This is frightening. The president can barely be contained, and he has the nuclear launch codes. We're regularly told that he alone decides whether a nuclear strike is launched:
White House aides lean on delays and distraction to manage Trump
As White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus mused to associates that telling President Donald Trump no was usually not an effective strategy. Telling him “next week” was often the better idea.
Trump would impulsively want to fire someone like attorney general Jeff Sessions, create a new wide–ranging policy with far–flung implications like increasing tariffs on Chinese steel imports or end a decades–old deal like the North American Free Trade Agreement. Enraged with a TV segment or frustrated after a meandering meeting, the president would order it done immediately.
Delaying the decision would give Priebus and others a chance to change his mind or bring in advisers to speak with Trump – and in some cases, to ensure Trump would drop the idea altogether and move on....
Trump, several advisers and aides said, sometimes comes into the Oval Office worked into a lather from talking to friends or watching TV coverage in the morning. Sometimes, a side conversation with an aide like Stephen Miller on immigration or a TV host like Sean Hannity would set him off.
Then, staffers would step in to avert a rash decision by calming him down. At times, new information would be shared, like charts on how farmers might feel about ending the North American Free Trade Agreement – or how his base might react negatively to an idea, like the verbal deal he struck with Democrats on immigration last month.
In the first stretches of the administration, aides would ask outside figures to intervene with Trump.
Among those sometimes engaged: business figures Steven Schwarzman, Tom Barrack, Richard LeFrak or politicians he respects like Corker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, among others. One outside adviser said White House aides had called him on at least five occasions to intervene.
There is no failsafe. The whole point of U.S. nuclear weapons control is to make sure that the president — and only the president — can use them if and whenever he decides to do so. The one sure way to keep President Trump from launching a nuclear attack, under the system we’ve had in place since the early Cold War, would have been to elect someone else.However:
The procedure for ordering a nuclear attack involves more than one person: The president cannot literally press a button on his desk and start World War III. There is no “nuclear button” at all. Instead, the U.S. nuclear command-and-control system is bureaucratically and technically complex, stretching out to encompass land-based missile silos, submarine-based ballistic and cruise missiles, and weapons capable of being dropped from bombers. The chain of command as widely understood requires that the president order the secretary of defense to carry out a launch; the secretary serves as the conduit for implementation by the military.I think Trump hasn't dropped the big one yet only because he's been talked out of doing so. I don't know whether that will continue to work. The publication of the Politico article, assuming he ever finds out about it, may tip him to the ways he's being manipulated, which may make those tricks less effective.
And then what? What if he decides to nuke Pyongyang -- or Chappaqua, for that matter -- and he can't be dissuaded?
I suspect that at least some in the chain of command would refuse to carry out truly ill-advised orders and would resign. This might not stop Trump -- it might only slow him down until someone was found who was willing to do as he ordered. Or he might want to avoid a spate of resignations and be persuaded to climb down. We can only hope.
In any case, if it's an open secret in Washington -- and even in the White House -- that Trump is a dangerous menace who must be contained, I assume there's a plan to prevent him from going nuclear in a fit of pique. At least I hope so.
All things considered, most importantly the fairly widespread media coverage of trump's psychological instability, I believe there would be a refusal by the military to participate in a first strike with nuclear weapons.
A retaliatory strike would be a different matter.
Sounds like the Nixon conundrum that Secretary of Defense Schlesinger faced in 74.
Toward the end Nixon was so unstable that Schlesinger was afraid he might blow the world up just to keep his Presidency.
So Schlesinger worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to see that no acts of war would be carried out without his say so.
Because Trump started off his term less stable than Nixon ever was at his very worse it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some sort of oversight has been set up by the Presidential baby sitters.
I also understand that there are some bills working their way through Congress to take back their power of war declaration.
Deming first strikes on another nation an act of war the bills would deny Trump the legal right of first strike without Congressional declaration of war.
I'm thinking that the 70% of America that doesn't believe this guy is up to the job would be happy for some oversight.
I agree AH. The adults in the room have to take his ability to launch a first strike away from him. Hopefully the details will leak out prior to the 2020 election so it can be used to get voters to come to their senses next time.
Isn't this the way it should be?
Why and when was it changed?
Why should one person ever have the power to declare war on another country?
Isn't this the way it should be?
Yes Mocowgirl that is how it should work but Congress hasn't made an official declaration of war since WW II and we've lost a lot of American blood and treasure in foreign lands over the last 75 " War Free " years.
It changed because Congress let it change.
Without googling I'm going to say that Congress gave up control when they let President Truman get away with calling the Korean war a "Police Action" .
Basically every war we've been in since has slid into the nebulous Police Action category, even our war on terror.
One person shouldn't have the power to declare war but someone must have the final authority on when to use Americas weapons.
Under normal circumstances that would fall to the President because the decision might have to be made in mere minutes but, like the worry that Nixon would misuse that power, Congress, (and about 70% of the American people), worry that President Trump isn't up to the responsibility of having his finger on the button.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reportedly asked an unnamed foreign policy adviser why the US couldn’t use nuclear weapons.
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough interviewed former CIA chief and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden Wednesday. During the interview, the reporter cited a foreign policy expert who had met with the Republican nominee.
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times. He asked at one point if we have them, why can’t we use them,” Scarborough said on Wednesday’s edition of “Morning Joe.”
In March, Trump appeared to advocate nuclear proliferation, saying that American allies such as Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia should develop nuclear weapons to deter other nuclear-armed countries.
New bill aims to ban Donald Trump from first use of nuclear weapons without Congressional Declaration of War
Mr Trump's “ignorance” of nuclear defence theory “increases the risk” of an accidental nuclear war, the Democrats said in a statement accompanying the legislation, which would forbid the President from launching a first strike with nuclear weapons without a declaration of war by Congress.
The question over the President’s authority to launch nuclear weapons at very short notice was “more urgent than ever”, they added.
Mr Trump caused concern among defence experts when being briefed on nuclear weapons, when he allegedly asked why they couldn’t be used if possessed by the US.
Taking to his Twitter account in December, he said the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”.
The President has also threatened to “nuke Isis territory” in response to an attack.
It seems to me that our government has an abundant amount of people who are employed to develop strategy for national security. We really should have strategies for events that need a response "in mere minutes".
After 911, it took many months, but our government convinced our citizens that Hussein was responsible and over 2/3s of our citizens backed the annihilation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women and children.
So whether it comes down to one person's decision or it has the backing of over 66% of US population, the US has a history of bombing them all and saying the action was honorable and justified.
Our military is scattered all over the globe. Our latest military buildup is on the continent of Africa and is largely happening under the radar. There has been a land grab ongoing for the last decade and our military is being readied to protect US robber baron assets on the African continent. Of course, in the near future, the spin will be that our mission is to hunt down the terrorists that are a threat to democracy, mom and apple pie.
Really? I seem to remember congress voting for the war with Iraq. Even Hillary voted for that war.
Ryarios I believe you're thinking of "H.J.Res.114 - Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" , which gave President Bush authorization to use armed force if, (in his opinion), all else failed.
Technically, no one in Congress was voting for war with Iraq or on an official "Declaration of War" they were just officially giving Bush that option if it was needed as a last resort.
Why would anyone trust "W" to make the decision on whether to invade a sovereign nation that had not attacked the US?
I remember that Phil Donahue was fired for even questioning the propaganda that led to the Iraq invasion. Why?
And you don't think that's the same thing? Did anyone have any doubt where that was going? The only thing that would have stopped it was if Iraq capitulated before we attacked. Let's be real here. Everyone who voted for that knew it meant war.
How cute is it that these people think they know what the procedures are for consideration of a nuclear option. It's laughable that they are dumb enough to think that the President would make the decision without heavy consideration by the Joint Chiefs and their tactical commanders.
You dont want the military involved in the decision making to be debating the rationality of the president on that day. Better to have an understanding that this man is not psychologically qualified to consider and authorize a first strike, and make that known on an ongoing to basis to anyone concerned.
When it comes to munitions like that the military IS involved. From the Company Commander level all the way up to the President.
Here is where it becomes laughable. You think the President has the authority to make the decision without input from his tactical commanders. I recommend you do some research on what is required for the use of nuclear munitions and the weapon systems capable of firing them. Oh, just a hint, some of these weapon systems are right there in your states national guard armory.
I didnt say that, but who makes the final decision? Do they take a vote?
Trump is clearly psychologically unbalanced. He should be denied the final authority to launch a nuclear first strike , by a tacit OR expressed understanding of the relevant military commanders.
No president has the authority to order a first strike, out of the blue, on his own authority.....
Not necessarily talking about out of the blue.
This President* shouldn't even be a part of the conversation.
It is a joint decision after some very careful consideration and planning.
Ok, we get your point. You think the President has problems. The problem you have is, all you have is your opinion on it.
I know that, you know that. But there are many here who don't.
By whose authority and expertise is he not qualified. His methods are a bit different, but he is as sane as the day if long and smart like a fox.
ROFL. Perhaps that explains why he has the highest disapproval rating (67% according to new AP poll) in history for this stage of a presidency.
E.A Can I ask " Is there more ways to skin a Cat "? so can the POTUS " And the Team " not order and in a way " force " a nation to a Nuclear waw, before Senate can react?
A highly respected Republican said this:
Corker said last week that he believed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis and chief of staff John Kelly were the only people keeping the country (and Trump) from descending into total chaos .
How close we could come to Nuclear War is depicted in the movie Crimson Tide:
Does one obey the command to fire, or not?
Depends Buzz.
Hypothetical;
Secretary of Defense Mattis, working with John Kelly and the Joint Chiefs, throws a lose net over President Trumps ability to order a strike. Like Schlesinger used on Nixon.
Of course, to not obey the Presidents order is done knowing it means prison time or worse but sometimes love of Country demands sacrifice.
Hopefully China won't invade Taiwan, for MY sake. LOL
Trump wanted a 10x increase in our nuclear stockpile:
This is what happens when ignorant sociopaths get elected to high office.
Not surprised to see you buy into that bit of "Fake News".
In a new book published this week, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” a group of 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts warn that “anyone as mentally unstable as this man should not be entrusted with the life-and-death-powers of the presidency.” Seemingly in defiance of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater rule,” which states “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion [on a public figure] unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement,” the various and very eminent contributors paint a picture of a president who has “proven himself unfit for duty.”
Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo — of the famous Stanford prison study — suggests the “unbalanced” Trump is a “specific personality type: an unbridled, or extreme, present hedonist” and “narcissist.” Psychiatrist Lance Dodes, a former Harvard Medical School professor, says Trump’s “sociopathic characteristics are undeniable” and his speech and behavior show signs of “significant mental derangement.” Clinical psychologist John Gartner, a 28-year veteran of Johns Hopkins University Medical School, argues that Trump is a “malignant narcissist” and “evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric symptoms possible for a leader.” For Gartner, the “catastrophe” of a Trump presidency “might have been avoided if we in the mental health community had told the public the truth, instead of allowing ourselves to be gagged by the Goldwater rule.”
“The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump” was conceived of and edited by Professor Bandy Lee , a forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of Medicine, who writes of her profession’s moral and civic “duty to warn” the American public about the threat posed by their volatile, erratic, and thin-skinned president.
You can get good deals on prepping supplies over at Infowars. Do you have a bug out plan and bomb shelter nearby?
If the military refuses to carry out a Presidential order, it would in effect be a military coup.
By refusing to follow orders - will lose the Republic.
Military personnel who refuse might be tried for treason - I'm a little foggy on that - or perhaps Article 90 which comes with a death sentence. since it would be a time of war.The operative term would be "Legal Order". I don't think it would be an illegal order to nuke North Korea or California but I'm pretty sure it would be an illegal order to nuke Canada.
By following orders - the Republic is saved.
Still - those who would carry out such an order - and the President would, at some time, be reviewed by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Probably nothing would happen to President Trump either way, since we would have to turn him over to a "world government" but I'm pretty sure than any military involved will get screwed since someone will have to be held accountable.
Trump would not order a nuclear strike, so what's up with this hypothetical nonsense?
Actually Trump has asked why he can't use nukes.
.
Trump has also encouraged at least two non-weapons states to make their own nukes: