Trump Has Complete Authority to Order Nuclear Attack

[Frodo]

....and this is regardless of who is in the White House:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boston Globe

[Dr. Arch]

I'm undecided. On the one side, it prevents Trump from doing something incredibly stupid, but on the other, it prevents future competent presidents to respond quickly and appropriately to another foreign nuclear threat.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm undecided. On the one side, it prevents Trump from doing something incredibly stupid, but on the other, it prevents future competent presidents to respond quickly and appropriately to another foreign nuclear threat.

Agreed. We're better off quickly removing Trump, because Pence isn't going to just nuke North Korea unprovoked.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Preemptive nuclear strikes yes , if nukes are launched at us or our allies by another country no.

[Frodo]

Donald Trump is hardly a one-off.  The stronger the Executive Branch becomes (and more like the Roman Principate of the early Empire) at the expense of our other branches, the more consequential misrule becomes when our equivalent of Caligula or Nero occupy the Oval Office.  Trump is merely a warning of what's to come if we don't rein in the imperial presidency while we still have the time and capacity to do so.  

[ProudModerate2]

Preemptive nuclear strikes yes , if nukes are launched at us or our allies by another country no.

This.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

....and this is regardless of who is in the White House:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boston Globe

The Globe is wrong. This isn't how it works and I'm not sure why people keep hyping it. Absent a first strike by a hostile power, at which point other contingencies come into play, all the President can do is order the Secretary of Defense to launch a strike. If the Secretary doesn't comply, he can either resign or be fired and the President can turn to the next person down the line in the Department of Defense.

This obviously isn't perfect, but in practice Trump would need to get Mattis to sign off on any attack, or go on some sort of Nuclear Massacre, firing people until someone would confirm his order. But he can't just do it all on his crazy lonesome.

[Silent Hunter]

Eliminating the possibility of a first use would give the Russians a green light in the Baltics. However, use only when Congress has authorised military force in general.

[GoTfan]

....and this is regardless of who is in the White House:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boston Globe

The Globe is wrong. This isn't how it works and I'm not sure why people keep hyping it. Absent a first strike by a hostile power, at which point other contingencies come into play, all the President can do is order the Secretary of Defense to launch a strike. If the Secretary doesn't comply, he can either resign or be fired and the President can turn to the next person down the line in the Department of Defense.

This obviously isn't perfect, but in practice Trump would need to get Mattis to sign off on any attack, or go on some sort of Nuclear Massacre, firing people until someone would confirm his order. But he can't just do it all on his crazy lonesome.

I'm fairly certain Mattis would smack him upside the head first.

[maga2020]

He should have that authority.

[Lachi]

No president should have sole authority to launch an attack that would kill hundreds of thousands of people in the matter of a few minutes

The president should only be allowed to fire if it is during wartime, and his generals advise him to use them, and even then it should be an absolute last option. This is unless the strike would be in retaliation (aka, the US has already been nuked).

[Illiniwek]

Preemptive nuclear strikes yes , if nukes are launched at us or our allies by another country no.

This.

This, and I might add that unless it's a surprise attack against us or our allies we must have formally declared war.

[Middle-aged Europe]

There probably should be a two-man rule consisting of the President and the Vice President, for the sole reason that the President can't fire his VP.

Right now, there's just to much uncertainty if push comes to shove with a mentally or emotionally unstable Commander-in-Chief. The President can fire his Secretary of Defense and the subsequent acting Secretaries of Defense, until he finds someone who would carry out the order to launch a nuclear strike. Of course, the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon have then the theoretical option to remove the President from office through a military coup. To avoid this scenario, a two-man rule which includes the VP would provide the necessary legal basis for clear and strong safeguards.

(If the vice presidency is vacant, there could be a line of succession which goes from the Speaker of the House, to the President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, and then to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services, on Homeland Security, and on Foreign Affairs/Relations or something like that.)

[SoLongAtlas]

Hell no per his operational authority as CINC. This move to take it away is BLATANTLY unconstitutional. Trump or not, POTUS is still CINC. What happens if Congress is taken out and no one is there to vote? Fn dumb-wits.

[Inmate Trump]

I just hope someone can distract this overgrown snowflake long enough to keep him from even flirting with the notion of a nuclear attack.

The nukes we have today are not like the nukes used in 1945.

It would be so much more devastating, and not just to the North Koreans.  That's just the bomb(s) itself.  If this started a chain reaction of nuclear weapon use, and it very well could, then it could be doomsday for all of us--and I'm not saying that lightly.  Even if nukes aren't going off on American soil, we would very well see the impact; and we could very well die from that impact, even if we aren't ourselves nuked.

Also, whether we preemptively launch a nuke or respond in kind to being nuked, that most certainly opens the door for others with the same or similar power (ahem Putin ahem).  There is a very good reason why there has not been a nuclear strike in 72 years.

[SoLongAtlas]

There hasn't been a nuclear strike since '45 because the USA and the USSR/RF have been operating per MAD. MAD doesn't apply to a rogue, unpredictable state like NK.

[Inmate Trump]

There hasn't been a nuclear strike since '45 because the USA and the USSR/RF have been operating per MAD. MAD doesn't apply to a rogue, unpredictable state like NK.

Absolutely.

But there are other methods of preemption against NK than using nukes.

The president's boasts are of a madman willing to sacrifice millions of lives (or even billions--as well as the planet) for the sake of his ego.

[SoLongAtlas]

There hasn't been a nuclear strike since '45 because the USA and the USSR/RF have been operating per MAD. MAD doesn't apply to a rogue, unpredictable state like NK.

Absolutely.

But there are other methods of preemption against NK than using nukes.

The president's boasts are of a madman willing to sacrifice millions of lives (or even billions--as well as the planet) for the sake of his ego.

I think Trump is getting at if we have to do a retaliatory strike of Kim orders a strike on Guam. The US won't use a nuke in a first strike capacity but would keep the bombers sufficiently armed in case we have to use it on say his bunkers, missile sites, etc.

I wasn't inferring the only way to stop NK is by using nukes, just on the escalation of force part.

[TheSaint250]

Eh. I'm back and forth. Regardless of who the POTUS is, so much power in the hands of one person is a lot, but it's also correct in some sense since the POTUS is the CiC.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Uhh how else is it supposed to work?

Let's say Russia sent 300 nuclear missiles at the United States in a pre-emptive attack. Would Congress have to sit in session and vote on a retaliatory strike?

[SWE]

I agree with Ed Markey, with one small change:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cory]

The Globe is wrong. This isn't how it works and I'm not sure why people keep hyping it. Absent a first strike by a hostile power, at which point other contingencies come into play, all the President can do is order the Secretary of Defense to launch a strike. If the Secretary doesn't comply, he can either resign or be fired and the President can turn to the next person down the line in the Department of Defense.

This obviously isn't perfect, but in practice Trump would need to get Mattis to sign off on any attack, or go on some sort of Nuclear Massacre, firing people until someone would confirm his order. But he can't just do it all on his crazy lonesome.

This.

[Nyvin]

Preemptive nuclear strikes yes , if nukes are launched at us or our allies by another country no.

I would actually agree with this.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hell no per his operational authority as CINC. This move to take it away is BLATANTLY unconstitutional. Trump or not, POTUS is still CINC. What happens if Congress is taken out and no one is there to vote? Fn dumb-wits.

Yes, it's pretty much renders U.S. nuclear detterent useless.

[Beet]

For those saying lower in Commands would refuse a first strike:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.newsweek.com/us-navy-president-donald-trump-china-nuclear-weapon-642830