Let’s assume Trump somehow got elected. How far must the government go in sharing state secrets with him? Can sensitive information/secrets he has no need to know be withheld?
I dread the thought of him having access to the nuclear launch procedures, but I suspect he’d get them.
As head of the executive branch, the president decides what is sensitive information and who it should be given to, and whether any particular person has a need to know. Normally this is heavily delegated, but ultimately as the head of the executive branch he has absolute authority over the various military, spy, and law enforcement agencies and their procedures for protecting information. As bad as Trump is, having the military decide what orders they will obey based on whether or not they like the president is significantly worse. Especially since there’s a decent number of trump supporters in the military.
They are required to refuse to follow illegal orders. Which Trump is full of.
There seems to be a common misconception that the president by him/her-self can launch a nuclear war. This is not the case. I don’t know the exact procedure, but it requires the co-operation of several people to trigger a launch.
A nuclear war would require an act of congress.
A nuclear attack would require the president and the secretary of defense authorize it. That’s all it takes assuming those under the president are willing to follow orders.
What are the differences between a nuclear attack and a nuclear war?
About 10 minutes. :eek:
One is a formal declaration of war. The other is just sending a nuclear bomb. One gets you other war-time abilities, the other still counts as peace time.
But peace-time abilities have been enough for every de facto war since World War II. So we basically don’t bother with declaring war anymore. Declaring war also gives the enemy pesky war-time rights, and requires a Congress who will agree to fight.
Suppose he offers to run the government’s computing on his own servers ? Then it’s both of their secrets.
Fascinating that the OP postulates a disconnect betwixt the president and ‘the government’.
Good gawd my good man, it’s Trump you’re talking about. Isn’t that pretty much guaranteed?
The OP is confusing Trump’s aggressive personality with the likelihood of his attacking another country. Trump is the candidate most consistently against military entanglements and the “world police” mentality. So if you’re worried about nuclear war, you should support Trump instead of questioning his fitness to know the launch codes.
I don’t think President Trump (:eek:) could be denied a security clearance.
We’ve talked about this sort of isssue before (albeit not specifically with regard to Trump, but more generally):
Are there any government activities so secret that even the president doesn’t know about them?
Does the President still operate on Need To Know?
What if the president elect were ineligable for a security clearance?
I don’t think any President could be denied access to government secrets on the grounds that the President “isn’t cleared for that”. According to the Constitution
Security clearances and classifications of material and such are therefore determined by various departments and agencies of the executive branch according to the delegated authority of the POTUS, and an executive branch official telling any President “sorry, sir, you aren’t cleared for that information” is (constitutionally-speaking) incoherent. Cleared by whom?
Yeah, I don’t really know anything about the details of nuclear launch procedures, but I’m pretty sure the POTUS doesn’t just push the Big Red Button in the Oval Office. And if an order just comes down out of nowhere to nuke Belgium, I’m sure it would be questioned, from the Secretary of Defense on down. The danger would be if such an order were plausible–I believe that the U.S. military lays a great deal of stress on the need to obey the orders of the duly elected and lawful Commander-in-Chief. So, if there were rising tensions with Russia or China, and then an order came down for a preemptive strike… :eek:
Well, maybe. Back in 2000, George W. Bush initially ran as the guy who was against “nation-building” and “being the world’s policeman” and who didn’t want our troops to be “over-extended” in deployments all over the place. And George W. Bush is a far, far more fundamentally coherent person, politically and ideologically and philosophically speaking, than Donald Trump.
Still, the most reasonable position is that a candidate who at least says he’s against military entanglements is less likely to launch WW3 than a candidate who doesn’t say that.
As commander in chief, I am not sure how any procedure which denies the President the authority to launch nukes would survive a constitutional challenge. I’m not saying that it isn’t wise to have such a fail-safe, but I think that a president has a bullet proof argument that he is the only one that has a say so about it.
1.) With Donald Trump, I think it’s reasonable to believe the gap between “What he says” and “What he will actually do” is likely to be unusually wide, even for someone seeking high political office, inasmuch as much of what he says is completely incoherent and he is notorious for just saying the first thing that pops into his head.
2.) His rhetoric on foreign policy is often very aggressive to the point of absurdity: He’s going to build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. He’s going to get tough with China. He’s said some very harsh things about ISIS (bring back waterboarding, kill terrorists’ families). He’s also apparently recently walked back some of that last stuff–see point 1.
3.) Finally, he’s a person who’s made an entire campaign out of shooting from the lip, saying what he means and not being “politically correct” (i.e., diplomatic or tactful) and emphasizing an aggressive form of masculinity and “toughness”. (He literally bragged about his penis size in the middle of a national political debate–yes, I know, someone else “started it” to some extent talking about the size of his “hands”, but he could have taken the high road–but Donald Trump never takes the high road.) And he has a long career as a thin-skinned narcissist who constantly bullies and blusters and takes things personally and doesn’t take the high road. It’s not so much that President Trump (:eek:) would have a policy of starting a war, as that he could all too easily blunder into some foreign confrontation, decide no way in hell is America/Donald J. Trump gonna “back down”, and then God only knows what might happen.
You have the right idea in realizing that it’s bluster; he’s not actually an insane asshole, he just acts that way when it’s to his advantage. It’s a fairly common thing people do.
An actual insane asshole would be terrible in business negotiations. Whatever you think of his politics, you can’t say he’s a bad negotiator. You can’t be a good negotiator if you always think your position is a lot stronger than it really is.
BTW, I’ve heard Trump called thin-skinned, but most people would crap their pants or burst into tears if they had to face the kind of nonstop public ridicule he’s being subjected to. He may not be as robotic as some politicians but he’s far tougher than I would be under the same conditions.
If there’s to be any further talk of Trump’s power to start a nuclear war, is this the right thread to bump?
Article published on Politico today (6/11/2016):
“What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? A nuclear launch expert plays out the various scenarios.” by Bruce Blair.
Lengthy article on the president’s authority to order a nuclear launch; playing out several scenarios; and analyzing Trump’s various statements about it.
If that call comes in at 3:00 in the morning, the president might have only six minutes to decide.
Author argues that the president’s authority to order a nuclear launch is total and absolute, with no checks-and-balances, in contrast to the opinions of, e.g., zwede and boytyperanma above. He also believes that if Trump becomes President, then we should be scared. Very scared.
This is clearly wildly optimistic with regard to Trump.
But it’s useful to highlight, nevertheless—given that this theory is the one that many Trump supporters are grasping onto (with the desperation of drowning people clutching a life preserver), to “explain” his record to themselves.
One of the many shortcomings of the theory: “he just acts that way when it’s to his advantage” doesn’t explain why he would think it was to his advantage to have so many powerful Republicans appalled by his conduct. As you may know, the “self-funding” period of his campaign is over, and he needs GOP donors as well as the GOP infrastructure behind him. What “advantage” is there for him in the way he’s been alienating them?
You actually can. Say that.
A good negotiator wouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy FOUR times. A good negotiator wouldn’t be involved in over 3,500 lawsuits.
Well, it’s become apparent recently that the meme of “Trump is a great negotiator” is (like many others before), a meme of The Donald’s own making.
The way he has operated seems to be:
This is not the business plan of a “good negotiator”. This is the business plan of a serial bankrupt, non-bill paying sleazebag.