If Needed, Who gets to Push the Nuclear Button

me ^ | 1/26/04 | eastforker

[eastforker]

I asked this question on an earlier thread. I was Freepmailed and told it was classified by a naval officer. In light of some of the presidential candidates before us, I would like to know, who decides to push the N button if needed. In contrast, if the N button needs to be pushed and the president refuses, who or what over rules.

[Poohbah]

Realy, so if the President said go, the man in the silo could refuse, even though his partner is armed and may have a differant outlook?

If the man refusing is willing to die over the issue, it ends there--the whole configuration of the LCC is designed to make it impossible for both keys to be turned by the same guy. (They're too far apart.)

[Behind Liberal Lines]

The dems certainly don't have the testicular fortitude to push the button.

You forget that Hillary has big brass ones

[Poohbah]

Any documentation that you can link?

This is a dead-tree BOOK, but it's a good start: Strategic Command and Control by Bruce G. Blair.

[eastforker]

I understand succession, but could a mad man in the hot seat destroy civilization on a whim?

[TBall]

"If he had given the orders to launch any kind of nuclear strike, perhaps a giant cake would have been rolled into the room and a stripper would have jumped out of it -- but that's about it." Thanks that made me laugh.

[r9etb]

Realy, so if the President said go, the man in the silo could refuse, even though his partner is armed and may have a differant outlook?

Disclaimer: although I know a bunch of former missileers, I am not, nor have ever been one myself.

The way I see it, anyway, a nation's ability to wage war of any sort depends on the willingness of the guys on the pointy end to wage it.

That would be as true in a silo, as on the front lines.

The difference, I think, would be the type of pressure one is under when the time comes. In the case of the guy in the silo, the supposition is that he can overcome the inherent revulsion of sending a missile off that will kill thousands or millions.

The military knows this, BTW, which is why they're pretty careful about who they'll allow to sit at the console. They want to make sure they've got people who, when given the launch order, will actually launch.

[Lockbar]

The Beautiful Shiny Button! The Jolly, Candy Like Button!

[eastforker]

Then why are they armed, or is that just hollywood?

[Squawk 8888]

I think the Dems were the only ones to do it, so far, but I could be wrong.

You are correct- Truman was the only president who ever authorized a nuclear strike.

[Alberta's Child]

My guess is that there are a couple of additional people in that line of succession right now -- the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Homeland Security at #17 and #18, respectively.

[MineralMan]

"I understand succession, but could a mad man in the hot seat destroy civilization on a whim?"

Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Even the President is not going to be able to just "push the button." Before such an event could take place, the threat would have to be real, nuclear, and imminent.

It would take an actual nuclear attack to trigger the use of nuclear weapons by the USA, and that attack would have to be demonstrably coming from a particular source.

It's unlikely that we'll ever have a "madman" in office as President. Look at what has happened to Dean, after what was really just a silly demonstration. He's not a "madman," just a bit poor in judgment regarding the appropriate behavior following losing the Iowa caucus.

Our system of checks and balances includes national elections. A "madman" would find it almost impossible to gain election to the Presidency.

I'm not sure what premise you're working under, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Robert A Cook PE]

"Those" democrats (of FDR and Truman's era) - EVEN THOUGH MANY DID support Communism (and socialism! - were patriots in the larger view.

TODAY'S democrats are NOT patriots in ANY view, and are (if anything) morally bound to the UN and their international socialist agenda.

NO democrat running for president (Lieberman "possibly" excepted) could be trusted to defend to US ... To the point where Clinton himself claimed he WOULD NOT fire a nuke at a known enemy EVEN IF ONE HAD EXPLODED over a US city.

That's right, he claimed he would NOT fire back (even one of two, much less a large number) .. Not on "warning" of a launch, confirmation of trajectory data, NOR explosion of the warhead.

So, if he would not fire AFTER an explsoion ... Are you going to expect anybody but Dean to fire a nuke?

Dean, of course, would have fired a nuke at the Waco complex.

(Clark simply burned them alive with conventional tanks and flames, after making sure there were no fire trucks available.)

[Sabertooth]

Your protocols are being discussed, FYI.

[eastforker]

I have read that there is quite a turnover of silo personnel for that exact reason.

[MineralMan]

"My guess is that there are a couple of additional people in that line of succession right now -- the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Homeland Security at #17 and #18, respectively."

Your guess would be incorrect.

[Robert A Cook PE]

See my comment too, please.

[Poohbah]

Then why are they armed, or is that just hollywood?

1. To try to "persuade" the other guy to turn his key. If the other guy won't do it, even at the threat of being killed...then carrying out that threat won't help.

2. To prevent a saboteur from damaging LCC components. (You need two REASONABLY INTACT consoles to send the launch votes.)

3. After they've turned their keys, and they realize that they're about to be on the receiving end of about a megaton or so, they can take the final exit if they wish.

[TheDon]

The Democratic Party - The only party to authorize the use of a atomic weapon.

[hedgie]

OK, you've watched way too much Ren and Stimpy.

[Paul Ross]

Uh, I think you need to rethink this. I, for one, have no doubt for a second that Weasley Clark and Hitlery would push the button...and nuke GOP-controlled states.