6 ms·

I'm afraid that you have misunderstood the Bloomberg article. Nothing in it is about checking the power of the president (it says itself the president determine

I'm afraid that you have misunderstood the Bloomberg article. Nothing in it is about checking the power of the president (it says itself the president determines when to end the meetings and whether to ignore advice). It is all about verifying that The President has issued the order, and then ensuring that order is carried out. The President is contacted in this scenario simply because he's the only one who can actually authorize retaliation. He is enabled to do that independently, which is what the nuclear football is for. Alex Wellerstein is a academic researcher on the history of nuclear weapons, and he describes the situation thus: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-... """ >>Are there any checks in place to keep the US President from starting a nuclear war? What's amazing about this question, really, is how seriously it misunderstands the logic of the US command and control system. It gets it exactly backwards. The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and _only_ the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. It is about enabling the President's power, not checking or restricting him. """

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
The keywords here are "whenever he needs to". Are there verified nuclear warheads on verified trajectories from verified origins? Does the US President need to retaliated?
- sooheon 9y ago
  The problem is that nobody else's opinion matters. If the president wants to retaliate based on 0 evidence, they can.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
I was just describing the official process. Having spent 14 years in the military I can tell you that it's more complex than just that. The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear attack on the US.
- greggman 9y ago
  this is not my understanding. there is no such checking because in a real threat the president only has about 7 minutes until the enemies nukes fall from subs off the coast. to be a credible deterrent it has to be assumed he can order the launch in less time than that. if verification of unambiguous threat takes more time than that then the enemy can just nuke us confident we'll all be dead before our pres can get his military to accept the order http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-des...
  - astronautjones 9y ago
    I think you're technically correct, but those arguing with you (particularly those that have served in the armed forces) might cite this as a counterpoint, it takes a lot for it to make it all the way up the chain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    who cares about launching on 7 minutes when nuke subs can strike anyway at any time even after the attack ?
    - lmm 9y ago
      But who would you give command authority for that? Here in the UK, where we wouldn't even have 7 minutes in the event of an attack from Russia, we rely on exactly that strategy (possibly - the contents of the prime minister's "letters of last resort" to our submarine captains are secret and destroyed unopened when a PM leaves office) - but the flipside is that individual submarine captains have both the authority and the means to launch nuclear weapons without requiring approval from anywhere further up the chain.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        as far as i know if deep sea subs cannot contact the headquarters for x amount of time they should assume their country was nuked and are supposed to retaliate.
chumali 9y ago
From a game theory perspective the aim of the administration is going to be to make the threat of instant retaliation seem credible to any outside observer therefore preserving the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. In practice however I'd certainly be surprised to learn that there were absolutely zero checks on the process as suggested in the article.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

The keywords here are "whenever he needs to". Are there verified nuclear warheads on verified trajectories from verified origins? Does the US President need to retaliated?

sooheon 9y ago
The problem is that nobody else's opinion matters. If the president wants to retaliate based on 0 evidence, they can.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

I was just describing the official process. Having spent 14 years in the military I can tell you that it's more complex than just that. The entire point of the US command and control system is to guarantee that the President and only the President is capable of authorizing nuclear war whenever he needs to. Yes, legally and formally. Informally though, as I said, it won't go down like that, especially if it's not completely unambiguous that there is a nuclear attack on the US.

greggman 9y ago
this is not my understanding. there is no such checking because in a real threat the president only has about 7 minutes until the enemies nukes fall from subs off the coast. to be a credible deterrent it has to be assumed he can order the launch in less time than that. if verification of unambiguous threat takes more time than that then the enemy can just nuke us confident we'll all be dead before our pres can get his military to accept the order http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-59-the-des...
- astronautjones 9y ago
  I think you're technically correct, but those arguing with you (particularly those that have served in the armed forces) might cite this as a counterpoint, it takes a lot for it to make it all the way up the chain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
- ekianjo 9y ago
  who cares about launching on 7 minutes when nuke subs can strike anyway at any time even after the attack ?
  - lmm 9y ago
    But who would you give command authority for that? Here in the UK, where we wouldn't even have 7 minutes in the event of an attack from Russia, we rely on exactly that strategy (possibly - the contents of the prime minister's "letters of last resort" to our submarine captains are secret and destroyed unopened when a PM leaves office) - but the flipside is that individual submarine captains have both the authority and the means to launch nuclear weapons without requiring approval from anywhere further up the chain.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      as far as i know if deep sea subs cannot contact the headquarters for x amount of time they should assume their country was nuked and are supposed to retaliate.

chumali 9y ago

From a game theory perspective the aim of the administration is going to be to make the threat of instant retaliation seem credible to any outside observer therefore preserving the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. In practice however I'd certainly be surprised to learn that there were absolutely zero checks on the process as suggested in the article.