# What would an "illegal nuclear strike order" be? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023 "2017-11-18T21:37:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/101 "2017-11-21T23:46:52Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Have you been paying attention to news for the last couple of years? The commander of U.S. Strategic Command (along with pretty much every human being that hasn’t been living in a cave for the last 2 year) suspects that the current POTUS IS less civil, less human, of less self control than previous Presidents and indeed that a heightened threat of such a gross inhuman illegal action exist. Hence why he made this statement. I don’t think this is even a remotely-accurate description of the context and motivation for the commander of U.S. Strategic Command’s statement. Please see this quote from earlier in the thread: > [@Ravenman](#): > > First of all, I completely agree with the minority of posters in this thread who have written things to the effect that the Commander of Strategic Command answered the question in the same way that every other military leader would have, or should have. According to a news report I listened to this morning, General Hyten was directly asked a question to the effect of, “Would you obey an illegal order to launch nuclear weapons?” (I was listening to the radio, so I’m not sure how the question was precisely phrased.) The answer, of course, is No. … ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/102 "2017-11-22T00:36:50Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > You mention specifically practicing hand jamming actual devices in past posts. That sounded an awful lot like a job that officers don’t do. You’re throwing around a personal opinion based on an antiquated stereotype, and it follows through your posts. > [@SamuelA](#): > > I stand by my post, though. You’re arguing from authority that does sound pretty solid…still wrong. The 1946 act blocks officers like yourself in an active war from deciding when to use the nuclear munitions you might be entrusted with without a Presidential order. So, illustrate that. I doubt you’ve actually read the law. I had the opportunity today to go through it today, but I’ll wait for your “expertise.” > [@SamuelA](#): > > A 2017 Act could hypothetically explicitly make the first use of nuclear weapons a war crime, subject to the UCMJ, and would explicitly give all officers in the nuclear chain of command a legitimate reason to resist that illegal order. You know, the thing those JAG guys told you about. Even if the order came from the President. > > Right now, the President can’t order you to use VX on hippie protesters outside the post, right? Even though he’s the CinC. Everyone involved would either refuse or face a court martial where they would be certain to be convicted, right? So the same principle applies for the nukes. Wow, you sure do grandstand a lot. Those JAG guys you base a personal opinion on taught me about a lot of things, including “proportionality.” No court would convict based on your scenario. Your logic (if there’s even a shred of it) escapes me. Tripler We like to deal in facts here. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/103 "2017-11-22T00:50:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think this is even a remotely-accurate description of the context and motivation for the commander of U.S. Strategic Command’s statement. Please see this quote from earlier in the thread: To add to **HD** ’s refutation, I found the text of his answer. I couldn’t find the question. > [@](#): > > “I provide advice to the President,” Hyten said. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.” Seems to me that is what we should expect military commanders to do. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/104 "2017-11-22T00:51:19Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > Wow, you sure do grandstand a lot. Those JAG guys you base a personal opinion on taught me about a lot of things, including “proportionality.” No court would convict based on your scenario. Your logic (if there’s even a shred of it) escapes me. > > Tripler > We like to deal in facts here. Wait, what? My scenario was that some hippies are holding a sit in and smoke-out, blocking the front gate of a major military base. And I said if the CinC instructed you to nerve gas the protesters, you’re sure to go to prison if you comply. You’re saying that is not that case? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/105 "2017-11-22T03:30:04Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, SLBMs generally have a range that substantially exceed those of medium- and intermediate-range land-based missiles; but yeah, SLBMs also tend to have about 2/3rds of the range of a land-based ICBM. I don’t really consider that to be “much shorter range.” Not true anymore. Trident D5, SS-N-32 and the French M51, have range of 11,-12000 km. Which is a similar range to Minuteman missiles and SS-19 ICBMs. Was true for previous generation SLBMs like Trident C4, SS-N-20, and M45. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/106 "2017-11-22T03:57:41Z")
I wonder what the flight path would look like if you fire from 200 kilometers from the target. Does the whole missile turn sideways and hit hypersonic velocities in the atmosphere, negating any warning? Or can it not withstand that kind of air friction and it has to still take a ballistic path, giving the targets 10+ minutes to respond? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/107 "2017-11-22T08:59:26Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Not true anymore. Trident D5, SS-N-32 and the French M51, have range of 11,-12000 km. Which is a similar range to Minuteman missiles and SS-19 ICBMs. Was true for previous generation SLBMs like Trident C4, SS-N-20, and M45. I said “tend to,” not “always.” ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/108 "2017-11-22T14:29:48Z")
I need you to do some actual reading, but more on that in a moment. . . > [@SamuelA](#): > > Right now, the President can’t order you to use VX on hippie protesters outside the post, right? Even though he’s the CinC. Everyone involved would either refuse or face a court martial where they would be certain to be convicted, right? So the same principle applies for the nukes. Convicted of what? Your rambling (past and present) has implied to me that they’d be court-martialed for failure to follow an order or regulation (Art. 92, UCMJ Punitive Articles). But to answer your question: 1. That order would never come; 2. Hippie protesters outside the post are a civilian law enforcement issue, not a military problem. Barney Fife doesn’t have VX; 3. Proportionality of a military response to that situation is extremely unbalanced, and if those with military weapons’ custody refused to carry out what they felt as illegal orders (due to the proportionality of VX on your hippie friends), courts-martial would side with the defendants based on the principle of proportionality. With your overblown hypothetical situation, you’re trying to play smoke-and-mirrors to make a weak point, and it is failing miserably. We’re still waiting on your “expertise” on that Atomic Energy Act of '46. It’s only 23 pages. . . I’ll even provide a [link for you.](https://www.osti.gov/atomicenergyact.pdf) Feel free to chime in and back up your assertions at any time. If you’re actually referring to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that changed 50 USC § 1541, then say so. Tripler I can wait. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/109 "2017-11-22T16:17:18Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/110 "2017-11-22T16:40:54Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > I need you to do some actual reading, but more on that in a moment. . . > > Convicted of what? Your rambling (past and present) has implied to me that they’d be court-martialed for failure to follow an order or regulation (Art. 92, UCMJ Punitive Articles). > > But to answer your question: > > 1. That order would never come; > 2. Hippie protesters outside the post are a civilian law enforcement issue, not a military problem. Barney Fife doesn’t have VX; > 3. Proportionality of a military response to that situation is extremely unbalanced, and if those with military weapons’ custody refused to carry out what they felt as illegal orders (due to the proportionality of VX on your hippie friends), courts-martial would side with the defendants based on the principle of proportionality. > > With your overblown hypothetical situation, you’re trying to play smoke-and-mirrors to make a weak point, and it is failing miserably. We’re still waiting on your “expertise” on that Atomic Energy Act of '46. It’s only 23 pages. . . I’ll even provide a [link for you.](https://www.osti.gov/atomicenergyact.pdf) Feel free to chime in and back up your assertions at any time. > > If you’re actually referring to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that changed 50 USC § 1541, then say so. > > Tripler > I can wait. The main reason we are worried about an incompetent blowhard in the Oval office with poor judgement is if he starts a nuclear war, it would be an ignominious end to the entire experiment of America. Not to mention most of us would die. Hence it’s actually relevant whether or not military leaders would obey an order to fire on North Korea…or China or Russia. “VX on hippies” was simply to give an example of a case where the law clearly says no, it’s a no go. Your contention is that it is impossible for Congress to pass any law that de facto means “no first use”, which China as a major world power has also declared. So that’s the “on topic” point. I read from a credible source that the effect of the atomic energy act was to define the mechanisms by which the nukes could be used. So I’ll read your link, but the main point of discussion is that I contend there is a way Congress could force “no first use” to be the law of the land. Oh, and the President’s direct power over the nukes probably comes from _“The President from time to time may direct the Commission (1) to deliver such quantities of fissionable materials or weapons to the armed forces for such use as lie deems necessary in the interest of national defense or (2) to authorize the armed forces to manufacture, produce, or acquire any equipment or device utilizing fissionable material or atomic energy as a militar wmpon”_ That seems to give him exclusive command over them. This could be ammended. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/111 "2017-11-22T16:52:45Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > The main reason we are worried about an incompetent blowhard in the Oval office with poor judgement is if he starts a nuclear war, it would be an ignominious end to the entire experiment of America. Not to mention most of us would die. … The only plausible way I see an end to America, with most of us dead, is a nuclear war with Russia. And Trump is a good bit _less_ likely to start a war with Russia than Hillary would have been. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/112 "2017-11-22T17:08:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The only plausible way I see an end to America, with most of us dead, is a nuclear war with Russia. And Trump is a good bit _less_ likely to start a war with Russia than Hillary would have been. I hope you’re right. Don’t forget China, though. They don’t have enough ammo to kill “most” of us, but they have enough nukes to kill “a heck of a lot” of us. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/113 "2017-11-22T17:09:57Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > I stand by my post, though. You’re arguing from authority that does sound pretty solid…still wrong. The 1946 act blocks officers like yourself in an active war from deciding when to use the nuclear munitions you might be entrusted with without a Presidential order. I argue from a position of experience, and hard fact backed up with evidence. You argue from a position of skimming documents to read into what you want to, applying loose ‘armchair quarterback’ experience (if that). You are wrong in your logic. > [@SamuelA](#): > > The main reason we are worried about an incompetent blowhard in the Oval office with poor judgement is if he starts a nuclear war, it would be an ignominious end to the entire experiment of America. Not to mention most of us would die. I agree with this. > [@SamuelA](#): > > Oh, and the President’s direct power over the nukes probably comes from _“The President from time to time may direct the Commission (1) to > deliver such quantities of fissionable materials or weapons to the armed > forces for such use as lie deems necessary in the interest of national > defense or (2) to authorize the armed forces to manufacture, produce, > or acquire any equipment or device utilizing fissionable material or > atomic energy as a militar wmpon”_ > > That seems to give him exclusive command over them. This could be ammended. For a third time, you don’t read the full document, and again are wrong. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 establishes the Atomic Energy Commission and the infrastructure for the acquisition, manufacture, storage, custodianship, and technology sharing (w/allied nations) of weapons. This specific paragraph directs the AEC to act as the middleman for procurement/acquisition of fissionable material to supply the DoD, and to allow the DoD to acquire equipment independent of fissionable material. It does nothing to allow authorization of employment of weapons. Your interpretation of “seems” is as loose as POTUS’s thumbs on Twitter–stop spreading malarkey. As far as amendments, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 may have already changed it–I haven’t looked, nor is it important to this discussion. Procurement vs. employment are completely different channels. Things have evolved away from the AEC to run through today’s NNSA for procurement, however once the weapons are procured, they are ‘deployed’ to the DoD who maintains custody and the procedures for employment of those weapons. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 does nothing to dictate DoD (what was then the War Department) employment policies or procedures. Beyond the War Powers Resolution/50 USC § 1541 as ‘root legislation’ to establish procedures, I won’t comment on what’s in place today. Tripler If you want to go through the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, it’s 543 pages. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/114 "2017-11-22T17:30:49Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Your contention is that it is impossible for Congress to pass any law that de facto means “no first use”, which China as a major world power has also declared. I’m not so sure that such a law would be constitutional. Every country is entitled to self-defense, and there’s no requirement that a country has to wait to take the first blow before counterattacking. One can imagine many scenarios in which a President would have to launch an attack – either nuclear or conventional – to prevent massive harm from occurring to the United States. I think most people would agree that it is the President’s duty to do so, as commander in chief. Could Congress dictate that, under certain circumstances, the President may not defend the country before actual harm is inflicted upon us? I don’t think so – and the phrase “the Constitution is not a suicide pact” comes to mind. The trouble is that once anyone concedes that the President may attack another country in anticipatory self-defense under the most reasonable scenarios, one cannot play backseat driver to a really shitty President and second-guess what constitutes a “reasonable scenario.” Which is why we need good Presidents. And if we don’t have good Presidents, then it recalls the maxim: “Democracy is the belief that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” > [@](#): > > Oh, and the President’s direct power over the nukes probably comes from _“The President from time to time may direct the Commission (1) to > deliver such quantities of fissionable materials or weapons to the armed > forces for such use as lie deems necessary in the interest of national > defense or (2) to authorize the armed forces to manufacture, produce, > or acquire any equipment or device utilizing fissionable material or > atomic energy as a militar wmpon”_ > > That seems to give him exclusive command over them. This could be ammended. It’s kind of embarassing when someone goes to such extreme lengths not to admit they were in error. That section, in its plain reading, has to do with the manufacture and custody of nuclear weapons, and says literally nothing about the use of nuclear weapons in war. The authority to use instruments of war clearly derives from the President’s power as commander in chief. The ability of Congress to determine how the military is armed clearly derives from its Article I power to provide and maintain an army and navy. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/115 "2017-11-22T17:54:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s kind of embarassing when someone goes to such extreme lengths not to admit they were in error. That section, in its plain reading, has to do with the manufacture and custody of nuclear weapons, and says literally nothing about the use of nuclear weapons in war. The authority to use instruments of war clearly derives from the President’s power as commander in chief. The ability of Congress to determine how the military is armed clearly derives from its Article I power to provide and maintain an army and navy. Don’t blame me, blame The Washington Post. They are the ones that clearly state that, and I assumed they were credible. > **[Perspective | No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons....](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/)** > > The whole system is set up so the president — and only the president — can decide when to launch. Maybe Tripler’s a better source than WaPo, but that would not have been my default assumption. My default assumption was he was an E6 or so former bomb defusal tech. Very much a respectable job, but not one that would be involved in this issue. Also, back to the issue at hand. Everyone agrees that a nuclear salvo is basically an immediate escalation to total war, right? Since only Congress is supposed to be allowed to declare war, couldn’t they write a law that states that a nuclear salvo is _defined_ as a war, and that it is unlawful without the consent of Congress, except in a situation that an enemy power has launched a nuclear salvo at the United States, as determined by \ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/116 "2017-11-22T18:10:23Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Don’t blame me, blame The Washington Post. They are the ones that clearly state that, and I assumed they were credible. I read the article, and I think you are simply not understanding some part of it. Or perhaps reading what you want to read. But it doesn’t seem to say what you think it does. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/117 "2017-11-22T18:40:01Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I read the article, and I think you are simply not understanding some part of it. Or perhaps reading what you want to read. But it doesn’t seem to say what you think it does. This is what I think it says, something Tripler disagrees with : _When the legal framework for nuclear weapons was developed, the fear wasn’t about irrational presidents but trigger-happy generals. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which was passed with President Harry Truman’s signature after nine months of acrimonious congressional hearings, firmly put the power of the atomic bomb in the hands of the president and the civilian components of the executive branch._ Every post I have made was assuming that this paragraph was true. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/118 "2017-11-22T19:47:23Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > This is what I think it says, something Tripler disagrees with : > > _When the legal framework for nuclear weapons was developed, the fear wasn’t about irrational presidents but trigger-happy generals. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which was passed with President Harry Truman’s signature after nine months of acrimonious congressional hearings, firmly put the power of the atomic bomb in the hands of the president and the civilian components of the executive branch._ > > Every post I have made was assuming that this paragraph was true. It is true, just not in the way you seem to be assuming. And then from your assumptions you are extrapolating, throwing your argument way off into the woods. Congress has plenary power to determine the armaments of the military. From the days of the Atomic Energy Commission, to today’s National Nuclear Security Administration, virtually all authority related to designing, building, and maintaining nuclear weapons themselves (but not delivery systems) has been in the hands of civilian agencies. So when the Government wants to build or refurbish a nuclear weapon, according to various policies and laws, Congress gives money to NNSA to do the work on the explodey parts and to the military to do work on the parts that get the bomb to where it is going. This is completely in keeping with the Article II powers of Congress, to provide and maintain a military, and to determine how best to do it. But just because the acquisition and maintenance of a nuclear weapon (except for the delivery system) is a responsibility directed by law for a civilian agency to carry out, does not mean that Congress has seized powers given to the President under Article I to be the commander in chief of the armed forces. You can’t just say, “Hey, there’s already a law that says that NNSA is responsible for building nukes… so a new law can put limits on the Article I powers of the President!” It doesn’t work that way. It never has. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/119 "2017-11-23T14:45:41Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Don’t blame me, blame The Washington Post. They are the ones that clearly state that, and I assumed they were credible. > > [No one can stop President Trump from using nuclear weapons. That’s by design. - The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/) I blame you. This is the first time a Washington Post article has made an appearance in this thread. Your only other link in this thread, from post #22, was from some lobby group. After being called out on facts or for citations, you pursued a personal attack in an attempt to undermine credibility (very Presidential, by the way)–that failed. Then, _again_, you go out and drag up some other link that, not before seen in this discussion, you hope will support your position. There have been others calling you out for misinformation, or requesting citations, and this is another example of you trolling the internet for cites that support your positions _after the fact._ Bottom line: I blame your logic in trying to build an alibi after you’ve been caught bullshitting red-handed. > [@SamuelA](#): > > Maybe Tripler’s a better source than WaPo, but that would not have been my default assumption. My default assumption was he was an E6 or so former bomb defusal tech. Very much a respectable job, but not one that would be involved in this issue. You continue to assume too much. I have indicated before that your assumptions are based on personal opinions, not fact. There have been other posts on the SDMB that indicate I have taken a new position. > [@SamuelA](#): > > This is what I think it says, something Tripler disagrees with : > > _When the legal framework for nuclear weapons was developed, the fear wasn’t about irrational presidents but trigger-happy generals. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which was passed with President Harry Truman’s signature after nine months of acrimonious congressional hearings, firmly put the power of the atomic bomb in the hands of the president and the civilian components of the executive branch._ I agree that you have just cut and pasted text from the Washington Post article into this thread: thus, your argument that I disagree with what it says is incorrect. > [@SamuelA](#): > > Every post I have made was assuming that this paragraph was true. No. Every post you have made, _as written_, was about assuming each previous citation was true. The Washington Post article is poorly written, because it glosses over the topic and, as we now know, is incorrect in its assumption about the AEA of '46. This article, I agree, is misinformed, but from a historically credible source. I would understand confusion if this is the first citation you had provided; however it is too late in the discussion to be exculpatory. Tripler We’re done here. This has become a spin-off from the OP. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/120 "2017-11-23T15:06:06Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > I blame you. This is the first time a Washington Post article has made an appearance in this thread. Your only other link in this thread, from post #22, was from some lobby group. After being called out on facts or for citations, you pursued a personal attack in an attempt to undermine credibility (very Presidential, by the way)–that failed. Then, _again_, you go out and drag up some other link that, not before seen in this discussion, you hope will support your position. There have been others calling you out for misinformation, or requesting citations, and this is another example of you trolling the internet for cites that support your positions _after the fact._ Bottom line: I blame your logic in trying to build an alibi after you’ve been caught bullshitting red-handed. > I would understand confusion if this is the first citation you had provided; however it is too late in the discussion to be exculpatory. > > Tripler > We’re done here. This has become a spin-off from the OP. You haven’t proven shit. I read the Washington post article, then another article specifically about the AEA of 1946 that seemed to confirm it. So I posted it as a more direct source. And in pretending you’re an attorney you’re just ducking the original question. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence for the President’s power to start - and finish - a total war on an enemy nation in 45 minutes - being something we **must** accept. That Congress is **powerless** to pass any law that could return their warmaking powers to them, in accordance with the Constitution. My post is based solely and entirely on a newspaper article from a credible source. You have asspulled this supposed powerlessness of Congress to do anything - even though Congress has been holding meetings on this very thing - and in attacking me in post after post, you haven’t said shit to justify your position. Other than various arguments from authority, authority you don’t have. (unless you are actually a retired General and Constitutional law scholar and you mispoke - then I’d accept your authority without explanation) I mean for one thing, you could, uh, declare that the nukes don’t belong to the military and can only be released with the consent of Congress or under a procedure as decreed by Congress. A legal fiction, perhaps, but are you a Constitutional lawyer, too? That seems to \*almost \*be what the 1946 AEA says. Just, it defines the President as being the caretaker of this procedure, and it doesn’t have to be some con-man who lies his way into office. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023.md?page=7)