration of War has been declared. This will be a safe guard against any other President who has been elected but is unqualified to lead.
42
"This will be a safe guard against any other President who has been elected but is unqualified to lead" - ergo, why allow this man to sit in the oval office since he has proven time after time, "he is unqualified to lead"? The current discussion of curbing the president's authority regarding a nuclear launch demonstrates Congress continues to be willing to tiptoe around a child who has tantrums, but refuses to do anything substantial to make a change.
There is nothing more terrifying to my mind than having nukes in the hands of the demented man who is our supposed president--a man who expresses himself like a10 year old when he speaks, or worse yet, when he tweets. He is as dangerous and impulsive as a toddler hanging from an open window.
120
"Mrs. Clinton...declared the prospect of Mr. Trump in the White House "gave her a clutch at the heart" when she woke up at night."
When it looked like Mrs. Clinton was going to win, I worried greatly that she would behave as she'd behaved when she was a Senator (and voted to attack Iraq) or as she'd behaved when she was Secretary of State (and pressed Obama to aid the Libyan rebels more than he was willing to do -- how's that working out?) or as she'd behaved when she was running for President and vowed to establish a "no fly zone" over Syria, thus risking war with Russia.
This is NOT FUNNY. Trump MAY be a war-monger, but we KNOW that Hillary is one.
5
But none of the actions Mrs. Clinton supported are anywhere near equivalent to a NUCLEAR attack.
39
Also, Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the Iran nuclear deal, which required a lot of diplomacy and peaceably got Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons.
BUT - it's more than a YEAR since the election - why do people still think an attack on Hillary Clinton is a defense of Trump? Simply to distract attention from Trump's very large dark side?
3
Not only Hillary Clinton, but 75% of the Senate voted for the war on Iraq. They'd been told there were WMD in Iraq.
1
He loses by 3 million votes. Thanks to a constitutional flaw, he's in the White House. Now, with the legacy of Cold War sociopathy, one deeply troubled man has the power to cause the extinction of homo sapiens. I want my money back!
86
I want my peace of mind back!
1
This is the most important question of all. Come on, Senators, man up. Let's save this country and the world from the madman Trump. He's worse than Kim Jong Un.
58
I would say “man up and impeach “! Then we wouldn’t have all the problems we have and not just nuclear war!
What constitutes a “first nuclear attack” upon America?? Even if Trump is denied authority to start a nuclear war, he could say N Korea’s ICBM that fell in the ocean somewhere possibly (in Trump’s opinion) on its way to Guam or to Hawaii was an “initial attack”, and off we go. That’s how Johnson handled the Tonkin incident.
28
'What constitutes a “first nuclear attack” upon America??'
The editorial never uses the phrase "first nuclear attack", so what are you quoting?
Since the Constution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war, why is there a law which permits the president to start a war, nuclear or conventional? It is not a matter of generals versus the president. It is a matter of Congress being committed to exert its constitutional authority.
29
The insane system allows for nuclear war- a NO Win for all of us. This possibility is terrifying.
I hope these inklings of sanity from the GOP are a harbinger of further action on their part to rein in the excesses of 45.
24
What was applicable in 1946, seventy one years ago, is longer safe given Trump’s temperament. Of course, if it is decided that Congress must agree unanimously to drop a nuke somewhere, we know that will never happen. Maybe that’s the solution.
11
The language being used in this debate tells us that this is not really an institutional problem but rather a problem with one errant president. The solution should be either impeachment or the 25th amendment. Congress not only has the power to act on either one of them but also the responsibility.
48
So true. What is it a about Americans that they think they can elect a dishonest, intemperate, amoral, self-absorbed jerk without causing trouble for themselves? Did they really think a person whose character and skill set included nothing good would refrain from doing anything bad? Rules, laws, checks and balances cannot channel a president’s bankrupt character into positive leadership or constrain his destructive instincts.
Ah, but this "one errant president" shows us that we do have an institutional problem.
Wouldn't the first strike to disable the N. Korean regime be with conventional arms? If he somehow returned fire w nukes, then we wouldn't be in a first strike mode anyway.
Could this new law if enacted then serve as an incentive for a conventional first round?
3
You are saying that Trump might decide to launch an attack with conventional weapons in order to deliberately provoke a nuclear response from North Korea. I have no respect for this man's intellect emotional maturity, or judgment, but I can't believe that he would follow a course which would literally destroy entire cities in South Korea or Japan, just to be able to respond with nuclear weapons. That's crazy.
1
NK has airstrips in tunnels and artillery battalions buried in mountains and bio weapons.
Believe. That's what "people are saying" in Congress.
Senator Murphy,
Thank you for your initiative and your perseverance - I'm proud to have you represent our state (and protect our country!)
33
In the current atmosphere, it doesn't matter HOW many people are involved in this decision - UNLESS they can vote anonymously! Republicans are most interested in partisanship and few are courageous enough to thwart Trump. We might survive if Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain make the decision.
6
"His erratic, taunting threats to rain “fire and fury” on North Korea and even destroy the country, his glib talk about nuclear weapons and his impulsiveness generally raise serious questions about his willingness to incite war."
I'm glad we're at least talking about this, and hearings, if nothing else, will involve Congress which has gone missing since 9/11 when it comes to authorizing expansions of military power.
But here we're talking about a double-edged sword: yes, we want a president to be able to make a quick decision should weapons be detected coming our way; but this first statement presupposes that said president would be a normal, rational, sentient human being.
Instead, with Donald Trump, we get quick impulses, egocentric decisions, and a history of actions dictated by his latest grievances. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past him to launch a preemptive strike should he start feeling even more heat and anxiety from domestic investigations into his behavior.
I think some change in the law is warranted, because I see very little from the "grownups in the room' who uniformly support his views and decision making. Because generals are trained to obey, we can't rely on their oversight of an unhinged president.
I think more than half of America would rest easier knowing that there was a legislative check to Donald Trump's power to order a nuclear first strike.
88
I'm unable to cope with the expanding dictatorship of USA.
Please let some public servants have the courage to muzzle this monster before he does even more harm. The idea that his supreme high stupidity has all sole authority to launch nukes, and he can only be stopped by some poor soldier willing to die to protect us, this is rank idiocy.
A monster trained to have no conscience, armed and tempted to use world-ending weapons, what could go wrong.
42
It certainly would save us from climate change. Tom Lehrer put it several different ways; here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ky0ROTsD14
So long, mom!
I'm off to drop the Bomb
So don't wait up for me
But while you swelter
Down there in your shelter
You can see me
On your TV
While we're attacking frontally
Watch Brin-k-ley and Hun-t-ley
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost
No need for you to miss a minute
Of the agonizing holocaust
Yeah!
Little Johnny Jones
He was a US pilot
And no shrinking violet
Was he, he was mighty proud
When World War III was declared
He wasn't scared
No siree!
And this is what he said on
His way to Armageddon:
So long, mom!
I'm off to drop the Bomb
So don't wait up for me
But though I may roam
I'll come back to my home
Although it may be
A pile of debris
Remember, mommy!
I'm off to get a commie
So send me a salami
And try to smile somehow
I'll look for you
When the war is over
An hour and a half from now!
21
We are, afterall, the only nation to unleash nuclear weapons on another. Truman didn't ask permission of congress to do so and neither will our chicken hawk president if he wants to. Think congress will complain? Think not, they'll be hiding in some bunker somewhere. Is this because our president is unique? Not really, he is simply a typical arrogant human. All humans have been doing for the last millennium or two is breed like crazy and find better and bigger ways to kill each other. What a loser of a species we are under some god or another. Today, look in a mirror and blow yourself a goodbye kiss while you are still here. Tomorrow may be too late.
25
General Clapper: “I worry frankly [about Trump’s] access to the nuclear codes.
In a fit of pique [anger], he decides to do something about Kim Jong-Un.
There’s actually very little to stop him.”
Aug 22, 2017: General James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, interviewed by CNN. Clapper is worried about Trump’s unstable temperament.
44
Thank God, sluggish Congress is shaking off it's fraidy cat torpor.
Get That law changed like now! Get it done before anymore
indictments. Cheat and get Mueller to give you a heads up
before he goes in for the kill. I think Trump will destroy the
world to stop the investigation. He is that stupid and that
desperate. Telling us that Putin said he did not do it! Trump
also thinks we are as stupid as he is. I heard tell that he will
bow out gracefully with a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease. I
suppose his handlers figure that, though I cannot see Trump
understanding that scenario in the least. He tweets about
a shooting that happened a week ago in Texas, with the
shooting this week? Maybe the staff is laying the ground
work already. Maybe they purposely misled him, and
why should he notice the familiar ring of it, these
mass murders do not impact him in anyway. And
they now horribly happen every week or so. "Been
there done that", he must think. Would
love to know just how much the NRA pays individual
senators and representatives to ignore all the people
getting killed because they will not vote for better
gun control. Must be some pretty hefty checks to
gild over and any guilt. And when people start
dying in the streets from the new destroy
Obama care tax attack, they will be so immune
that they can buy helicopters to avoid their
limos from bumping into and over the bodies.
13
so the House and Senate both pass legislation to limit Presidential action ... Trump vetos it how likely is it to be over-ridden? Really!?
3
We're long overdue for Congress to look at its duties to declare war and this should be a clear cut decision so that we aren't held to the whims of one seriously deranged leader.
24
No check on the president's power in this regard will happen. God help us.
6
Please, as soon as possible! Trump is petty, vindictive, cruel, hateful, narcissistic, thin-skinned, impulsive, childish, ignorant and delusional, either a sociopath or senile. If this hazard wasn't so overwhelmingly dangerous, it would seem a farce worthy of Dr. Strangelove. Not a day passes that I don't worry about this crazy man having access to nuclear missiles he could fire off like a tweet. And if he were impeached he might figure he had nothing to lose, take us all down with him with an apocalypse the size of his mighty ego. Please Congress, disarm him......before it's too late.
36
Me too!
A sociopath AND senile....
HITHERTO. . . .
. . .I have felt nothing but unbounded contempt for the U.S. Senate.
If they pass this proposed legislation, that feeling might change.
Not much. Some.
When Mr. Obama was in office, I watched a news clip showing him boarding Air Force 1. An officer in uniform strode along behind him, clutching a little black bag.
My heart stopped.
The nuclear codes. But Mr. Obama's days in office were numbered. Soon--very soon--that officer with that little black bag would be trailing. . . .
Mr. Donald J. Trump.
Which is why Mrs. Clinton--in all honesty during the last election--declared the prospect of Mr. Trump in the White House "gave her a clutch at the heart" when she woke up at night.
Me too, Mrs. Clinton.
And millions of other Americans. Americans? How about Chinese? One of my former students (a Chinese) reminded me--the entire world is imperiled by the whims and shenanigans of this one man, Mr. Donald J. Trump.
GET BUSY, SENATORS!
Time's a-wasting.
34
"So, if we have nuclear weapons, why don't we use them?" asked the new Marie Antoinette.
From what we have seen so far, he would be perfectly happy to launch WWIII just to satisfy his ego. He sounds like he really doesn't know what nuclear weapons are. Maybe someone should show this ignorant man some pictures of Hiroshima. Before it's too late.
15
He saw the pictures. In the purest sense, he suffers from necrophilia, which is a love of death and fatally maiming living things. (from Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" - 1973)
If Trump sees the end of his presidency coming with public humiliation his fragile ego may get enraged and feel threatened with ego death and for a narcissist like Trump that would unleash a rage leading to the launch of nukes impulsively, Should the country and the world need to be concerned about the deaths of millions including Americans even if the odds are low there is no need for Trump to have this first strike power , Trump is not a normal president and even republican senators think he is unhinged they can still get their donor class tax cuts just take the nuclear hammer out of Thor Trump's tiny hand and chaotic brain issues,
15
This makes sense.
It's a tough pill to swallow that presidents are frequently elected with a minority of the popular vote.
And while I support the right of the people to elect fools. On average, people come to their senses over time. But it's completely different when said fool can end the earth.
That remove the time for people to figure out said fool is a fool.
8
times change, technology changes, and our country has to be able to change. this is not a procedure set in stone, and needs to be updated, one man should not be able to destroy the world. This is not hard.
20
The Constitution clearly allocates the power to declare war to Congress and only to Congress. Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 11. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was an unwise and probably extra-constitutional derogation of power, beyond Congress's power to confer on another branch. Congress cannot appoint Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court cannot levy taxes. The President cannot declare war. One branch cannot cede its authority to another.
It is one of the larger failures of the legislative branch over the last 75 years that it has avoided its exercise or its refusal to exercise the power to declare war. Had we had serious and reasoned debate perhaps we would have avoided the disaster of Vietnam, the creepy little wars of George H. W. Bush, Iraq and the now 17 year struggle in Afghanistan.
We sigh and strain about gun deaths. Yes there are too many guns. But the national paradigm is that we are a violent people who settle their scores with others by blowing them to bits. How are the recurrent mass tragedies in theaters, concert halls, schools, churches, different from what occurs in Afghanistan?
Because we fail to call it what it is--our constant war with our global neighbors, we too easily fall into a state of war at home against ourselves. We are destroying ourselves one school, one church, one theater at a time. A war of one against all, one battle at a time.
Congress: do something. Confront the War Powers issue. Regulate guns. Do your job.
38
"The Constitution clearly allocates the power to declare war to Congress and only to Congress."
That's irrelevant in an emergency, because:
1. The President is Commander in Chief under the Constitution (II, 2).
2. The President has the legal authority to initiate military action in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
See:
50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
2017-11-16 16:40:01 UTC
"The Constitution clearly allocates the power to declare war to Congress and only to Congress."
That's irrelevant in an emergency, because:
1. The President is Commander in Chief under the Constitution (II, 2).
2. The President has the legal authority to initiate military action in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
See:
50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 - WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33
The Constitution requires Congress to declare war. How can a preemptive nuclear strike not be an act of war?
10
The idea that any person, anywhere, has the capability to launch these weapons is beyond consideration. There is absolutely no reason on earth that they should be used. Because if they are used there will be no reason on earth, or anything else, for that matter. No problem, no argument, no confrontation. There is no one who is not a fanatic who would think of sacrificing their own children to a weapon of this kind. And thus, no one has the right to make that decision for others.
7
Murphy's Law: Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.
With nuclear weapons and a clearly unstable, unpredictable wanna-be dictator, we must presume the odds are something will go wrong.
Congress MUST act.
13
...Senator Christopher Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, bluntly outlined the stakes with a president who “is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests.”
Well, that is [yawn] certainly something to consider. Thank goodness our legislators and the press eschew wide-eyed hysteria in favor of sober deliberation.
I agree completely that we should take away the power of the president -- whoever that president is -- to launch a preemptive nuclear strike without the constitutionally mandated declaration of war. It is not enough to make a law saying, "Don't do it. . ." Rather, the law must make it physically impossible for the president -- or any one person -- to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. Physically impossible -- not legally impossible or morally impossible -- but literally impossible.
19
While it is wise to worry about an impetuous child in charge of the nuclear codes, we can’t take our eyes off the dismantling of our democracy.
7
Trump is a megalomaniac with his finger on the nuclear button. The entire world is in great danger. He is fully capable of starting a nuclear war to distract attention from his collusion with the Russians.
Trump tells the American people every day in every way that he is mentally unstable with a violent temper. Trump is on record asking military advisers multiple times why is it that if we have nuclear weapons we cannot use them. How can an ignorant fly-off-the-handle egomaniac be entrusted with our economy let alone the nuclear trigger?
Do we expect the Republican leadership to do their job and protect the world from Trump's lunacy? ? No, not really. But anyone who is not frightened by the thought of Trump in the White House is clearly disconnected from reality of the threat he poses to national and international survival. That is why the entire bunch of Republican traitors must be thrown from office ASAP.
12
Trump’s hair on fire management style will finally come to an end when the entire world is on fire. Trump, the Republicans in the House & Senate, and all Republican governors of States will be to blame for the end of civilization. Whoever is still alive in the world - please track these people down and hold them accountable for destroying human civilization.
8
Robert Patterson, retired Lt. Col. (USAF) who carried the "football," which contains the codes for a nuclear launch for Bill Clinton, raised the same issues about Clinton's authority to single handedly order a nuclear strike in his book Dereliction of Duty: Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. Col. Patterson, who was always by President Clinton's side, considered his personal behavior unqualified for a man who held the fate of the world in his hands, much like the liberal opposition feels about President Trump. Why wasn't President Clinton's competence questioned? After all immoral sexual behavior as practiced by Clinton and allegedly by Trump raises questions about one's character and judgement to have access to nuclear weapon information.
4
'Robert Patterson, retired Lt. Col. (USAF) who carried the "football," which contains the codes for a nuclear launch for Bill Clinton, ...'
Patterson wouldn't have been given that job if he had been competent to do anything more intellectually demanding.
"Why wasn't President Clinton's competence questioned?"
Apparently you have forgotten the harsh criticism the right lashed Clinton with.
2
@PCL,
No, I have not forgotten about the harsh, and well deserved, criticism of Bill Clinton from the Right, which the Clintons still deserve until they go away entirely. Thank you.
No one is questioning Trump's competence because of his behavior with women. They're questioning it because he's a malignant narcissist of very little brain who literally has no ability to empathize with other people and who wouldn't be concerned about the harm caused by launching an attack. Bill Clinton was, and is, a normal (and very intelligent) human being who happened to have some extramarital affairs. These two things are not alike.
3
A nuke is a weapon like any other weapon, only more destructive than most: some might argue that the hot air one is exposed to during a typical Senate filibuster is deadlier, but there’s room for disagreement on that. To question a president’s power to order a launch of such weapons arguably is to question his power to express force on behalf of America with Congress’s approval in just about any way. Don’t know how practical that is, as Congress has never actually agreed that the sun rises in the East, and the stars could burn out and be cold in their orbits by the time they do – while we could disintegrate in a nuclear holocaust while a president awaited their pleasure. I foresee some serious practical issues here.
Agreement by multiple people in the Executive, including the military, before such a launch could occur, also questions the principle of the “unitary president”, which clearly is what the Constitution envisaged before we hired three billion people to work for the federal government. I foresee some separation of powers issues here.
But put all this aside for a moment, because we’re burying the lead. For the first time in far longer than the claimed 40 years – really since FDR – we’re finally questioning basic assumptions under which we’re governed.
6
While I don’t expect that this specific controversy actually will go anywhere, it’s valuable to consider that such intellectual efforts by Congress go a long way to start reclaiming more general power for them that an “imperial presidency” has incrementally co-opted for a very long time and without much grumbling. That’s a valuable argument to have.
While I don’t know that changes in the release of nukes authority will be successful, how about a president’s basically unlimited ability to commit us to forever wars under whatever fig-leaf is handy? Does it make sense for us to be in Afghanistan until humans evolve beyond the need for corporeal bodies?
Finally, this needful and long-avoided congressional soul-searching would not have occurred under Hillary Clinton. But the dangers of an increasingly “imperial presidency” would have continued to intensify had she been elected. There’s always a silver-lining, folks.
6
So RL is justifying his support for a maniac given Congress' need to consider whether the president's power to launch Armageddon should be limited. Something that wouldn't have been the subject of discussion had a sane and qualified individual been elected. And that's a "silver lining"? Wow.
5
Above Flaws: Sophomoric humor, lack of gravitas, pseudo-intellectualism.
Above Breaches of Etiquette: Entertaining self at others' expense, hitting Reply to double content length (a.k.a. filibustering).
1
One of Trump's many problems is that he is unable to care about people. He cares about Donald Trump only. He lacks both sympathy and empathy and he doesn't care that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in Asia will die in a nuclear war with North Korea. No person should ever be president if he or she is unable to feel another person's pain and fear. All Trump seems to feel is his own anger.
102
What you describe about Trump, Linda, has a name and it is a mental disorder, known as narcissistic personality disorder. It is why, when in response to the fact that catastrophic casualties would occur in the event of a war with North Korea, his response was that they would be confined to the Korean Peninsula. Never mind that tens of thousands of Americans, military and civilians, also reside there.
14
Linda,
Frankly, I doubt if he would care if millions of people on the West Coast of the U.S. died. As long as one of his golf courses wasn't harmed, anyway.
1
Nuclear weapons are neither defensive nor offensive weapons; they're Earth destroyers. I'm a physicist and engineer, versed in the science and philosophy of these deadly devices. There's no such thing as winning and losing. That's an ancient construct of the human condition. We all lose, period.
No one, including the president of the US, should have the power to end all life on our precious planet. Pass this bill--now,
298
Let us consider that, in the case of this President. these simultaneous discussions are in play: that he is clearly unskilled, unschooled, emotionally unstable; that he has growing calls for impeachment and higher numbers poll- ing around his instability and, finally, a consortium of psychiatrists have (admittedly without a one-on-one with him) described clear signs of mental illness from their observations. All the while discussing if he is fit to have his finger ON THE BUTTON. Are you kidding???? What reality are we living in here???????
26
The Senate should ban Trump from using the Football to launch nukes on N Korea.
The fact of the matter is the launch code was designed for the Cold War where MAD is expected.
With regard to N Korea, there is no MAD scenario, so if Trump or any future POTUS were to launch nukes based on fear alone, it is actually not in US national interest but an exercise of personal power by POTUS to teach a very small nuclear power like NK a lesson.
This can be translated to means Trump as using the nukes as his toys to annihilate N Korea and in the process endangering US national interest.
Senate therefore should at the very least set the criteria for POTUS to launch nukes without further consultation. If MAD criteria do not exist as is the case with N Korea, POTUS should never be allowed to launch nukes first.
Without revising the launch nuke criteria, US is in danger of endangering herself much more than protecting herself as NK is guaranteed to annihilate GI's in Guam, Japan and S Korea at the very least and will try to do the same to some cities in CONUS.
While the sanctions continue to bite, N Korea continue to stockpile more nukes. Never mind they are untested so far for accuracy. It is the game of quantities and the more nukes in her arsenal, the probabilities of success in destroying US assets and lives goes up exponentially.
6
In my 74 years I cannot ever remember Congress holding hearings questioning whether or not the President should alone have the authority to launch a nuclear strike.
That should cause the world to shudder in fear. Think about it, the United States of America and a prestigious political body, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee questions the President's stability in making that decision.
This Administration is the scariest I've ever seen, and the most dangerous...
174
According to the article the last time it happened was in the late 70’s.
Yes, the late 70's, but it was the generals they were concerned with, not the President. We had a bunch of trigger happy generals back then.
While the questions raised by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are certainly welcome, considering our clearly unstable "President," my primary concern is the lack of urgency. The results of any such use of nuclear weapons would be so catastrophic - on a global scale - that even the smallest risk must be taken extremely seriously and addressed urgently. The costs of delay could be so extraordinarily high that curtailing the President's sole authority on this matter must be done now. With a man as foolish as Trump in the White House, to wait, cross our fingers and hope for the best is both hopelessly naive and morally unacceptable.
11
The candidate who didn't know what the Nuclear Triad was is going to have sole authority to launch nuclear weapons in a first strike. It could happen. He'll receive an insult form Kim jong-un, and instead of kicking off a tweet, he'll punt the nuclear football and launch nuclear warheads which will create a genocidal catastrophe the world has never seen. It could happen.
13
I cannot imagine a scenario where any president would not already be consulting with high military officials and other members of the government during an escalation where a nuclear strike would seriously be considered. No one person should have such power.
7
Just as our current laws allow, let’s do give access to the biggest guns to the craziest person in the room.
9
Yes. And after he blows us up, we can all talk about how we are sending our sincere prayers and condolences, and think about how paying attention to mental health issues might have been expedient.
15
"Because such changes could affect the country’s ability to deter adversaries with the threat of a rapid nuclear attack, they must be carefully considered."
Indeed.
And all deliberations and possible decisions have to be guided by the fact that we are in this fearful situation because of the person who is the President and, more specifically, his self-serving nature, and the abnormality and unpredictability of his personality. Until now, we have been fortunate enough to have people of honor and high-enough principle that this has not been the issue that it is today.
When considering having others who must agree with him, think carefully. Given his demand for loyalty, among his Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, what evidence is there that the current holders of those positions would not automatically do his bidding? Whatever the outcome, Trump has shown that he has the ability to stack the deck. Look at the entire Cabinet.
One thing that does need to happen to get the horse before the cart is to codify that any person who is being considered for the highest office must be examined and approved by a panel of qualified mental health experts.
6
Sharing this power of decision is one of the best ideas to come out of the Congress and Senate since the election of Trump. I and the rest of the civilized population have no idea what the President would do if the insults from North Korea continue or if they decide to resume testing nuclear weapons and missiles.
Based on how Trump wishes he could tell everyone in the government what to do this idea of nuclear weapons use control is a must do.
7
Trump has the codes. He can incinerate the world tomorrow. He has that power. Get over it.
3
Tell this to the GI's in Guam, S Korea and Japan. They are in the front line and they are just as concerned as citizens Stateside. No, they won't get over it and will in fact more likely than not disobey Trump's order if they see him as unstable and break the law.
Just a day ago, the former head of the Strategic Command said as much. If he think Trump break the law, he won't 'get over it'. He will in fact disobey Trump's order.
" At a Senate hearing Tuesday, retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler said the head of U.S. Strategic Command, a job he once held, could disobey an order he or she deems illegal."
6
Interesting to realize how much "power" a rogue pretender in the white house really has and just how fragile democracy is with the little pretender and his fools who surround him. Also, that the repulsives pretty much have things tied up. Truly democracy and presidential power gone amuck. This a real wake up call.
11
“And with scant time to consult with experienced advisers.”
He has no experienced advisers.
142
Trump would probably ask Jared and Ivanka what to do.
1
It's beyond madness, now that you have an actual madman as president, to stubbornly cling to a law that allows him the "authority to unleash thousands of nuclear weapons."
So we, who have done nothing to deserve this president, have quietly to sit like ducks while you debate whether or not to be obedient to a law passed in 1946 to" control hawkish generals." As it stands, should the military refuse to follow the president's orders he could simply fire them and hire ones who will do his bidding. This is insane!
There are times when civil disobedience is the only moral choice. Those who carry the magic briefcase containing all the nuclear codes that accompany the president wherever he goes, need to understand they might, any day, be the only thing standing between us and Armageddon. Is a soldier's duty to chain of command so inviolate he cannot act as he most obviously should?
I believe, should the president insist on committing suicide by destroying all or parts of the world, the magic briefcase should be removed from his grasp and he be removed to a place where he can no longer pose a danger to others.
I would hope some version of this plan is already in place. Anything less would be an abrogation of America's responsibility to the world.
111
Most voting Americans have done nothing to deserve this president and voted for the decent candidate. We agree this situation is insane. and agree with the rest of your comment.
1
It is unbelievable that one American has the power to launch a missile that might begin a war that could end in nuclear winter.
7
Is reactance to Trump going to give us our constitution back? Maybe congress will rediscover the 4th and 10th amendments? If so all the national embarrassment will have been worth it.
4
Pray that level heads prevail and members at various levels of the military command refuse to follow orders that would annihilate the human species.
trump cannot be trusted with the nuclear codes.
43
Let's get serious peolple - There is NO need nor rationale for the US to launch a first-stike nuclear attack against any country. Full Stop.
192
That is not enough to stop Trump from pulling the trigger.
9
Every rational person knows Trump is a petty unhinged man. The Congess won't admit it but the fact this has become an issue speaks volumes.
218
Strange as it may seem, the most appropriate statement may be a quote from General Jack D. Ripper in the Kubrick's masterpiece of black comedy, "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb":
"Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war? [...] He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. "
322
“You can’t fight here. This is the War Room.”
— In a world turned upside down
A dark 1960s political satire becomes a nation’s nightmare.
God help us all.
1
..and in my head I said the in Sterling Hayden's voice.
And how did that work out?
What's to debate here? It's sheer insanity to vest the power to destroy the world in one person.
698
Especially when that person is Trump.
2
Peter, there are many issues to debate. In practice, Trump does not have “the power to destroy the world”. The exact chain of command is classified, but suffice to say there is no button Trump can push which will automatically send US missiles scurrying on their way to death and destruction.
In January, there were whispers hopes in D.C. that members of US security forces who would be pushing those buttons might, with other authority or not, defy Trump’s orders in interest of saving all humanity. Though a comforting thought, it’s not a policy.
And we desperately need a policy. We need rules in place that acknowledge the fact trusting the future of human existence to the index finger of one aging. selfish, unstable demagogue is probably not a good idea.
2
Right on!
Particularly when we don't know if that one person aka 71 year old Donald John Trump is mentally sane and emotionally stable. At 11 years old Barron Trump is the only Trump who seems to fulfill both requirements.
2
If anything, each individual nuclear warhead should require the equivalent of a bill passed in Congress.
These are not weapons of war, but of mass civilian murder, and any use of that to scare belligerents into surrender (as we did in Japan, when even mass firebombing didn't do the trick) must be very carefully considered by our representatives[1]. It doesn't help that our current known warheads, to say nothing of any secret ones, run laps around Little Boy and Fat Man.
[1] Well...alleged ones. Lobbying and such. We take what we can get!
13
The American president is simultaneously a Little Boy and a Fat Man and should not be handling lethal machines with these descriptions.
9
Take the nuclear button away from this petulant child. He might hurt someone.
129
like a toddler with an assault rifle ..... of course, NRA is OK with that too.
1
Because this president wants the authority and power of a supreme ruler, he’s sure to push back against any proposal by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to tie his hands concerning the use of nuclear weapons. His verbal jousts and macho stare-down with Kim Jong-un could spill over at any moment and end in a nuclear confrontation that could literally push the planet to the brink of extinction. The president’s massive ego would never allow him to consider the danger of a nuclear holocaust if egged on by a leader he despises. The president may think that it’s okay to shoot first and ask questions later but he doesn’t realize that the dangerous game he’s playing could preclude a “later” for mankind.
43
The prescription for this is called the 25th Amendment
163
Trump is obviously unstable and may even be compromised because of his interactions with Russians. He's hated by most Americans, investigators are closing in on him for collaboration with Russians, and he refuses to acknowledge that Putin is waging cyber war on the United States. It's not hard to picture him lashing out like a caged animal as the pressure on him mounts. By all means, his ability to launch nuclear weapons and in so doing exterminate most life on the planet should be restricted!
152
War is too important to be left to a puerile reality tv star with a fragile ego.
207
Please, please, please enact legislation as quickly as possible to restrain Trump from launching a nuclear attack. The decision to pass such legislation should be a no-brainer to counteract the retaliatory actions of someone who often appears to lack a brain.
91
Congress has the power to declare war. Why isn’t a first strike with nukes on any country declaring or starting a war? No one person should have the power to destroy the world.
103
A new precedent was established when W, with the assistance of a terrified nation presided over by lawmakers with dubious motivations after 9/11, was able to ram through that vile authorization for the use of force unencumbered by any formal Congressional declaration of war.
This precedent still stands and needs to be replaced by a new one -- as outlined in this new move to rein in the capacity of a single person to unleash horrors that could very well kick off repercussions that would end in civilization as we know it being vaporized.
Act quickly, please. Everyone needs to get proactive and communicate strongly with their representatives, friends, relatives, etc., to demand accountability and restraint in our leaders. Especially one.
2
"Just sayin' ..."
How long has it actually been since we stopped to (re-)consider that we are talking about a technology that is engineered to vaporize a city?
Lately, it seems to have been treated as an infernal membership-credential to some kind of worldwide social club.
6
The Markey/Lieu bill is too partisan ever to pass. And it leaves open the question of when is America considered "attacked" ? When North Korea mobilizes or when they launch?
A much better proposal is that to control the "football," any president (not just this one) must be cleared by 3 psychiatrists appointed by the Surgeon General. No partisanship there, since the Surgeon General is the same party as the president. If not cleared, the process continues down the line of presidential succession.
This proposal could pass Congress because in addition to legislators who think Trump is insane supporting it, legislators who think he is sane will support it on the theory that 3 psychiatrists attesting to that will silence his critics.
Inevitably, this will become known as the "Three Shrinks You're Out" bill, but that's a good thing. It will get the public's attention.
12
Tempting but no. How do you appoint them? One shrink from each party and to break a tie, the president's personal shrink?
We've come a long way from the Cold War and the 50,000+ war heads that could be dispatched in minutes. "First strike" capability is not something world leaders and their militaries have entertained for decades, if they ever did.
It's an issue now because we have a five year old in the white House, and he's capable of any act if it only takes a minute (of thought, or whatever emotional state in Trump equates to rational thought).
The future of the world and all human life should not be decided by an angry child.
53
Remember Syria chemical weapons. After a lot of tough talk Senate refused to authorize Obama to strike Syria after sarin gas attack. I am no fan of Trump but if grid lock gets in the way, the deterrence power of nukes will be deprecated. Best solution is Don’t elect an incompetent person as PRESIDENT and if President exhibits unstable behavior post elections hold proper hearings and impeach.
6
There are other unstable world leaders with nuclear weapons, but none both as unstable and armed as Donald Trump. This is about literally surviving this presidency.
45
This issue predates Trump and frankly I don't care which party is in the White House, one person should not have that power. Safeguards such as the GOP led Senate are proposing are long over due and will scuttle intemperate decisions for future administrations of every political stripe.
7
Most presidents have this power for good reason.
This one should not for good reason.
Let's vote.
20
The practical problem is that in admitting he is cannot be trusted with unsupervised access to the football, is also acknowledging that he is unfit for the office; if he is likely to blow up the world, what might he be doing to America.
515
If the attempt to curtail Trump's unilaterally launching a nuclear first strike is the circuitous route required to reach the discussion that Trump unfit for office, then so be it.
5
It’s not like irresponsibility and hypocrisy haven’t stopped them before.
During the Viet Nam War, Trump took a bone-spur knee on bravely, honorably and patriotically wearing the military uniform of any American armed force. But Trump rises to sing the national anthem and salute the flag at sporting events while sucking up to his puppet dummy master Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
2
In light of the braying donkey's disregard of existing laws and ethical restraints, how likely is it that a new law would prevent him from pushing the button? I suppose it might empower the military to refuse to carry out the order, but not necessarily, given the kind of blind support some in this country have given him. Laws on the books do no good unless people enforce them.
6
The president's sole authority to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike makes some sense, because the next nuclear war will be over in just a few minutes. There will not be time to consult or even exchange messages.
But sole authority to launch a nuclear war under any other circumstance is insane. Humans are fallible, easily misled, often irrational and emotional. That is why our system of checks and balances is necessary. It gives cooler heads a chance to prevail. The president's unilateral unchecked power to end the world as we know it is an unneeded violation of what we know works for us. Way past time to end it.
10
The constitution is clear on this. ONLY congress has the power to declare war. With the number of nukes we have and the advantage of superior technology, there will always be time to destroy the world. No one person, of any party has the wisdom to know whether or not to launch a nuclear attack, particularly when in a hurry.
9
It’s clear that the problem is the current president* and the solution is simple. We have enough on him to impeach and convict. Start the process: tackle him rather than try to do an end run.
12
Only problem with that is, well, Mike Pence. Followed, I think, by Paul (VoucherCare) Ryan. Of course, less chance of a nuclear holocaust...
3
Why should one person, who might be stable or unstable, hawkish or dovish, petty or open-minded have the authority under law to destroy the world as we know it? No. There must be some check.
10
It was probably a stupid idea for any one person to have all that much
power to begin with. The best thing would be for no one to have the power at all. Talk about who the insane ones are to have come up with such a thing in the first place. No matter how much we try and stretch Trump to cover our rears, there’s no amount of material in the world that can cover all that’s hanging out there.
1
I know that I would sleep better, IF some controls were placed on him. The obvious solution is at least one Military Officer, babysitting 24/7. THEIR Oath is to the Constitution, not any random poseur. The current Nannies are NOT exactly effective. Just saying.
20
"The obvious solution is at least one Military Officer, babysitting 24/7. THEIR Oath is to the Constitution, not any random poseur."
That's not a "solution", because the President is Commander in Chief under the Constitution, so the President outranks all "Military Officer[s]".
See Article II, Section 2:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-secti...
And Google "chain of command".
"The obvious solution is at least one Military Officer, babysitting 24/7. THEIR Oath is to the Constitution, not any random poseur."
That's not a "solution", because the President is Commander in Chief under the Constitution, so the President outranks all "Military Officer[s]".
See Article II, Section 2:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-secti...
And Google "chain of command".
2017-11-16 16:42:03 UTC
Trump may, unwittingly, lead Congress to further curtail the powers of the Imperial Presidency. We have long assumed that the leader of our nation would be, almost by default, a thoughtful person who would, at the end of the day, do the right thing. But that changed with Trump's election. Millions of lives and the very nature and future of the United States of America hangs in the balance.
542
Not this (GOP) Congress.
Of the world, Clyde, of the world.
2
Clyde,
Even if you were the most thoughtful of Presidents you still cannot
control North Korea or any other nation that might launch missiles at the
United States. Given the little time between notification that a launch is
being prepared and the time the US can respond - it really does not matter
who is president - either you launch or you do not - little time to get a
Quorum in Congress to get their approval.
1
Just stupid to even consider, of course the president as we currently have must have the authority, there is not time for congress to do anything. Congress has many real issues that they should get done, like say fixing the dreamers issue which should take no more than say a week to resolve.
The idea of having a launch agreed upon by VP and Secretaries of Defense and State isn't terrible. In a fast paced situation, 4 people should be able to agree quickly. Disagreements would rise in less clear scenarios. But it's precisely in those situations that we should hesitate to use so great a weapon.
236
Not true. Congress could appoint a representative, or even a quorum of representatives, available 24/7, to sign off on a nuclear strike. The point is that such a world shattering decision should not be in the hands of a single individual.
156
I trust Trump with nukes the way I trust a toddler with a loaded gun. He’s also unable to decide whether or not to use nuclear force at any time. Better leave that to a grown-up. Mueller for instance.
72