The US President can order nuclear weapons use anytime on their sole authority: Would the founders agree?

duncanness · Sep 26, 2023

The Generalist said:
Please note much of the above was copied from easily available on line sources.

Using a plagiarism checker, I found your source--Wikipedia--but several items have been omitted. Wikipedia states en toto, "Defense is required to verify the order but cannot veto it.[19][20][21] However, the president's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not unlimited; US law dictates that the attack must be lawful and that military officers are required to refuse to execute unlawful orders, such as those that violate international humanitarian law.[22] Therefore, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other servicemembers in the chain of command must refuse to issue the execute order if such an order is unlawful."

Later, Wikipedia states, "to refuse to issue the execute order as directed by the president, the president could reassign or fire the Chairman and appoint a replacement, including waiving the required credentials if all other qualified officers refused the appointment or if the president determined that it was in the national interest.[24] addition, off the shelf strike packages are pre vetted by lawyers to confirm that they are legal and, thus, such a strike would be presumed to be a have been reprimanded in the past for questioning US protocols for nuclear strike authority, notably Major Harold Hering, who was discharged from the Air Force in late 1975 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"

The full context is altering.and may be said to show the vagueness of official guidance. While the specific presidents named in #40 may--or may not--have acted as estimated, it's my opinion that they'd have faced considerable blow-back from other Founding Fathers (e.g., Samuel Adams).

PeabodyKid · Sep 26, 2023

From The National Constitution Center - "Is the Presidency Too Powerful?"

Is the Presidency Too Powerful? - Podcast | Constitution Center

Excerpt

Posner: [00:07:16] Right I mean the word usurp has a certain quality to it, which I might not agree with but basically the story is that the presidency was weak throughout most of the 19th century and then it became very powerful in the 20th century. I'd probably date it 1901 which is when Theodore Roosevelt first entered office after McKinley's assassination, but 1912 is fine if you want. It was not a sudden process. It was a gradual process. There were certainly some very powerful 19th century presidents including well George Washington and Andrew Jackson. Polk was, Lincoln, but those- they were- they were exceptional and what happens in the 20th century is that the powerful president becomes institutionalized and you know, this is a long and complicated story, but I'll just say very briefly what I think happened and I think this is more or less the conventional wisdom. The United States toward the end of the nineteenth and into the 20th century became a global power and it developed a national economy. So this earlier constitutional understanding which gave a lot of power to the states and more power to Congress than to the president had to give way so that a form of government could arise that would be adequate to these new tasks of regulating a national economy and of conducting foreign relations, and so a lot of power moved up from the states to the national government and then the issue that we're concerned with is how that power was then allocated between Congress and the presidency, and I want to return to this word usurp again. I- you know, I think it's not the right word to use because what really happened was that the presidents were given power. You know, they sometimes grabbed it. They sometimes were given it. Congress by statute gave an enormous amount of power to presidents over the course of the 20th century, well really starting in the 19th century, but the major changes were in the 20th century. And in other ways when presidents asserted power based on often a tendentious interpretation of the Constitution, congress and the courts would acquiesce. So it was not a usurpation. It was a gradual process in which as a general, in a general sense the political class and I think the public more generally accepted a shift of power from Congress to the president.

The Generalist · Sep 26, 2023

duncanness said:
Later, Wikipedia states, "to refuse to issue the execute order as directed by the president, the president could reassign or fire the Chairman and appoint a replacement, including waiving the required credentials if all other qualified officers refused the appointment or if the president determined that it was in the national interest.[24] addition, off the shelf strike packages are pre vetted by lawyers to confirm that they are legal and, thus, such a strike would be presumed to be a have been reprimanded in the past for questioning US protocols for nuclear strike authority, notably Major Harold Hering, who was discharged from the Air Force in late 1975 for asking the question "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?"

IMO the full quote supports my conclusions that the poll question is not correct and inaccurate. What the article says about replacing the Chair is true of virtually every position in every major government or organization. so no bih surprise.

Also, it's not just the Chair of the COS - it's every military person in the chain of execution though it's likely that the lower the order goes the less likely someone would countermand or refuse. Few people as one goes down a chain of command take such a perspective and follow their own perceived obligation of duty. Hering's query was rhetorical but overall though the US constituency has elected some outwardly nutty Presidents they have all shown remarkable restraint when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons. This should be obvious, other than Truman in the midst of the most serious war the nation ever faced no other President has authorized use. Otherwise few of us would be here.

duncanness · Sep 26, 2023

The Generalist said:
IMO the full quote supports my conclusions that the poll question is not correct and inaccurate. What the article says about replacing the Chair is true of virtually every position in every major government or organization. so no bih surprise.

Also, it's not just the Chair of the COS - it's every military person in the chain of execution though it's likely that the lower the order goes the less likely someone would countermand or refuse. Few people as one goes down a chain of command take such a perspective and follow their own perceived obligation of duty. Hering's query was rhetorical but overall though the US constituency has elected some outwardly nutty Presidents they have all shown remarkable restraint when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons. This should be obvious, other than Truman in the midst of the most serious war the nation ever faced no other President has authorized use. Otherwise few of us would be here.

No it doesn't, really.. Wikipedia's article indicates how unclear the process is--which is worrying. I hope that we never find out and that the entire issue remains theoretical.

Actually this issue is almost an aside to the poll question

PeabodyKid · Sep 27, 2023

I will also point out, as a small issue, that if the President controls nuclear weapons, he controls nuclear weapons. So the two-man rule can be over-ridden anytime, per that theory. Of course in the field there are mechanical systems, etc. (PALs).

I will also give my opinion that a big part of following the only the President's orders, etc. narrative has to do with maintaining or attempting to maintain a credible first strike capability. As I think most would agree, almost everyone will happily fire weapons as part of a return strike. Although I'm not sure what happens if it's not obvious who fired/detonated a weapon.

So in my view, 3 potential situations:

US is attacked. Attacker is clear. The US will respond no matter what, President alive or not. Most likely President dead.

US is attacked, Attacker unclear/murky. This in my view is why 2 or more people at the top are needed. And the other person/people are obvious: the Vice-President, the only other person elected by the whole country, and the Secretary of Defense. Of course, up until recently, the US policy referred to the National Command Authority, which was something like "The President, The Secretary of Defense, or their duly authorized successors or deputies."

US has not been attacked. In my view under no circumstances should a first-strike take place. I would argue immoral and illegal, and should be unconstitutional.

======================================

National Command Authority (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

PeabodyKid · Sep 27, 2023

Bravo for China and India - they both have a no first use of nuclear weapons policy.

No first use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In nuclear ethics and deterrence theory, no first use (NFU) refers to a type of pledge or policy wherein a nuclear power formally refrains from the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in warfare, except for as a second strike in retaliation to an attack by an enemy power using WMD. Such a pledge would allow for a unique state of affairs in which a given nuclear power can be engaged in a conflict of conventional weaponry while it formally forswears any of the strategic advantages of nuclear weapons, provided the enemy power does not possess or utilize any such weapons of their own. The concept is primarily invoked in reference to nuclear mutually assured destruction but has also been applied to chemical and biological warfare, as is the case of the official WMD policy of India.[1][2]

China and India are currently the only two nuclear powers to formally maintain a no first use policy, adopting pledges in 1964 and 1998 respectively. Both NATO and a number of its member states have repeatedly rejected calls for adopting a NFU policy,[3] as during the lifetime of the Soviet Union a pre-emptive nuclear strike was commonly argued as a key option to afford NATO a credible nuclear deterrent, compensating for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in Eurasia.[4][5] In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge against first use of nuclear weapons made in 1982 by Leonid Brezhnev,[6] with Russian military doctrine later stating in 2000 that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons "in response to a large-scale conventional aggression".[7] Pakistan has also made similar statements, largely in reference to intermittent military tensions with India. North Korea has publicly pledged to refrain from a preemptive nuclear strike, while threatening retaliation up to and including WMD against conventional aggression.

Naomasa298 · Sep 27, 2023

What did the founders say about nuclear weapons? Specifically?

duncanness · Sep 27, 2023

Naomasa298 said:
What did the founders say about nuclear weapons? Specifically?

I believe that the poll question is a conditional which requires a reasoned judgment or opinion. If the Founders had said something specifically, there'd be no need to pose the question.

PeabodyKid · Sep 27, 2023

Naomasa298 said:
What did the founders say about nuclear weapons? Specifically?

Nothing. They did not exist at the time.

They did make statements through their actions and words about what they thought about governmental power. This thread is an attempt to extrapolate/infer/make suggestions on their thoughts and actions.

Re the poll question wording, from the Wikipedia article on National Command Authority, with the links attached -
Excerpt

uthorization of a nuclear or strategic attack[edit]

Only the president can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. Armed Forces, through plans like OPLAN 8010-12. The president has unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time.[3][4][5][6]

Naomasa298 · Sep 27, 2023

PeabodyKid said:
Nothing. They did not exist at the time.

Quite so. So they wouldn't have had anything to say on the matter - if they had, they would have.

So you can't conjecture it. If they knew what we know, they would have said different things.

PeabodyKid · Sep 27, 2023

Naomasa298 said:
Quite so. So they wouldn't have had anything to say on the matter - if they had, they would have.

So you can't conjecture it. If they knew what we know, they would have said different things.

That is setting a pretty high standard for what can or should be discussed, if that is your intent.

PeabodyKid · Sep 27, 2023

You know what - I think I will no longer visit Historum. I wouldn't want to pollute it.

The Generalist · Sep 27, 2023

duncanness said:
No it doesn't, really.. Wikipedia's article indicates how unclear the process is--which is worrying. I hope that we never find out and that the entire issue remains theoretical.

Actually this issue is almost an aside to the poll question

I never said it is not "worrying". Fact is it is far beyond worrying. I have read a number books and scholarly articles on the topic and some sense of it. It remains the most immediate threat to civilization and humanity.

However two issues in the poll do bother me a) that the President of the us can unilaterally decide on the use of nuclear weapons. That conclusion is not supported by the available laws and evidence. While it may appear that way it's highly unlikely an unstable President could initiate such an attack on his own initiative. If there is a problem the US needs a better means of selecting their President to avoid getting and keeping such an unstable individual in office. if you want a model you can look to the UK where they toss Prime Minister's on a regular basis for far more mundane reasons. I also don't understand the need to rely on what the founders may have thought when there is ample literature available from people who are or were closely involved in the issue of nuclear war and arms control. I also can't leave aside the fact the founders set up a federation and constitution that inevitably lead the country into a destructive civil war let alone institutionalized slavery among other grave historical issues still felt in the US today.

I'd also comment that the poll and it's question is not scientific and like almost all such polls and I have posted a few myself on unrelated topics is prejudiced towards getting individuals to provide a specific answer.

Naomasa298 · Sep 27, 2023

PeabodyKid said:
That is setting a pretty high standard for what can or should be discussed, if that is your intent.

Not really.

What you're actually discussing here is not nuclear weapons - it's the ability of the President to order either a pre-emptive or retaliatory attack on his own authority.

duncanness · Sep 27, 2023

The Generalist said:
I'd also comment that the poll and it's question is not scientific and like almost all such polls and I have posted a few myself on unrelated topics is prejudiced towards getting individuals to provide a specific answer.

If you want science, look at Science Forums (which includes sub-forums for philosophy and ethics).

I don't get the impression at all that at a specific answer was being sought--rather a discussion of judgments. IMO the entire issue of what a current president can do is a rabbit hole.

The Generalist · Sep 27, 2023

duncanness said:
If you want science, look at Science Forums (which includes sub-forums for philosophy and ethics).

I don't get the impression at all that at a specific answer was being sought--rather a discussion of judgments. IMO the entire issue of what a current president can do is a rabbit hole.

It was a poll asking for a response not a discussion. The question is flawed as I have noted above. Yes it is a rabbit hole which makes the question problematic, IMO.

Naomasa298 · Sep 27, 2023

The question as it is framed is problematic. You can't impart knowledge to a historical figure that they cannot have had without those figures becoming different people. The founders didn't live in a world which could be annihilated at the touch of a button.

Silesius Smithee · Sep 27, 2023

PeabodyKid said:
Regarding nuclear weapons and founding fathers:

Hypothetical: In WW II, would Washington/Adams/Jefferson/Hamilton have taken more personal control of the nuclear weapons program, including not delegating to someone not in the public eye like Groves?

I say yes.

They would have had to hire someone like General Groves. It wasn't that Groves knew anything about nuclear weapons design, or any weapons design for that matter - he was Corps of Engineers, not "Regular Army". But what Groves had was a track record of managing massive multi-$Billion ($Trillions these days) programs and projects, including being good at all the day-to-day minutiae that this entails which is a talent all it's own.

It could be said that the "Manhattan Project" of the founders era was the selection and construction of DC as the new National Capital. Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson were all involved in selecting DC as the site, but once that was done, all the actuall day-to-day planning and design was turned over to "professionals" like Pierre L'Enfant, an experienced urban planner and architect, even though Jefferson himself was an accomplished architect and studier of Urban planning and probably could have laid out the city of DC all by himself.

I'm thinking that they would have handled an actual Manhattan Project the same way. "Hire good people, then leave them alone" as 3M CEO William McKnight once famously said. Sometimes NOT being in the public eye has it's advantages.

GethN7 · Sep 27, 2023

The thing is, the key is the President can AUTHORIZE their use, but they don't have a button they can smash on their desk that makes a missile fly if he's feeling cranky one day and decided to make a radioactive crater in a country that is making him mad. So they can say nukes are on the table for use, but generally need someone else to sign off on actually firing one.

Silesius Smithee · Sep 27, 2023

GethN7 said:
The thing is, the key is the President can AUTHORIZE their use, but they don't have a button they can smash on their desk that makes a missile fly if he's feeling cranky one day and decided to make a radioactive crater in a country that is making him mad. So they can say nukes are on the table for use, but generally need someone else to sign off on actually firing one.

"Strategically" I agree.

"Tactical nukes" ??? I've no idea. 12222222222222222222222222222222222222222 (LOL, thAT WAS THE CAT STEPPING ON THE KEYBOARD). (She apparently hit the caps lock key as well)..

I've no idea what the LOA (Level of Authority) is for using tactical "battlefield" nukes. Because they ARE "tactical", I would presume it's something less than "Presidential" just because tactical nukes are outside SALT and other treaties. But I really don't know.

Search

Search

The US President can order nuclear weapons use anytime on their sole authority: Would the founders agree?

Would The Founders support the view that US Presidents can use nuclear weapons anytime?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Don't Care

duncanness

PeabodyKid

The Generalist

duncanness

PeabodyKid

National Command Authority (United States) - Wikipedia

PeabodyKid

No first use - Wikipedia

Naomasa298

duncanness

PeabodyKid

uthorization of a nuclear or strategic attack[edit]

Naomasa298

PeabodyKid

PeabodyKid

The Generalist

Naomasa298

duncanness

The Generalist

Naomasa298

Silesius Smithee

GethN7

Silesius Smithee

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions

The US President can order nuclear weapons use anytime on their sole authority: Would the founders agree?

Would The Founders support the view that US Presidents can use nuclear weapons anytime?

Yes

No

Don't Know

Don't Care

uthorization of a nuclear or strategic attack[edit]​

More History Discussions

uthorization of a nuclear or strategic attack[edit]