Jokes aside, this is a serious question. If the Russians fire all their ICBM’s at the United States, the flight time is about 25 minutes for the first warhead to hit (shorter if they also used SLBMs). If there is an actual US President who is a puppet of the Kremlin, and he refuses to retaliate, whats the recourse? I suppose the 25th Amendment procedure could be used, but 25 minutes…, would there be enough time?
I presume they have contingencies for if the Commander in Chief is killed, but what recourse does the US (or anyone else) have if said CinC is an actual puppet? Or if he alternately says “fake news” when advised of an attack?
IANA Constitutional Lawyer, but my understanding is that legally, the armed forces are beholden to the legal orders of those placed over them in the chain of command, per the Constitution, which would include hypothetical Presidents disinclined to defend the nation.
Practically speaking, I have no idea what they can do without the CinC’s orders/authorization. IANA Nuclear Warfare Guy.
If Russia fired ALL of its missiles then it seems to me that intelligent thing would be NOT to fire back. It’s not like doing so saves any American lives because It’s already too late. If anything you’d be likely to start a far larger conflict which could result in the Chinese entering the fray. Anyway this is GQ so I’m sorry that’s not a factual answer. But I guess my point is that the best action would be to concentrate n saving lives and trying to avoid more destruction. Revenge can wait. Therefore it might not be seen as a dereliction of duty but rather a wise response. Later you find a way to dismantle the Russians. Maybe a targeted attack against Putin and his government. That way you get your revenge and then stand atop the morale high ground.
I agree it would be pointless to fire back, even in a dementia of REVENGE*** !!***
However I am awestruck at the nobility and selfless dedication of President Trump in this scenario as a 5 Megaton missile heads inexorably in his direction. For the Cause, Comrade Putin ! For you, my Beloved Leader ! For Mother Russia I give all !"
I think that the OP meant to say that Trump refuses to give the order in the first place, not that he refuses to authorize an order given by some hypothetical other person.
In which case, the answer is that he’s the President, and it’s his decision, and if we don’t like the decision he makes, then it’s our fault for electing him.
It is at this point he gets shot and we have a military coup. Not constitutional you say? Too bad, it’s human nature and that trumps everything in the scenario you present, even Trump. One could argue that it would be their patriotic duty to take him out as he is failing his obligation to defend the country.
Why would the Russians fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. at all if they have a puppet as the POTUS? Even if that wasn’t the case, someone like Trump has kids, grandkids and lots of real estate that he wouldn’t appreciate being destroyed. Why would he hold back?
Why would the Russians do this? Those are astronomically high stakes to count on the actions of a ‘puppet’. Trump wouldn’t order nuclear retaliation because the Russians really do have video’s of him in water sports with hookers?
It’s up to the president as CinC to give this order. There’s no pre-existing order or policy to be ‘authorized’. He wouldn’t have violated any law in not giving that order and thus the ‘what if’ is really no different than the more usual ‘what if the people manning the nuclear force felt it was pointless additional mass murder to do their duty and refused to launch’, except possible confusion about who would be breaking the law: the military people in either case, refusing to follow orders, or retaliating w/o orders.
It’s arguably not the correct order to give. In the head games of MAD deterrence you have act as if you’d retaliate massively without hesitation, or you make the attack more likely. You certainly don’t want a public policy discussion of ‘maybe it would be best for all if we just stood and took it if another country launched a nuclear attack on us’. Then again once deterrence failed, it’s not as obvious you’d want to massively retaliate.
Another aspect not mentioned is that it was assumed a Soviet first strike nuclear attack on the US in latter stages of Cold War would be aimed at US ICBM’s, bomber and SSBN bases, not cities. The debate was whether that would still cause enough civilian casualties* to be essentially the same as just launching on US cities and assuming/hoping the US leadership wouldn’t do anything ‘for the good of mankind at that point’. But there seemed little serious thought the Soviets would risk the latter. There was some worry about a ‘counter force’ first strike and it was a major element in deciding the nature of the US force.
*and global macro effect, such as theorized ‘nuclear winter’.
Suppose it was 2014 and Obama was still President. Would we want there to be a procedure for somebody to decide to launch a nuclear war despite the President ordering them to stand down?
Not really. The POTUS takes an oath to protect and defend the country, to not do so is political suicide no matter who is in office. I can’t see Trump just siting there doing nothing, the scenario makes no sense.
This is where he gets shot by a patriot. History is written by the winners, so it would be spun as a expedited impeachment. :eek: Still it isn’t ever going to happen so your outcome is the only factual answer, the rest is just Trump bashing. And this coming from a guy who loves to bash Trump.
Well, you’d follow Attack plan R, an emergency war plan enabling a senior officer to launch a retaliation strike against the Soviets if everyone in the normal chain of command, including the President, has been killed during a sneak attack. Plan R was intended to discourage the Soviets from launching a decapitation strike against the President in Washington to disrupt U.S. command and control and stop an American nuclear counterattack.
Seriously, this has already been contingicized. A decapitation strike won’t work with submarine launched ICBMs. The whole point of MAD, and a defense triad, is that it’s foolish to first strike, because the second strike is going to obliterate you in return.
You say it’s a serious question, so going to ignore the “don’t fight the hypothetical” sort of guideline we use for theoretical discussion (like when time travel is part of the posed question, etc.).
I can’t see this happening at all. If Russia was going to launch the full nuclear arsenal then it would be at various countries, not just the US. Some of these are closer than the US, and we (the US; I’m American) might know they’d been hit before we were hit. He’s not going to think “fake news” in that case unless he’s actually got dementia.
Also, there would be a period of increased hostilities leading up to a launch. It’s not a spur-of-the-moment thing. While Trump might not take those hostilities seriously or think anything is going to happen, many others in the intelligence branch or government will. Also, they might be looking for first-launch type signs. I remember reading that during Able Archer one of the points the Soviet government weighed as a negative for a US first strike was that there had not been a mass slaughter of livestock. Now, I’m not saying Russia would evacuate all its cities and tip its hand, but if hostilities are getting that bad, various governments (not just US) would be paying very close attention.
Next up, if Trump is a puppet, then he’s useful as is, and Russia more likely not to strike, because they don’t have to - they’re already getting what they want. At least until his term is near an end. And if they do attack, they know they’re getting hit by other countries with nuclear weapons (unless we really piss off NATO - and even then, those countries have got to be worried they’re next if for some inexplicable reason they weren’t hit in the first place).
I will also say that Trump is a person who likes revenge. If he knows he’s been targeted, I think he’s going to try to destroy his attacker. He might be buddy-buddy with Russia now, but that doesn’t hold after they try to kill him.
Lastly, my understanding is that the call belongs to the President. There is no legal requirement for retaliation. Whether or not that call would be respected (and what could be done about it in the short timeframe available) is a separate issue, but refusal to retaliate is not, by itself, treason or punishable by law. And since he’d almost definitely be dead by time it was over (maybe being left behind by the plane like Jimmy Carter) or maybe just because so much of the country is, he wouldn’t have to explain to his electorate. But just because he doesn’t make the popular call doesn’t mean it can (legally) be changed in 25 minutes. But in the event such a wild and unbelievable thing happened, I’m not sure legal matters.