# 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:** 7
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/121 "2017-11-23T15:50:44Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > 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. You still don’t read things, do you? > [@SamuelA](#): > > 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. I never implied anything about being an attorney, nor am I ducking a question–I simply pulled the bullshit card on you. I have provided “a shred.” It was done in calling you out and highlighting US Code allowing the President to take immediate action on an attack on the United States. I have made no assertions to any other statement; now you’re just throwing smoke grenades to deflect attention from your failures, and trying to redirect attention from them back to the OP. > [@SamuelA](#): > > 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) Your posts have been based on a timeline of articles with _increasing_ relative credibility. You sure as hell started out with a whimper, and have seemed to unquestioningly taken everything you read as Gospel. Please illustrate to all of us where I indicated anything about the “powerlessness of Congress to do anything.” Post #15 asks a question. Tell me what position I have taken in that respect. My time has been highlighting your inconsistencies and asking you for evidence to support it. I attack your logic. And I have authority you apparently don’t–they’re called ‘facts.’ > [@SamuelA](#): > > 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. You still don’t read things, do you? And you’re basing a debate on what things “seem to _almost_ be”? Fissile material (now called SNM for “Special Nuclear Material”) does not belong to the military–it is manufactured by, and belongs to the DoE which _deploys_ it to the DoD. This started with the AEA of 1946. Only the President can authorize the employment of nuclear weapons that are in the custody of the DoD, based on procedures (which are classified and I do not have access to) implemented to support 50 USC § 1541. Tripler I can wait. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/122 "2017-11-24T23:35:41Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > That whoosh you heard was one of my W88/Mk 5s sailing over your head. You completely missed the point. > > In retrospect however, if the Congress did enact such a set of laws they’d be rendered moot because the POTUS (despite the War Powers Resolution of '73) can initiate military action _immediately_, basically putting us in a de facto state of war. > > I’m curious on what checks and balances Congress could put on the POTUS to limit such things, especially in the case of a nuclear release. I’m not talking about one officer taking it upon himself to declare it an ‘illegal order’ or simply feigning that it’s not the President in order to deflect the orders. The system is what it is. What could Congress do to change it? > > Tripler > A legislative solution, maybe? So what we have here is an issue where it actually is a question of Constitutional law. Congress could write an infinite number of laws intended to block the President from starting a war. And we have a clear inherent conflict in powers between “commander in chief” and “Congress declares war”. So the deciding factor is actually how the Supreme Court would rule, and also, how could Congress technically enact this. Could they declare the nukes, being a war in themselves, are not under control of the military chain of command but are nominally under control of Congress? And then Congress declares that specific postings - which Congress can specify as I understand it\* - of officers in high command are to be given authority to retaliate under specific instructions written into law? So a first strike would require Congressional authorization through a declaration of war. ---
**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 25, 2017, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/123 "2017-11-25T02:19:03Z")
Jesus Christ, this thread has become a parody of itself. ---
**Author:** ![SarahWitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@SarahWitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SarahWitch)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/124 "2017-11-25T07:30:36Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > I know this has been discussed here in the past but [this comment](http://thehill.com/policy/defense/361033-top-nuclear-commander-i-wouldnt-carry-out-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-from) by the commander of U.S. Strategic Command confused me: > > So when this has been discussed here and elsewhere, the general conclusion is that the president (as commander in chief) has ultimate decision making power when it comes to when and how to launch America’s nuclear arsenal, regardless of whether congress has or has not declared war. So, given that, what would make such an order illegal? This notion that “it doesn’t matter how it started, if the world’s gone,” is highly emotional-- as well as incorrect; since a nuclear strike would (probably) not blow the Earth apart and kill everyone. Rather, nations could continue to exist and function, and their response would depend on the circumstances _surrounding_ the attack; for example if North Korea were to lob a nuclear missile at someone just because Kim Jong Fat got a chubby from it, then clearly every nation in the world would turn against him and basically issue a Kim Jong Fat-WA. In contrast, if Trump fired first then it might… change things. ---
**Author:** ![SarahWitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@SarahWitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SarahWitch)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/125 "2017-11-25T09:54:01Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > So what we have here is an issue where it actually is a question of Constitutional law. Congress could write an infinite number of laws intended to block the President from starting a war. And we have a clear inherent conflict in powers between “commander in chief” and “Congress declares war”. > > So the deciding factor is actually how the Supreme Court would rule, and also, how could Congress technically enact this. > > Could they declare the nukes, being a war in themselves, are not under control of the military chain of command but are nominally under control of Congress? And then Congress declares that specific postings - which Congress can specify as I understand it\* - of officers in high command are to be given authority to retaliate under specific instructions written into law? So a first strike would require Congressional authorization through a declaration of war. Great, and when the bill passes one section of Congress, the enemy attacks while it’s waiting for the other to vote on it. Or just when it is proposed. The president is not the Commander in Chief so that emergency decisions can waddle through Congress. It’s why the legislature is not the executive. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/126 "2017-11-25T10:08:48Z")
And the President is not an emperor. ---
**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 25, 2017, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/127 "2017-11-25T14:18:57Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > So what we have here is an issue where it actually is a question of Constitutional law. . .[\*Snipped for brevity. \*] Here’s how I see this: with the instruments of any nation’s power (Military, Economic, Diplomatic, or Informational), I can see a direct Russian nuclear launch against the US being under the Military scheme, where the President already has the authority to respond. Shift gears a second, and say that ‘Atlantica’ has hosted websites that have attacked US servers, has hosted bank accounts that have funded terrorism, and knows how to leverage that power; then I can see where the Congress could draft legislation over time to authorize and declare war against ‘Atlantica’. My point, is that it’s the _speed_ of a military action. Can Congress pass laws to dictate the pace of instantaneous war? That’s what I’m curious about. . . > [@SamuelA](#): > > Could they declare the nukes, being a war in themselves, are not under control of the military chain of command but are nominally under control of Congress? And then Congress declares that specific postings - which Congress can specify as I understand it\* - of officers in high command are to be given authority to retaliate under specific instructions written into law? So a first strike would require Congressional authorization through a declaration of war. Hey, you’re confusing things again (not being snarky, just clarifying). I can manufacture a bullet, and give it to you. The bullet is an inanimate object–the Congress decides _where_ that bullet is loaded (SSBNs, silos, etc.), and the POTUS decides _when_ that bullet is shot at the enemy. My question, and I think the OP’s question is, when can Congress weigh in to limit an unstable shooter of that bullet? Tripler I stand hard and fast on this: that bullet is inanimate, and doesn’t know right from wrong. ---
**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 25, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/128 "2017-11-25T17:23:52Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > My point, is that it’s the _speed_ of a military action. Can Congress pass laws to dictate the pace of instantaneous war? That’s what I’m curious about. . . During the Constitutional Convention, there was a debate on whether Congress should have the power to “make war.” That power was specifically changed to “declare war” on the basis that expecting a legislature to act with alacrity in the face of an imminent threat was an unreasonable assumption. So when you hear a certain person express an opinion that Congress can dictate how the President may respond to an imminent threat, and the basis of such an opinion is a Washington Post article, we should remind ourselves that for better or worse this issue of whether the President can act without Congress in self-defense of the country was settled conclusively centuries ago. > [@](#): > > The bullet is an inanimate object–the Congress decides _where_ that bullet is loaded (SSBNs, silos, etc.)… There is something to this point, but because so many basic facts have been twisted already, this has to be clarified. Congress does not determine what weapons go in what weapons system. Congress has no control over whether an Ohio class submarine goes on patrol with a full load out of MIRVed missiles or goes out totally empty. Congress is the ultimate authority on how many missiles and submarines we buy and own. And treaties, made with the advice and consent of the Senate, have created lawful limits on the numbers of ICBMs and other delivery systems. But this is not in any way a day-to-day power exercised by her legislature. > [@](#): > > My question, and I think the OP’s question is, when can Congress weigh in to limit an unstable shooter of that bullet? Congress has some considerable tools at its disposal - if it could muster support for a veto override Congress could direct the total elimination of all nuclear arms in the US. But when it comes to trying to put limits on how the Commander in Chief can exercise legitimate self-defense of an actual or imminent attack (as distinguished from a President starting a preventative war to neutralize a threatening country while it is still weak), then Congress cannot impinge on that constitutional responsibility of the Executive. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/129 "2017-11-25T19:14:06Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > My question, and I think the OP’s question is, when can Congress weigh in to limit an unstable shooter of that bullet? > > Tripler > I stand hard and fast on this: that bullet is inanimate, and doesn’t know right from wrong. This is a problem. Stepping back from nuclear arms for a moment - let’s suppose that Trump orders the military to invade Canada and depose Justin Trudeau. Immediately, without preparation. Absurd? Sure. But the 101st and 82nd dutifully parachute in, a poorly organized mess of armored vehicles start crossing the border, and it’s the clusterfuck of all clusterfucks. When Trudeau refuses an offer to surrender, cruise missile volleys are launched at Canadian military bases. Their modern, well trained military do the obvious and melt into the woods and urban areas. They do continue to wear uniforms, but they have access to modern weapons and tactics, and their IEDs can reliably kill an Abrams. So American soldiers start dying in relatively large numbers. Not enough to make any strategic difference - the numbers and equipment disparity is too large - but enough that this disaster looks really bad. Congress is pressured to end the war as fast as possible…how can they even do it? I guess they could freeze all funds, instructing the pentagon not to spend a penny supporting the war. But that just means that units in the cold of Canada would start running out of supplies and fuel and none of their requisitions for replacement equipment and warm winter clothing are going through. And it would directly cause more casualties, as this means they can’t get the gear needed to counter whatever it is the remaining Canadian forces are doing. (better mine detectors or more air support or thermal sensors or whatever). Politically untenable. ---
**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 25, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/130 "2017-11-25T19:51:57Z")
In such a patently crazy and illegal invasion of Canada, Congress could simply remove the President for starting an illegal war. And don’t give me that “oh that will never happen” line. You just suggested an even more far-fetched invasion of Canada. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/131 "2017-11-25T20:09:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I suspect that this is what would actually happen, if Trump were to order a completely irrational nuclear attack (one on Mexico, for instance, or a target within the US): The Secretary of Defense would shoot him, ask for confirmation of the order from President Pence, and then resign his post and turn himself in to the authorities. Practical question: Realistically, would the SecDef or his deputy ever be packing heat in the presence of POTUS? Would anyone? Considering the Secret Service ought to be protecting him, would there be a gaggle of Secret Service just hanging out in the NORAD situation room sitting on the WOPR or whatever? ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/132 "2017-11-25T20:09:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In such a patently crazy and illegal invasion of Canada, Congress could simply remove the President for starting an illegal war. > > And don’t give me that “oh that will never happen” line. They didn’t remove Bush… ---
**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 25, 2017, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/133 "2017-11-25T20:43:31Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > They didn’t remove Bush… After Congress voted for the war? Yes. Which is my point. ---
**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 26, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/134 "2017-11-26T15:07:31Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > This is a problem. Stepping back from nuclear arms for a moment - let’s suppose that Trump orders the military to invade Canada and depose Justin Trudeau. Immediately, without preparation. Absurd? Sure. Well, at least that’s out into the open, to start. . . > [@SamuelA](#): > > But the 101st and 82nd dutifully parachute in, a poorly organized mess of armored vehicles start crossing the border, and it’s the clusterfuck of all clusterfucks. > > When Trudeau refuses an offer to surrender, cruise missile volleys are launched at Canadian military bases. Their modern, well trained military do the obvious and melt into the woods and urban areas. They do continue to wear uniforms, but they have access to modern weapons and tactics, and their IEDs can reliably kill an Abrams. > > So American soldiers start dying in relatively large numbers. Not enough to make any strategic difference - the numbers and equipment disparity is too large - but enough that this disaster looks really bad. Congress is pressured to end the war as fast as possible…how can they even do it? > > I guess they could freeze all funds, instructing the pentagon not to spend a penny supporting the war. But that just means that units in the cold of Canada would start running out of supplies and fuel and none of their requisitions for replacement equipment and warm winter clothing are going through. And it would directly cause more casualties, as this means they can’t get the gear needed to counter whatever it is the remaining Canadian forces are doing. (better mine detectors or more air support or thermal sensors or whatever). Politically untenable. I _think_ you’re trying to make a point that Congress can halt appropriations to an ongoing military operation/campaign. That is true, but knowing the political climate (with respect to the Congress) and structure, there’s nothing from POTUS from ordering an immediate seizure of ‘OBJ STANLEY CUP’ from Toronto. With the speed/pace of warfare, Congressional action is an afterthought pending an “immediate threat” to the United States. My point, and I believe the point of the OP, is the question of what can stop POTUS from initiating a military operation, be it conventional or nuclear, be it illegal (a definition for politicians), immoral (a definition for the public opinion) or ill-advised (a definition for the POTUS’ conscience). Tripler I am on the fence about the War Powers Resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/135 "2017-11-26T15:51:02Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Stepping back from nuclear arms for a moment - let’s suppose that Trump orders the military to invade Canada and depose Justin Trudeau. Trump taking out Canada’s leadership on a whim without there being any remotely supportable reason? Congress acts immediately to shut down Trump under via 25 Amend. or Art. 2 s. 4 the moment it gets wind of Trump intention. Problem solved. Failing that, any number of rational people (ranging from a White House intern to the Deputy Commander of Norad) restrain or take out Trump. Any of more than two dozen NATO countries take out Trump and/or provide support for Canada taking out Trump. Whichever way you cut it, in the aftermath Canada joins the nuclear club in short order. And yes, we have the knowledge and experience to do it easily. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/136 "2017-11-26T17:36:38Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > … Whichever way you cut it, in the aftermath Canada joins the nuclear club in short order. And yes, we have the knowledge and experience to do it easily. Of course we’re not going to war against Canada, but if we did, I’m reasonably confident that “no more Canada” is a far likelier outcome than “Canada gets nukes”. ---
**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:** [January 5, 2018, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/137 "2018-01-05T04:20:04Z")
So, to bring back a decent discussion and honest tone, I saw this in the Air Force Times today: “[Lawmakers move to limit Trump authority to launch nuke after ‘nuclear button’ size tweet.](https://www.airforcetimes.com/congress/2018/01/03/lawmakers-move-to-limit-trump-authority-to-launch-nuke-after-nuclear-button-size-tweet/)” I scanned through the article but haven’t dived into some of the Twitter links just yet. . . Triper Looks like Congress reads the SDMB. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2018, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/138 "2018-01-05T05:00:32Z")
> [@Tripler](#): > > So, to bring back a decent discussion and honest tone, I saw this in the Air Force Times today: > > “[Lawmakers move to limit Trump authority to launch nuke after ‘nuclear button’ size tweet.](https://www.airforcetimes.com/congress/2018/01/03/lawmakers-move-to-limit-trump-authority-to-launch-nuke-after-nuclear-button-size-tweet/)” > > I scanned through the article but haven’t dived into some of the Twitter links just yet. . . > > Triper > Looks like Congress reads the SDMB. 😃 This sounds great but isn’t practical. There may be some first-strike scenarios in which a non-Trump POTUS would have to attack at once, without the long time required for Congress to do its thing. This would be analogous to Trump threatening on Twitter to shoot down any aircraft carrying Kim Jong Un if Kim flew near American airspace, and then Congress proposing a law to force “the president to have Congressional authorization before he can order any type of aircraft shot down”…then where does that leave the Air National Guard if there were ever a future 9/11? Would President Kamala or Bernie or Warren have to convene both houses of Congress and hold a vote to get approval to shoot down a hijacked airliner heading towards the Sears Tower? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2018, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/139 "2018-01-05T05:20:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This sounds great but isn’t practical. There may be some first-strike scenarios in which a non-Trump POTUS would have to attack at once, without the long time required for Congress to do its thing. . . . That depends on what Congress’s thing is, surely? Congress’s thing doesn’t have to be, e.g., an affirmative resolution of the House and the Senate. Congress could, for example, enact legislation requiring the President to obtain the assent of a small number of leading congressional officers, or of a majority of a small number of leading congressional officers. Or you could easily come up with other possibilities. The core suggestion is that “no one person” should have the power to launch a US first strike. That doesn’t mean that a first strike must require the collaborative action of a couple of hundred people; just more than one person. When, as at present, one person has that power, and that one person is selected by a system capable of throwing up the likes of Donald Trump, the merit of reconsidering the wisdom of this arrangement is obvious. Sure, _any_ restriction on the power of the President to launch a first strike might conceivably result in a situation in which the President could not launch a first strike in circumstances which you might think call for one. But _not_ having any restriction might conceivably result in the President launching a first strike in circumstances which you might think do _not_ call for one. It’s not obvious that the first of these risks must be avoided at all costs, no matter how much this magnifies the second risk. ---
**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:** [January 5, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023/140 "2018-01-05T14:42:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > This sounds great but isn’t practical. There may be some first-strike scenarios in which a non-Trump POTUS would have to attack at once, without the long time required for Congress to do its thing. > [@UDS](#): > > But _not_ having any restriction might conceivably result in the President launching a first strike in circumstances which you might think do _not_ call for one. It’s not obvious that the first of these risks must be avoided at all costs, no matter how much this magnifies the second risk. These are the two arguments (there’s a third) that I’m trying to come to terms with in my head. What I’m troubled with: A) We have always operated under the two-man rule, with the exception of POTUS. His ‘second man’ only “verifies” the order, not “concur.” I think having a second person, say a designated member of the Congress to “concur” with the order would ease a lot of minds and relax any possibility of POTUS launching without a reality check. B) There would be situations where an enemy could attack with no warning: the POTUS has to act now!! And if they can’t find Sen Joe Bag O’Donuts in 10 minutes, we’ve basically been caught with our pants down. You need one central command to go to nuclear war. I can’t rectify a balance between the two. But there’s a third: C) This may weaken us politically in the international world. For 70 years, deterrence has been the mainstay of nuclear strategy, and that depended on immediate, reliable, credible threats of annihilation to each side. If the US has to implement measures like this, it would reduce the credibility of our threat, weakening our stance in deterrence. “C” won’t directly lead to a nuclear exchange (I think) but it will be used to gain leverage on the US in other diplomatic, economic, military, or informational areas. Tripler Man, this is a tough one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-an-illegal-nuclear-strike-order-be/802023.md?page=8)