6 ms·

The law is clear. The president has complete control over nuclear weapons, and can order their deployment at anytime. That is by design. This is the lynchpin of

The law is clear. The president has complete control over nuclear weapons, and can order their deployment at anytime. That is by design. This is the lynchpin of mutual assured destruction, and what enables launch on warning to occur. A president at any time can spin the globe, close his eyes and pick a city at random and say “nuke it”, legally it is a valid order. I too have paid closer attention to the current president’s remarks, and I see so evidence of self-awareness and self-control. I see bullying pretending to be strength. I see habitual self-aggrandizing lies. I see the worst kind of bullshitter: one that believes his own bullshit.

kop316 8y ago
Nuking a country without provocation is most certainly NOT a legal order, and the US military has been educated that is their duty and responsibility to refuse to carry out illegal orders.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  Sure it's legal. It's called a preemptive attack.
rrggrr 8y ago
Yeah, if an adversary's missile launch has been detected. Absent that the President is required to consult with his command authority. He can then be stopped by the 25th Amendment and/or a refusal to obey and unlawful order by his military aide and war room duty officers. Stop being an alarmist.
- rat87 8y ago
  The president doesn't have to consult anyone The sec of defense has to confirm the presidents identity but not the wisdom of the order Radiolab did a story on this and a former secretary of state confirmed it https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes The principle for the army to not obey unlawful orders is the only legal way to stop a president from launching nukes. And that is very much a grey area (as to what is an unlawful order). Nixon's aides made sure he wouldn't launch nukes when he was unstable but did so in an illegal manner
briandear 8y ago
Actually the law is clear: there are Constitutional checks in place to prevent a rogue presidential nuclear strike. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-presidents-power-order-nuclear-strike/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentar... The president can’t “spin a globe” and order a strike and it be legally a valid order; there is a lot more to it than that.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  Neither of the articles you linked to argue that. The NRO article puts faith in the military to ignore an order, which is a pretty big assumption. The second link explicitly says: """The president holds the constitutional position of commander in chief and is obligated to protect the United States from foreign threats. The Constitution does grant to Congress the power to declare war, but it is unclear whether a law that significantly constrained the president’s nuclear command authority — particularly when the United States or it allies are under attack or in imminent danger of attack — would be constitutional. """ Instead, I'll point you to this: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/555266383/why-president-trump-has-exclusive-authority-to-order-a-nuclear-strike https://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/555266383/why-president-trump...
credit_guy 8y ago
> legally it is a valid order Not really. Even the President cannot issue unlawful orders; if they do, they should not be followed. If someone follows an unlawful order, they are still guilty of the crime, they cannot use the defense “just following orders”. That was the Nazi defense, and it did not stand at Nurenberg. Back to the US military, here’s the oath taken by those who serve “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice “
mikeash 8y ago
If there's any lesson to be learned from the current administration, it's that "the law" doesn't mean anything without institutions to enforce it. In this case, if the President spins the globe and orders a strike and his Cabinet members tell him "uh, no," then the law doesn't matter. The strike does not happen. This problem is normally averted by displaying leadership and earning loyalty so that your subordinates will obey you when the time comes. Failing that, you can fire people until you get to someone who will obey (e.g. the Saturday Night Massacre), but of course that only works if there is such a person to be had.

kop316 8y ago

Nuking a country without provocation is most certainly NOT a legal order, and the US military has been educated that is their duty and responsibility to refuse to carry out illegal orders.

jonathankoren 8y ago
Sure it's legal. It's called a preemptive attack.

rrggrr 8y ago

Yeah, if an adversary's missile launch has been detected. Absent that the President is required to consult with his command authority. He can then be stopped by the 25th Amendment and/or a refusal to obey and unlawful order by his military aide and war room duty officers. Stop being an alarmist.

rat87 8y ago
The president doesn't have to consult anyone The sec of defense has to confirm the presidents identity but not the wisdom of the order Radiolab did a story on this and a former secretary of state confirmed it https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/nukes The principle for the army to not obey unlawful orders is the only legal way to stop a president from launching nukes. And that is very much a grey area (as to what is an unlawful order). Nixon's aides made sure he wouldn't launch nukes when he was unstable but did so in an illegal manner

briandear 8y ago

Actually the law is clear: there are Constitutional checks in place to prevent a rogue presidential nuclear strike. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-presidents-power-order-nuclear-strike/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/we-have-enough-checks-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentar... The president can’t “spin a globe” and order a strike and it be legally a valid order; there is a lot more to it than that.

jonathankoren 8y ago
Neither of the articles you linked to argue that. The NRO article puts faith in the military to ignore an order, which is a pretty big assumption. The second link explicitly says: """The president holds the constitutional position of commander in chief and is obligated to protect the United States from foreign threats. The Constitution does grant to Congress the power to declare war, but it is unclear whether a law that significantly constrained the president’s nuclear command authority — particularly when the United States or it allies are under attack or in imminent danger of attack — would be constitutional. """ Instead, I'll point you to this: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/555266383/why-president-trump-has-exclusive-authority-to-order-a-nuclear-strike https://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/555266383/why-president-trump...

credit_guy 8y ago

> legally it is a valid order Not really. Even the President cannot issue unlawful orders; if they do, they should not be followed. If someone follows an unlawful order, they are still guilty of the crime, they cannot use the defense “just following orders”. That was the Nazi defense, and it did not stand at Nurenberg. Back to the US military, here’s the oath taken by those who serve “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice “

mikeash 8y ago

If there's any lesson to be learned from the current administration, it's that "the law" doesn't mean anything without institutions to enforce it. In this case, if the President spins the globe and orders a strike and his Cabinet members tell him "uh, no," then the law doesn't matter. The strike does not happen. This problem is normally averted by displaying leadership and earning loyalty so that your subordinates will obey you when the time comes. Failing that, you can fire people until you get to someone who will obey (e.g. the Saturday Night Massacre), but of course that only works if there is such a person to be had.