75 years after Hiroshima, should U.S. president have authority to launch nuclear attack?

[homersapien 11,388]

Considering the immediate issues confronting the country it's hard to divert one's attention to long standing problems that are even more existential that the ones we are currently dealing with - such as climate change and one we seem to have just set aside - nuclear apocalypse.

I thought the case made in this NPRNH segment was compelling.  There is no rational reason we should maintain a policy of launch on warning, simply to keep from losing nuclear weapons in a first strike.  It's pointless.  We could lose every ground-based missle in a first strike and still have more than enough submarine-based missiles to retaliate.

Likewise, the POTUS - no matter who he/she is - should not have sole power to launch missiles. The risks of a mistake are simply too high.

Former Sec. of Defense William Perry lays it out well in the following interview discussing his new book, "The Button - The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/75-years-after-hiroshima-should-u-s-president-have-authority-to-launch-nuclear-attack

[bigbird 60,566]

Yes

[DKW 86 7,426]

Yea...when the Russian, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indian, whomever missiles are coming in with impact expected in 30 minutes or so, we need to have a 5 year debate on whether the hell we shoot back...NOT. 

[AUDub 11,153]

45 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Yea...when the Russian, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Indian, whomever missiles are coming in with impact expected in 30 minutes or so, we need to have a 5 year debate on whether the hell we shoot back...NOT. 

I think Homer's piece is pretty fair. The risk of firing on a false alarm is very high, especially if you have a trigger happy yahoo in charge. If we fire at a false alarm, then we're the culpable party. 

If we're attacked, there's no distinction between whether we fire before or after the attack, as we've enough air assets and tridents scattered around the globe that there's no way anyone could stop us from striking back even if they somehow got lucky enough to destroy every stationary silo in the mainland US (this is why the Triad is a thing, redundancy). 

We need not worry about striking back while their missiles are in the air, since we can strike back just as effectively either way. Better to make sure there actually are missiles in the air, since obliterating every major city in the world on a false alarm is generally frowned upon.

[DKW 86 7,426]

And that whole thing is based on “false alarm.” Hopefully we have some second, third , fourth level sourcing such as I don’t know visually seeing missiles in the air etc. 

For some really odd reason, we have people that want to screw with a system that has worked basically well for 75 years. Trump will be gone in a matter of weeks and we are supposed to change the entire way we do things, put out extraordinary effort to reign him in for a few weeks? Where was all this 4 years ago? Oh yea, it was circling the drain 24-7-365 screaming about all but nonexistent Russian  Conspiracy theory that now has the Obama Admin backpedaling. 
 

Look, chill and let’s get back to business as usual and hope the whackos on the right don’t start a “not my president, resist, etc” bull**** campaign and keep Biden-Harris tied up for four more wasted years. How about we look at real problems and real issues that are addressable and build support to do something other than scream aimlessly like howler monkeys about every single perceived slight. 
 

I miss when we had grownups in DC. 

[homersapien 11,388]

Right.  So far, so good, huh?

If the idea of Trump have such sole authority doesn't  bother you, then try Biden. 

Of course that's not the point, which is we don't need to bestow the power to end civilization in any one person.  It's stupidly irrational.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

List of nuclear close calls

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-12/focus/nuclear-false-warnings-risk-catastrophe

Nuclear False Warnings and the Risk of Catastrophe

 

 

 

 

https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/

Accidental Nuclear War:

A Timeline of Close Calls

 

 

 

 

https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/nuclear-false-alarm-950

A Nuclear False Alarm that Looked Exactly Like the Real Thing

 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Sure, let's put that power in the hands of an old dude obviously sliding rapidly into dementia. 😳

[homersapien 11,388]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Sure, let's put that power in the hands of an old dude obviously sliding rapidly into dementia. 😳

Thanks for (hopefully) appreciating my point!  

[DKW 86 7,426]

Well, still say, after being part of the nuclear response Navy, that the safeguards are there whether anyone will admit them or not. 

This is not as easy as it appears ro be shooting missles.

[AUDub 11,153]

On 8/9/2020 at 6:00 AM, DKW 86 said:

Well, still say, after being part of the nuclear response Navy, that the safeguards are there whether anyone will admit them or not. 

This is not as easy as it appears ro be shooting missles.

Things fail. Damn shame, but no system is 100% proofed against a potential cascading failure, and concentrating the power to order a retaliatory or even preemptive strike in one individual is fraught with risk.

The launch on warning model is outdated for any country with an effective nuclear triad anyway. It need not exist,  and is by nature much more likely to result in a catastrophic error than a less volatile retaliation strategy.