Time to Get Rid of the Presidential Power for Nuclear First Strike

[candycorn]

Not much of a discussion to be had. You idea is beyond stupid on all levels,

Well, you have to have a working brain to understand the idiocy of allowing one person to essentially destroy the planet. You clearly do not have one.

 

[Nostra]

Xi to Biden: “Hey Chicom Joe, I just sent 100 nukes headed your way. They should be there in a few hours”.

Biden: “Thanks for the heads up, but I can’t do anything until after the country is glowing……so if our nukes are still operational I‘m gonna show you what’s what like I did Cornpop”.


Excellent plan!

 

[Nostra]

Well, you have to have a working brain to understand the idiocy of allowing one person to essentially destroy the planet. You clearly do not have one.

You have no clue how we would launch a nuke.

 

[Circe]

One area where the candidates could actually have an impact is to strip away some of the crazy power we give the chief executive. One of the most glaring idiocies is to give the President the ability to essentially end the world by launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon.

There is no reason to ever have such an ability invested in one person. A retaliatory strike? Yes. But to squeeze off a nuke when we were not hit first is unthinkable and, up until recently, unimaginable.

Since post-Hiroshima the USA has officially given up first strike with nukes: it's a public policy position. And since we have never since that time done it, I'd say it's true. Since the 50s everyone assumed there WOULD be nuclear war, and a bazillion apocolytic novels were written about it (though none that posited that the U.S. started it, interestingly). However, amazingly, nuclear war never happened.

We don't do pre-emptive strikes as a public promise, so there is no reason to say the president has that power. He can't fire the missiles by himself, you know, and the military would not obey such an illicit order, IMO.

 

[Circe]

What are you trying to say...what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Hopefully, when we nuke them back (there is no "if"), they will be destroyed and unable to launch more devices.

Yes, there is an "if." That's what a lot of war-planning is about now. For two or more decades the focus has been on how to destroy the USA secretly: using high-altitude nukes that cause an EMP strike is a favorite idea, as is the idea of crashing the financial system and/or the Internet, either of which surely would paralyze the country.

If we don't know who hit us, it's hard to be accurate in reply. I assume the policy is to simply hit whatever power is causing us the most trouble now, whether they did it or not, but if that one isn't the right one, more attacks could quickly follow. Also retaliatory attacks from the first one we hit, if they aren't completely destroyed.

 

[candycorn]

Since post-Hiroshima the USA has officially given up first strike with nukes: it's a public policy position. And since we have never since that time done it, I'd say it's true. Since the 50s everyone assumed there WOULD be nuclear war, and a bazillion apocolytic novels were written about it (though none that posited that the U.S. started it, interestingly). However, amazingly, nuclear war never happened.

We don't do pre-emptive strikes as a public promise, so there is no reason to say the president has that power. He can't fire the missiles by himself, you know, and the military would not obey such an illicit order, IMO.

I would hope you'd be right. There is also a "two-man" rule to have someone concur to the launch. The problem with the two man rule is that the President could simply fire and replace anyone who didn't go along. Couple that with someone in the military chain of command willing to carry out the order na we have a problem.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, there is an "if." That's what a lot of war-planning is about now. For two or more decades the focus has been on how to destroy the USA secretly: using high-altitude nukes that cause an EMP strike is a favorite idea, as is the idea of crashing the financial system and/or the Internet, either of which surely would paralyze the country.

If we don't know who hit us, it's hard to be accurate in reply. I assume the policy is to simply hit whatever power is causing us the most trouble now, whether they did it or not, but if that one isn't the right one, more attacks could quickly follow. Also retaliatory attacks from the first one we hit, if they aren't completely destroyed.

Politically it is a non-starter to suffer a nuke attack and not respond with one of our own...nothing else would even come close.

 

[whitehall]

The president gets full authority to retaliate. Not strike first.

Well than what's the point of the post? I guess things were different back in Harry Truman's day.
t

 

[candycorn]

Well than what's the point of the post? I guess things were different back in Harry Truman's day.
t

We were the only one with atomic weapons in Harry Truman's day.

wow.

 

[Circe]

Politically it is a non-starter to suffer a nuke attack and not respond with one of our own...nothing else would even come close.

So --- what WOULD you advise if we do not know who attacked us, postulating, say, a dirty bomb on a cargo ship, or a high-altitude nuclear EMP strike?? Sneak attacks are the new thinking.

 

[candycorn]

So --- what WOULD you advise if we do not know who attacked us, postulating, say, a dirty bomb on a cargo ship, or a high-altitude nuclear EMP strike?? Sneak attacks are the new thinking.

Sneak attacks are a different type of cat.

A first-strike wouldn't apply since...ya know...if a cargo ship is in the Port of Miami...we're not going to nuke the port of Miami to take it out. If the button man is in Beirut...are you suggesting we nuke Beirut in a first strike to get the one guy?



A massive EMP strike is fiction.

As for what I would advise if we were hit with a terrorist attack or a dirty bomb is recovery and we would go to the ends of the earth to find the guy. But I wouldn't recommend we nuke a city to get even with someone.

 

[Circe]

I would hope you'd be right. There is also a "two-man" rule to have someone concur to the launch. The problem with the two man rule is that the President could simply fire and replace anyone who didn't go along. Couple that with someone in the military chain of command willing to carry out the order na we have a problem.

Well, sure ----- but you are now talking about a very different nation than the one now hanging on to its values in the present. Sure, there could be a coup d'etat by someone(s) who wanted to have lots of concentration camps built, or wanted to execute lots of certain types of people or wanted to do first-strike nuke attacks; but that would be a different country.

As things are now, politically, I can't see the possibility of the USA doing a first strike. We've pledged not to do that since the 1940s. And I can't see the point, really. We don't feel a need to conquer other countries, what with our geography, except maybe Mexico, but that would not need nukes.

 

[Circe]

Sneak attacks are a different type of cat.

A first-strike wouldn't apply since...ya know...if a cargo ship is in the Port of Miami...we're not going to nuke the port of Miami to take it out. If the button man is in Beirut...are you suggesting we nuke Beirut in a first strike to get the one guy?



A massive EMP strike is fiction.

Why are you asking if I am suggesting we first-strike Beirut with nukes? YOU are the one thinking of first strikes: I'm the one saying it's politically impossible.

An EMP strike is fiction now, but an awful lot of people believe in it and one hears a lot of military equipment has been hardened, so who knows. It would be essentially impossible to tell whodunnit, that's my point. There is a policy (hit whomever we hate most) to deal with that, but it might be an ineffective policy, if it leaves us open for a second strike.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

As the 2024 presidential election season heats up, you'll have candidates weighing in on all sorts of issues to where their impact as President would be minimal at best. The President has nothing to do with crime on the streets, minimal impact on how society behaves, and almost nothing to do with job creation. OF course we like report cards, grades, and objective data so we apply rates and polls to points in time and attribute those to whomever is in office.

One area where the candidates could actually have an impact is to strip away some of the crazy power we give the chief executive. One of the most glaring idiocies is to give the President the ability to essentially end the world by launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon.

There is no reason to ever have such an ability invested in one person. A retaliatory strike? Yes. But to squeeze off a nuke when we were not hit first is unthinkable and, up until recently, unimaginable.

What a great idea! Let the world know we aren’t going to do anything to prevent being attacked they get the first shot. Load up Cuba with Russian nukes again. We promise we won’t do anything until you hit us.

You have the thought process of a fucking child.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As the 2024 presidential election season heats up, you'll have candidates weighing in on all sorts of issues to where their impact as President would be minimal at best. The President has nothing to do with crime on the streets, minimal impact on how society behaves, and almost nothing to do with job creation. OF course we like report cards, grades, and objective data so we apply rates and polls to points in time and attribute those to whomever is in office.

One area where the candidates could actually have an impact is to strip away some of the crazy power we give the chief executive. One of the most glaring idiocies is to give the President the ability to essentially end the world by launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon.

There is no reason to ever have such an ability invested in one person. A retaliatory strike? Yes. But to squeeze off a nuke when we were not hit first is unthinkable and, up until recently, unimaginable.

He doesn't have that power.
The President has the authority to give permission for a strike. The "Nuclear Football" doesn't actually release nukes. All it does is send a signal to the military to strike. And the football itself requires two people to operate.
If it is activated, the military will first contact the White House to confirm it. Then they will get information as to what particular nukes are we talking about, aimed at who.
Then once that is conveyed, the military will send out launch codes to where the nukes are. At that point it takes two officers to confirm the codes are authentic. Then they send authorization down to the actual people who literally push a button. That button takes two people also, and they have to type in the correct auth code to even do that.
So a crazed President, on his own, will get nowhere by simply hitting the football, he would also have to have the second person to insert their key. So a crazed President, and a crazed military aide push the button. Nothing happens. The military will call the White House to confirm, if no one but the President knows anything about it - I assure you no General is going to give the order.

 

[B. Kidd]

The president gets full authority to retaliate. Not strike first.

Nuclear sub commanders could strike without the President's approval up to 1996!!
I refer you to the movie 'Crimson Tide' as to why this got changed.

 

[fncceo]

Time to Get Rid of the Presidential Power for Nuclear First Strike​

You finally realized Biden was in office?

 

[sparky]

I see there is nobody who wants to (outside of Thunder) discuss the topic. Typical.

well all i can think of is>>>

~S~

 

[sparky]

You finally realized Biden was in office?

i wonder if he does?

~S~

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Well, here is the scenario you've cooked up.

We have apparently intel that someone is going to nuke us.



Isn't it true that the intel can be right or it can be wrong? See our great Iraq mis-adventure for proof that it can be.

So we launch a nuclear missile at this nation/terrorist group. If they have a nuclear missile they are going to launch it while ours is in flight. If they don't have one...we've just nuked someone and will draw, at best, worldwide condemnation (which for a terrorist group is likely just as good). At worst, we will draw fire from other nuclear powers in the region we've targeted and get a robust response.

The life of of one US citizen means more to me than any number of foreigners. You seem to have the opposite opinion. You are the kind of person that if you had known about 9/11 beforehand you would have done nothing to stop it because it would have made the Muslims mad.