4 ms·

In my mind, a nuclear first strike without Congress is definitely illegal because President's cannot declare war--only Congress can. Presidents for a long time

In my mind, a nuclear first strike without Congress is definitely illegal because President's cannot declare war--only Congress can. Presidents for a long time have engaged in limited quasi-wars without Congress by hand-waving over "what is war, anyway," conducting missile strikes and engaging in targeted special operations. Congress looking the other way is a clear abdication of responsibility here, but there has been enough plausible grey area to get away with this over many recent decades of American foreign policy. But I don't know any serious person who would look at a nuclear first strike and think there's any debate about whether or not that constituted an outright declaration of war. We definitely need to make this more explicit though, and not rely on out of control President to test it.

adaisadais 6y ago
Herein lies the issue: the quasi-war. The US must make actions in the future to more accurately describe what a war is. In my mind virtually every “quasi-war” that the United States has waged since WWII has been waged unconstitutionally. We’ve gone about for too long meddling in the affairs of others. Putting boots on their grounds and haven’t the slightest bit of gall to make it official and firmly support it. These acts of ill will (however good intentioned they may have been- and most have not *see War in Vietnam) have been nothing but racketeering and have violated our own Constitution. I agree. We must clarify and make it more explicit. We must also create a nuclear armistice. We can’t continue to go on kicking the little countries and idealogies of the world and not expect the Big Ones to at some point decide to kick back. “ Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say? Can't you see the fears that I'm feeling today? If the button is pushed, there's no running away There'll be no one to save with the world in a grave” From Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction”
whatshisface 6y ago
Let's say that country P's intelligence agency is implicated in helping a terrorist group based in country Q obtain a weapon from the leaky security of country R, which is then detonated in country S but with a smaller yield than expected due to deterioration in R's stockpile maintenance, so that most of the damage is the cost of the radioactive cleanup. Act of war?
- whynotminot 6y ago
  Country P helping detonate a nuclear weapon in country S is absolutely unquestionably an act of war. I don’t think your scenario is as convoluted as you think just because the warhead didn’t come riding in on a rocket.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The key word there is "implicated." Who decides that they did it?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rhino369 6y ago
The reason the US won't sign no-first use agreement is the situation where Russia troops start an invasion of Europe (or the Chinese and North Koreans invade South Korea, etc.). So there are scenarios where the President is not the one declaring war, but responding to aggression, but would still be the one using nuclear weapons first. Either way you'd have to give the President the keys to the nuclear arsenal so that we'd have a second strike capability.

adaisadais 6y ago

Herein lies the issue: the quasi-war. The US must make actions in the future to more accurately describe what a war is. In my mind virtually every “quasi-war” that the United States has waged since WWII has been waged unconstitutionally. We’ve gone about for too long meddling in the affairs of others. Putting boots on their grounds and haven’t the slightest bit of gall to make it official and firmly support it. These acts of ill will (however good intentioned they may have been- and most have not *see War in Vietnam) have been nothing but racketeering and have violated our own Constitution. I agree. We must clarify and make it more explicit. We must also create a nuclear armistice. We can’t continue to go on kicking the little countries and idealogies of the world and not expect the Big Ones to at some point decide to kick back. “ Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say? Can't you see the fears that I'm feeling today? If the button is pushed, there's no running away There'll be no one to save with the world in a grave” From Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction”

whatshisface 6y ago

Let's say that country P's intelligence agency is implicated in helping a terrorist group based in country Q obtain a weapon from the leaky security of country R, which is then detonated in country S but with a smaller yield than expected due to deterioration in R's stockpile maintenance, so that most of the damage is the cost of the radioactive cleanup. Act of war?

whynotminot 6y ago
Country P helping detonate a nuclear weapon in country S is absolutely unquestionably an act of war. I don’t think your scenario is as convoluted as you think just because the warhead didn’t come riding in on a rocket.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The key word there is "implicated." Who decides that they did it?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rhino369 6y ago

The reason the US won't sign no-first use agreement is the situation where Russia troops start an invasion of Europe (or the Chinese and North Koreans invade South Korea, etc.). So there are scenarios where the President is not the one declaring war, but responding to aggression, but would still be the one using nuclear weapons first. Either way you'd have to give the President the keys to the nuclear arsenal so that we'd have a second strike capability.