Posted on 08/13/2017 12:49:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In just five minutes an American president could put all of humanity in jeopardy. Most nuclear security experts believe that's how long it would take for as many as 400 land-based nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal to be loosed on enemy targets after an initial “go” order. Ten minutes later a battalion of underwater nukes could join them.
That unbridled power is a frightening prospect no matter who is president. Donald Trump, the current occupant of the Oval Office, highlights this point. He said he aspires to be “unpredictable” in how he might use nuclear weapons. There is no way to recall these missiles when they have launched, and there is no self-destruct switch. The act would likely set off a lethal cascade of retaliatory attacks, which is why strategists call this scenario mutually assured destruction.
With the exception of the president, every link in the U.S. nuclear decision chain has protections against poor judgments, deliberate misuse or accidental deployment. The “two-person rule,” in place since World War II, requires that the actual order to launch be sent to two separate people. Each one has to decode and authenticate the message before taking action. In addition, anyone with nuclear weapons duties, in any branch of service, must routinely pass a Pentagon-mandated evaluation called the Personnel Reliability Program—a battery of tests that assess several areas, including mental fitness, financial history, and physical and emotional well-being.
There is no comparable restraint on the president. He or she can decide to trigger a thermonuclear Armageddon without consulting anyone at all and never has to demonstrate mental fitness. This must change. We need to ensure at least some deliberation before the chief executive can act. And there are ways to do this without weakening our military responses or national security.
This is not just a reaction to current politics. Calls for a bulwark against unilateral action go back more than 30 years. During the Reagan administration, the late Jeremy Stone, then president of the Federation of American Scientists, proposed that the president should not be able to order a first nuclear strike without consulting with high-ranking members of Congress. Such a buffer would ensure that actions that could escalate into world-destroying counterattacks would not be taken lightly. Democratic legislators recently introduced a law that would require not just consultation but congressional support for a preemptive nuclear attack. Whether or not that seems like the best check on presidential nuclear power is a matter for Congress.
We already know that second-check plans would not compromise American safety. Security experts used to worry that a hair-trigger launch was needed to deter a first strike by an enemy: our instant reactions would ensure that our opponent would feel catastrophic consequences of aggression. In the modern world, that is no longer the case. The U.S. has enough nukes in enough locations—including, crucially, our roving, nuclear-armed submarines—that nuclear strategists now agree it would not be possible to take out all of the nation's weapons with a first strike. The Pentagon, in a 2012 security assessment, said the same thing. It noted that even in the unlikely event that Russia launched a preemptive attack on the U.S.—and had more nuclear capability than current international agreements allow for—it “would have little to no effect on the U.S. assured second-strike capabilities.” That conclusion suggests that we will have ample firepower even if two or more people discuss how to use it.
We have come close to nuclear war in the past because of misidentified threats, including an incident in 1979 in which computers at a military command center in Colorado Springs wrongly reported the start of a major Soviet nuclear offensive. Ballistic and nuclear bomber crews immediately sprang into action. Crisis was averted only after satellite data could not corroborate the warning, and American forces finally stood down. In our March issue, Scientific American called for taking the U.S. nuclear arsenal off high alert because of this and other such near misses.
Taking the arsenal off high alert is an important step. But putting another check into the system—removing one person's unfettered ability to destroy the world—will create another essential, lasting safeguard for the U.S. and the planet.
Yes, they were quite plentiful weren’t they?
Especially when the Frank Davis-trained ‘community organizer” took office
The PARANOIA was just overwhelming, wasn’t it?
And editors from Scientific American get their credentials in military and diplomatic issues from where?!
This article freely mixes apples and potatoes. Trump is not even close to expending our entire nuclear arsenal on this windbag. Mentioning the launching of 400 missiles is ridiculous. Four would probably be more than sufficient.
The slams on President Trump in this article are obvious. This includes the statements about how the handlers of the launch codes have to pass mental exams.
Liberals have never understood the deterrence afforded by a nuclear arsenal. They have demonstrated that their brand of diplomacy has not deterred North Korea one bit. But they are certain that when someone arrives who speaks brashly to this punk N.K. dictator in his own language, that that is really dangerous.
Remember these articles during the Obama and Clinton administrations?
They wanted Obama and the USA to Surrender to the Rogue Regimes Worldwide, I bet Obama is pissed off as hell he missed out on his chance to Formally waive the White Flagn on behalf of the USA, not much has changed, they are just pissed Trump might stand up and fight for WE THE PEOPLE!
Contacting the four congressional leaders could take more time than we would have to initiate a response. Hence we would get blown up and not be able to respond. The author of the SA article is a communist stooge.
From the editors of Political Scientific American.
Hmmm . . . Let me see.
US has used nukes two times in its history.
President at the time—Truman—was a DEMOCRAT!!!
Why the hell didn’t they write/publish this type of article during the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
Liberals have never understood
You can just leave it right there, no need to qualify any further.
Think that bitch from Maine and say that
Any nuclear strike of any magnitude would only take place as a last resort to convince the stubborn enemy that further resistance is futile.
The more conventional form of warfare, pounding targets with aerial bombardment of non-nuclear nature, bunker-busters and MOAB drops, strafing motor columns on the ground, taking out concentrations of enemy war material, breaking up lines of communications, and generally making life quite complicated for the North Korean ruling elite, including Kim Jong Un, would be applied first. If total demoralization of the North Korean army does not then take place, whether Kim has attempted to launch nuclear weapons or not, THEN the decision to use sterner measures is warranted. Whether that includes nukes or not, is a command decision, coming from the top.
Nuclear weapons are not, and never should be, the first option in any military engagement. They are very definitely last resort.
The Editors .....does that go for Kim in NK? I bet it doesn’t to them. Yep read all those articles during the clinton and obama regimes......................NOT!
So Russia or China decides to launch all of their nukes. We react by appointing a Congressional committee to study the issue and try to come up with a consensus.
It will be a short war.
That’s been my viewpoint ever since they felt compelled to weigh in on Reagan’s Pershing II deployment.
Hey, let’s do it by Congressional Committee? Think that’ll get’er done, “Editors”?
“Taking the arsenal off high alert is an important step. But putting another check into the system - removing one person’s unfettered ability to destroy the world - will create another essential, lasting safeguard for the U.S. and the planet.” And a lasting benefit to enemies which have no such restraint ... Putin, Xi, Un, and Khamenei are up and cheering!
Well of course not. I’m so sick of this crap against Trump! Everyday something or someone comes out against this man. Just hope those who DIDN’T vote for him come to feel the same way.
So do these wise “Editors” think we should have consulted with Hirohito beforehand?
How about with the Deep State? Can they keep a secret?
Mitch? Lyin Ryan? Amy’s uncle? How bout “you’ll have to pass it before you know what’s in it”?
Those kind of advisers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.