4 ms·

If Trump loses and RFK Jr isn't given a chance, we'll still be left with a president likely incapable of making nuclear strike decisions in 6 minutes at a momen

If Trump loses and RFK Jr isn't given a chance, we'll still be left with a president likely incapable of making nuclear strike decisions in 6 minutes at a moment's notice. Biden's cognitive ability gets wildly exaggerated, but I think its totally reasonable to assume he isn't always 100% prepared for such a decision and 4 more years would just make that harder. I honestly don't know how anyone makes such a decision with limited knowledge in the moment and 6 minutes to act, so it's not like the problem is only related to age or medical concerns.

baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
api 3y ago
No single human being should have this power. It’s absurd. Anyone can have a stroke, a medication reaction, or experience a mental health crisis for any other reason.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Anyone of sound mind and health can still make a bad decision in the moment. I'd argue ever launching nukes is a bad decision, at which point we might as well disconnect the football and just not tell anyone.
  - api 3y ago
    Make it a glitter bomb.
_ph_ 3y ago
There is very little risk of anyone launching a major nuclear attack onto the US. The US would always be able to retaliate against such a strike. I would be more concerned about Trump doing something silly, either launching a nuclear strike or provoking a situation in which nuclear weapons might get used.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  It doesn't actually require another country launching first. The US system has a matter of minutes from the first automated detection of launch, to a secondary confirmation, and presenting options to the president. Its also our policy to return fire before absorbing an impact, meaning we don't wait to confirm a nuclear strike was on our soil. Granted its still a really unlikely scenario, but we only need to detect what appears to be a nuke with a trajectory that could be pointed at a US target. Regardless, while Trump may seem a bit crazy and I'd personally write in a vote for Empty Chair before picking him, I don't really feel comfortable with anyone having exclusive power to launch nukes.
  - toast0 3y ago
    Here's the thing. If launch detection and land based ICBMs make mutually assured destruction a credible deterent, then the decision time is short: upthread, 6 minutes was posted. Coming to consensus in 6 minutes with a committee sounds pretty hard. It kind of does need to be one person, or you need more time. OTOH, even though it's one person with authority, you've still got to convince a lot of people to act. You've got to get the person with the football to bring it over and open it up. And it's not a button to push to launch the missiles, it's a radio to reach the Strategic Air Command, to give a command to launch the missiles, that will need to be disseminated. When the Commander in Chief gives a command, you're expected to carry it out, but there's an opportunity to object or disobey. And then there's the people who actually push the buttons.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      I really so understand logically why they got to the solution of a single person to make the decision, but play that out. When mutually assured destruction ultimately fails, and it inevitably will, what happens. The US detects a launch that appears to be aimed at their soil, the president picks from a menu of response options and launches. Do they launch to warn the enemy and create an opening for escalation? Do they launch for complete annihilation? And remember, that can all be triggered by a false positive that was never a launch targeting the US. Mutually assured destruction kind of made sense with two nuclear powers, maybe can hold with a few more, but it simply doesn't scale. Even with a short list, eventually someone will launch. We won't see those weapons and anything worse to come go completely unused forever. > When the Commander in Chief gives a command, you're expected to carry it out, but there's an opportunity to object or disobey. And then there's the people who actually push the buttons.

baybal2 3y ago

[dead]

api 3y ago

No single human being should have this power. It’s absurd. Anyone can have a stroke, a medication reaction, or experience a mental health crisis for any other reason.

_heimdall 3y ago
Anyone of sound mind and health can still make a bad decision in the moment. I'd argue ever launching nukes is a bad decision, at which point we might as well disconnect the football and just not tell anyone.
- api 3y ago
  Make it a glitter bomb.

_ph_ 3y ago

There is very little risk of anyone launching a major nuclear attack onto the US. The US would always be able to retaliate against such a strike. I would be more concerned about Trump doing something silly, either launching a nuclear strike or provoking a situation in which nuclear weapons might get used.

_heimdall 3y ago
It doesn't actually require another country launching first. The US system has a matter of minutes from the first automated detection of launch, to a secondary confirmation, and presenting options to the president. Its also our policy to return fire before absorbing an impact, meaning we don't wait to confirm a nuclear strike was on our soil. Granted its still a really unlikely scenario, but we only need to detect what appears to be a nuke with a trajectory that could be pointed at a US target. Regardless, while Trump may seem a bit crazy and I'd personally write in a vote for Empty Chair before picking him, I don't really feel comfortable with anyone having exclusive power to launch nukes.
- toast0 3y ago
  Here's the thing. If launch detection and land based ICBMs make mutually assured destruction a credible deterent, then the decision time is short: upthread, 6 minutes was posted. Coming to consensus in 6 minutes with a committee sounds pretty hard. It kind of does need to be one person, or you need more time. OTOH, even though it's one person with authority, you've still got to convince a lot of people to act. You've got to get the person with the football to bring it over and open it up. And it's not a button to push to launch the missiles, it's a radio to reach the Strategic Air Command, to give a command to launch the missiles, that will need to be disseminated. When the Commander in Chief gives a command, you're expected to carry it out, but there's an opportunity to object or disobey. And then there's the people who actually push the buttons.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I really so understand logically why they got to the solution of a single person to make the decision, but play that out. When mutually assured destruction ultimately fails, and it inevitably will, what happens. The US detects a launch that appears to be aimed at their soil, the president picks from a menu of response options and launches. Do they launch to warn the enemy and create an opening for escalation? Do they launch for complete annihilation? And remember, that can all be triggered by a false positive that was never a launch targeting the US. Mutually assured destruction kind of made sense with two nuclear powers, maybe can hold with a few more, but it simply doesn't scale. Even with a short list, eventually someone will launch. We won't see those weapons and anything worse to come go completely unused forever. > When the Commander in Chief gives a command, you're expected to carry it out, but there's an opportunity to object or disobey. And then there's the people who actually push the buttons.