3 ms·

> How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president? > The president alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man ru

by gzer0 5y ago

> How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president? > The president alone authorizes a nuclear launch and the two-man rule does not apply to him. These two sentences are quite frightening on their own, but even more so given the likelihood that this will become a reality at some point.

_carbyau_ 5y ago
Plenty of people had their doubts about Trump. Many are worried about the advanced age of Biden. There are many articles doubting Putin's mental capacity right now. Also, sanity is not a binary switch. Dementia creeps slowly. So can other mental afflictions. Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person.
- eru 5y ago
  > Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person. Not at all. A first strike maybe, but a retaliatory strike can be perfectly sane, even if exceedingly cruel. Everybody agrees that the retaliation doesn't magically undo the damage of the first strike. The thing is that you need to pre-commit to a retaliatory strike, if you want deterrence. If you are predictably not going to retaliate, and you are never going for a first strike; then you might as well not have any nukes at all. Never having any nukes at all is also a sane position.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    > If you are predictably not going to retaliate Not committing to immediate retaliation is not at all the same thing as "predictably not going to retaliate". That is, the complement of "committing not to" is not "committing to" but "not committing not to"; the two nots do not cancel and leave the issue of retaliation open. Those intent on a first strike then have to gamble.
    - eru 5y ago
      Yes. But in order for opponent to fear the gamble, you have to have a positive probability of going through and actually ordering the strike. Which again puts you in the position of having to order a strike as a sane person.
cortesoft 5y ago
Well, the president’s order has to be confirmed by two people before passing it to the next chain, right? I guess those two people are responsible for determining if the order is valid, which would include deciding if the president was of sound mind?
- paulpauper 5y ago
  no, a valid order only means it came from the president, has nothing to do with testing for sanity
  - thih9 5y ago
    Perhaps grandparent meant that some level of sanity check is implied; and that these people would e.g. ignore a drunken order to fire a nuke at a non working McDonalds ice cream machine.
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  This is exactly the question Hering posed, and he was basically told no, you're not allowed to question the order, if it comes down you have to execute it.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    In practice one can question any order. The real question is whether you can make your disagreement stick. And that often comes down to circumstances and personal power and connections.
  - dmurray 5y ago
    That seems like the right answer given that there's going to be a chain of command at all. Hering should be allowed to question whether his direct superiors are sane and optionally disobey an order if he determines they are impaired. The responsibility for questioning the president's sanity lies further up the chain.

by gzer0 5y ago

_carbyau_ 5y ago

Plenty of people had their doubts about Trump. Many are worried about the advanced age of Biden. There are many articles doubting Putin's mental capacity right now. Also, sanity is not a binary switch. Dementia creeps slowly. So can other mental afflictions. Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person.

eru 5y ago
> Philosophically, many would argue that to order international nuclear detonation nowadays is by definition, the action of an insane person. Not at all. A first strike maybe, but a retaliatory strike can be perfectly sane, even if exceedingly cruel. Everybody agrees that the retaliation doesn't magically undo the damage of the first strike. The thing is that you need to pre-commit to a retaliatory strike, if you want deterrence. If you are predictably not going to retaliate, and you are never going for a first strike; then you might as well not have any nukes at all. Never having any nukes at all is also a sane position.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > If you are predictably not going to retaliate Not committing to immediate retaliation is not at all the same thing as "predictably not going to retaliate". That is, the complement of "committing not to" is not "committing to" but "not committing not to"; the two nots do not cancel and leave the issue of retaliation open. Those intent on a first strike then have to gamble.
  - eru 5y ago
    Yes. But in order for opponent to fear the gamble, you have to have a positive probability of going through and actually ordering the strike. Which again puts you in the position of having to order a strike as a sane person.

cortesoft 5y ago

Well, the president’s order has to be confirmed by two people before passing it to the next chain, right? I guess those two people are responsible for determining if the order is valid, which would include deciding if the president was of sound mind?

paulpauper 5y ago
no, a valid order only means it came from the president, has nothing to do with testing for sanity
- thih9 5y ago
  Perhaps grandparent meant that some level of sanity check is implied; and that these people would e.g. ignore a drunken order to fire a nuke at a non working McDonalds ice cream machine.
thematrixturtle 5y ago
This is exactly the question Hering posed, and he was basically told no, you're not allowed to question the order, if it comes down you have to execute it.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  In practice one can question any order. The real question is whether you can make your disagreement stick. And that often comes down to circumstances and personal power and connections.
- dmurray 5y ago
  That seems like the right answer given that there's going to be a chain of command at all. Hering should be allowed to question whether his direct superiors are sane and optionally disobey an order if he determines they are impaired. The responsibility for questioning the president's sanity lies further up the chain.