3 ms·
>Nancy Pelosi told fellow House Democrats that she had received reassurances about safeguards to prevent Donald Trump from launching a nuclear attack Maybe thi
by slg 6y ago
>Nancy Pelosi told fellow House Democrats that she had received reassurances about safeguards to prevent Donald Trump from launching a nuclear attack
Maybe this is too political or HN, but this is the bigger news on that page. It tells me we don't have a functioning chain of command and our government is currently responding to a hard coup attempt with a soft coup which is also pretty scary. Trump should either be removed through the 25th amendment or he should be president with all its power and responsibility. Putting "safeguards" in place so no one really knows who is in charge can be dangerous. Hopefully nothing too serious happens in the next week and a half.
EDIT: To be clear and to address the multiple replies, I am not a Trump fan or a supporter of nuclear weapons or anything along those lines. The problem here is that there needs to be a clear chain of command in case of an actual emergency. People being insubordinate to the president and taking on power that they do not constitutionally could be extremely dangerous in an emergency. The unelected bureaucrats of the government shouldn't be the ones making these decisions.
- 96394032 6y agoI would hope all entities with nuclear capabilities have de facto safeguards in place to prevent anyone from actually launching a nuclear attack. Although, I would also hope they wouldn't talk about them as it diminishes the deterrent effect that is the only potentially good thing about such weapons. Nuclear weapons should never be used but people who can use them should not say that.
- slg 6y agoI read that comment as saying there are extra safeguards currently in place that go above and beyond the normal safeguards. If the existing safeguards for a normal president would be enough, Pelosi being third in line for the president likely wouldn't have to ask about them.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThe safeguard is mostly a bunch of literal guards.
- baybal2 6y agoYou think the full missile command chain being loyal to him today?
- pySSK 6y agoAgreed. This news will probably make him want to do it more.
- xpe 6y agoMy personal views aside, this is off-topic.
- slg 6y agoIt is only off topic because of the title used by the person posting it. My comment was directly based off the linked article.
- comradecorrect 6y agoComrade, you are only allowed to comment on what you are instructed to comment on, and how you are instructed to comment. Do not deviate from your instructions.
- xpe 6y agoOk. At the present time, the Reuters article at https://www.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN29D2HA https://www.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN29D2HA does not have mention of safeguards to prevent Donald Trump from launching a nuclear attack. Did something change in the article?
- rat87 6y agoPersonally I find the idea that there are any safeguards against Trump lunching nukes a comfort Nixon's aides did likewise in the days before his resignation. The fact that the president has the power to decide to punch nukes all by himself is terrifying and should have been fixed long ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- DenisM 6y agoAnd what makes you think that it wasn't? If you were in charge of the nuke launch process you would never give the power to one man, would you? You would have probably done two things: 1. Require a broad consensus to launch (possibly with a dead-hand). 2. Don't tell anyone on the outside. Best keep the enemy guessing and the people in awe. Throughout the history people clamored for a strong leader, so you either give them one and suffer the risks of having a dictatorship, or you give them an illusion of a strong leader. The fictitious red button works perfectly - the man carries the literal Armageddon in his pocket, his power must be divine (subject to expiration on Jan 20th).
- jessaustin 6y agoPutting "safeguards" in place so no one really knows who is in charge can be dangerous. If the personnel involved hadn't overruled their orders several times during "the Cold War", we would already have had several post-Nagasaki nuclear disasters. These weapons are ongoing dangers to everyone.
- 13415 6y agoEven the US military doesn't have the doctrine to blindly follow any order under any circumstances. Or at least, that's what I would expect from any modern military. In any case, there is no real danger here and Pelosi is exaggerating a bit. Fun fact: If there had been a clear chain of command and lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov of the Soviet Air Defense Forces had followed his orders without questioning them, then the world would probably have been destroyed in a nuclear Armageddon in 1983.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
- MattGaiser 6y agoThe safeguard could be as little as a majority of the cabinet + Pence saying they are willing to invoke the 25th if there is a nuclear attempt.
- valuearb 6y agoThat would be a little late.
- _ph_ 6y agoThere are plenty of szenarios where you don't want to launch a nuclear attack without several people checking the attack order. To my knowledge, the president can't just order an attack, this has to be at least confirmed by one member of a small group of people of necessary rank. Beyond being mostly a political move, Nancy Pelosi reminded by this this group, that a possible launch order most likely is bogus and they should be extremely careful before confirming it.
- xpe 6y ago> Nancy Pelosi told fellow House Democrats that she had received reassurances about safeguards to prevent Donald Trump from launching a nuclear attack As of ~5 pm eastern, the Reuters article [1] does not have this text. If I assume it was there at one point, what happened? [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN29D2HA https://www.reuters.com/article/BigStory12/idUSKBN29D2HA
- slg 6y agoThe link was changed from a general here are the latest updates article to one more focused on the topic in the headline.