Cracks in US nuclear command and control(axios.com)
axios.com
Cracks in US nuclear command and control
https://www.axios.com/nuclear-command-control-trump-pelosi-a4f85e00-96a9-4665-8295-332e34d582d9.html
100 comments
I would counter that the launch process is inefficient and designed to ensure positive control. Many people have to concur and validate the orders are legitimate. The president doesn't call the sub captain on his iphone.
In addition, military officers with this responsibility understand the gravity of the situation; in the ICBM fields they have access to the media. Launch when everything in the world is peaceful? Nope. They would question it.
Good to know.
Even if they're legally bound it's good to know that there's still someone in between who can simply say no.
Even if they're legally bound it's good to know that there's still someone in between who can simply say no.
> Even if they're legally bound
They are not legally bound. They are legally bound to follow a lawful order. It's a personal judgment call what constitutes a lawful order, and in 99.9% of the cases people just follow orders. But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey.
They are not legally bound. They are legally bound to follow a lawful order. It's a personal judgment call what constitutes a lawful order, and in 99.9% of the cases people just follow orders. But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey.
It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order. It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters. The legal process will determine if it was lawful only after the fact. Society will also judge after the fact. Both have means to punish you for picking wrongly.
But the safe bet today is to refuse any unconsciousable order because the next administration likely won't punish for it.
But the safe bet today is to refuse any unconsciousable order because the next administration likely won't punish for it.
> It's not a personal judgment for what is a lawful order.
As someone who's refused to follow an order because I believed it wasn't lawful, I disagree with you.
The UCMJ provides good general guidance over what constitutes a lawful order, but like any legal document, it doesn't cover specifics or edge cases that crop up. This puts military personnel in hairy areas where they have to know what the UCMJ states on the subject of the order, and make a decision whether or not an order is lawful.
I know you followed up with "It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters.", but what your statement comes down to is that the person following the order needs to decide on the spot whether it's lawful or not, and sometimes may have to argue their decision in a Military Court. This makes them de facto legal arbiters.
As someone who's refused to follow an order because I believed it wasn't lawful, I disagree with you.
The UCMJ provides good general guidance over what constitutes a lawful order, but like any legal document, it doesn't cover specifics or edge cases that crop up. This puts military personnel in hairy areas where they have to know what the UCMJ states on the subject of the order, and make a decision whether or not an order is lawful.
I know you followed up with "It's only a personal judgment whether you follow an order. Soldiers aren't the legal arbiters.", but what your statement comes down to is that the person following the order needs to decide on the spot whether it's lawful or not, and sometimes may have to argue their decision in a Military Court. This makes them de facto legal arbiters.
You are absolutely right, of course. What I meant is, as an officer, your assessment whether the order you receive is lawful or not is based on a personal judgment, there is no lookup table you can go and check the legality of the order. In most cases, not obeying an order will result in investigations later on, and the legality will be established by various legal experts.
US subs are often incommunicado for extended periods of time. If they receive an EAM ordering them to suface and launch immediately, guess what happens.
Trump can't just pick up the phone can give a sub commander a direct order to launch the nukes (in particular because the boomers are incommunicado, so he needs to follow a certain protocol). There will be a number of officers on land who will need to relay his orders. And those officers will refuse to do so.
> But when it comes to ending the world, I think all officers, without exception, will realize the order to nuke a random target is not lawful, and will refuse to obey.
Sadly, you’re assuming everyone in the chain are rational actors. This breaks down in a cult
Sadly, you’re assuming everyone in the chain are rational actors. This breaks down in a cult
but didn't Trump just replace the Secretary of Defense? In the linked story, it was the secretary who implemented the legal safeguards
Worldwide verification of the elimination of nuclear weapons is the minimal necessary metric to predict that our civilization will survive. Besides eliminating their immediate danger, it's a proxy for our ability to cooperate as a world and think past our differences.
One of the things scary to me about nukes for human survival is I think it gains limited resiliency from being interplanetary, at least at first. The same countries on Earth will set up nukes on Mars and point them at each other. Other threats (asteroid impact, virus) get more of a boost. Put more generally, I don’t think the nuclear threat is something we’ll tech our way out of.
One country teching its way out of nukes before everyone else would be the most dangerous thing ever.
Yeah, that’s even worse. A perfect missile shield seems like it would save lives, but could negate MAD.
MAD is funny this way. Not only you have to keep up with your enemy - you have to stay in lock-step with them. Go ahead too fast - in offensive or defensive capabilities - and you're just provoking a preemptive strike. A better missile, or a better missile shield, or a better submarine detection technology - all can trigger the end if developed deployed too quickly. It's already beneficial to be open about what you can do; I wonder if we reach the point at which it will be beneficial for the country that's ahead to just give others its tech, to keep the parity going.
As for other planets, I suspect the early colonies will be completely defenseless from Earth, but if they reach sufficient level of development and self-governance, they'll want to rapidly develop capability of hurting Earth as an opening move for declaring independence.
As for other planets, I suspect the early colonies will be completely defenseless from Earth, but if they reach sufficient level of development and self-governance, they'll want to rapidly develop capability of hurting Earth as an opening move for declaring independence.
It 3 countries establish colonies on Mars, there will still be only 1 government with real authority on mars and it will be the one established there. It's just too hard to survive there without local autonomy and cooperation.
There might already be nuclear weapons deployed in space, and almost surely already deployable quickly via a platform like x-37b
Would X-37B really be any more useful than a boring old ICBM?
I mean it would be a 4th leg and maybe less detectible?
To both: Why? It’s still a thing on a rocket.
If anything, it’s easier to spot than an ICBM. Amateurs make a thing of finding it: https://gizmodo.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-found-the-arm...
If anything, it’s easier to spot than an ICBM. Amateurs make a thing of finding it: https://gizmodo.com/amateur-satellite-trackers-found-the-arm...
An elimination that isn't immediately followed by a conventional World War 3, that is. Nukes are what keeps our world of uncooperative humans mostly at peace after all.
Nuclear weapons are themselves just a test for us, too. If we want to grow as a species and civilization - truly grow and reach out of our gravity well - then nukes will become just firecrackers compared to what we'll end up dealing with. Orbital velocities being what they are, any interesting interplanetary or interstellar tech will require us commanding similar or larger levels of energy on a regular basis. Which is why I suspect MAD doctrine is with us to stay - now with nuclear weapons, in the future with asteroids and power plants of large spacecraft.
Nuclear weapons are themselves just a test for us, too. If we want to grow as a species and civilization - truly grow and reach out of our gravity well - then nukes will become just firecrackers compared to what we'll end up dealing with. Orbital velocities being what they are, any interesting interplanetary or interstellar tech will require us commanding similar or larger levels of energy on a regular basis. Which is why I suspect MAD doctrine is with us to stay - now with nuclear weapons, in the future with asteroids and power plants of large spacecraft.
We need them (and oil drillers) in case an asteroid comes at us.
It is about time US pledges no first use of nuclear weapons. China already did.
It's probably not the US, China, or Russia that we need to be most worried about. I'd be most worried about India and Pakistan.
They both heavily depend on Himalayan glaciers for fresh water, and that supply will be heavily affected by climate change if the world does not act. They could easily end up at war over water rights.
Neither of them has the really big nukes the big players have, but it turns out that you don't need big nukes to cause serious worldwide problems.
This paper [1], summarized in this article [2], looked at a scenario where India and Pakistan have a nuclear war involving 100 nukes of the size as the one used on Hiroshima (15 kiloton blast), directed at the most populated areas. That's about 1/3 of the total number of nukes those two countries have.
They estimated based on the amount of combustible material in the target areas that the resulting firestorms would put about 1.5 Tg of soot aerosol into the upper atmosphere. They then apply climate models to predict the effect of that.
The result is a 1.8 C temperature reduction and 8% precipitation reduction for several years, which would have a serious effect on food crops. They used state of the art crop models to estimate food loss over time. They found the strongest effects would be in temperate regions of the US, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 years.
It's not an end of humanity scenario at that point, but would result in widespread world hunger for a long time, and not just in the poor countries. That could trigger wars involving more of the world's nuclear powers, including ones with much bigger bombs.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071
[2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-...
They both heavily depend on Himalayan glaciers for fresh water, and that supply will be heavily affected by climate change if the world does not act. They could easily end up at war over water rights.
Neither of them has the really big nukes the big players have, but it turns out that you don't need big nukes to cause serious worldwide problems.
This paper [1], summarized in this article [2], looked at a scenario where India and Pakistan have a nuclear war involving 100 nukes of the size as the one used on Hiroshima (15 kiloton blast), directed at the most populated areas. That's about 1/3 of the total number of nukes those two countries have.
They estimated based on the amount of combustible material in the target areas that the resulting firestorms would put about 1.5 Tg of soot aerosol into the upper atmosphere. They then apply climate models to predict the effect of that.
The result is a 1.8 C temperature reduction and 8% precipitation reduction for several years, which would have a serious effect on food crops. They used state of the art crop models to estimate food loss over time. They found the strongest effects would be in temperate regions of the US, Europe, and China for 10 to 15 years.
It's not an end of humanity scenario at that point, but would result in widespread world hunger for a long time, and not just in the poor countries. That could trigger wars involving more of the world's nuclear powers, including ones with much bigger bombs.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/117/13/7071
[2] https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/03/16/even-limited-india-...
How seriously can we take this pledge? It seems like nuking someone first is already an all-out move and pledges will be ignored.
They have (estimated) 1/10 the nuclear stockpile and limited delivery vehicles, it's mostly credible as second strike. That said, the launch hardware and command structure is mixed with the conventional rocket force so any conventional attack on Chinese rocketry is indistinguishable from first strike since no one can be certain whether attack is on conventional or nuclear assets. This ambiguity is by design. Doubt is when China moves towards nuclear parity.
That pledge is as good as toilet paper. Don't be so naive. (And that's not because they're chinese. All governments would immediately disregard such pledges at the time it was deemed necessary to strike first)
Fact remains they have never deployed them. I am no fan of China, but Hey at least they say they won’t deploy as opposed to certain other countries (for eg. India’s immediate neighbor)
If America tried to invade China using conventional weapons, then I believe China wouldn't rule out responding with nukes. But yeah, I doubt they would use nukes in a small stakes dispute.
Here I can actually put my two cents in the discussion, as somebody who studied nuclear C&C for years.
Technically, everything there is correct: the unilateral authority for nuclear weapons use is in the hands of the president. In particular, the military are absolutely not allowed to do anything with nuclear weapons without the confirmation of the president. This system was put in place by Truman, and this decision probably saved the planet from nuclear war many times.
Now, in practice, the president, Trump or anybody else, cannot unilaterally start the nuclear war. He has to communicate with the military to activate the nuclear football and call NMCC. The order will be handled by EAC (emergency actions controller), who has to input their own codes, which needs to be confirmed by the superior officer. Choosing the nuclear option beyond what is already in nuclear football (where only retaliatory options are placed, not applicable in the first-use context) will require active input from STRATCOM, which will take hours. At all these points, there are many opportunities to intervene and/or seek additional confirmations from multiple authorities.
Tl;dr the nuclear _retaliation_ can indeed be launched by the president in minutes, if it is already proposed by the military and the only thing the president needs to to is to reply with nuclear launch codes from the biscuit and the football. Initiating a first use attack is a whole another story, will take hours, and most probably will not succeed at all.
P.S. Mark Milley is not in the nuclear launch command chain, so he has no authority to do anything about the procedure. Neither is Nancy Pelosi.
Technically, everything there is correct: the unilateral authority for nuclear weapons use is in the hands of the president. In particular, the military are absolutely not allowed to do anything with nuclear weapons without the confirmation of the president. This system was put in place by Truman, and this decision probably saved the planet from nuclear war many times.
Now, in practice, the president, Trump or anybody else, cannot unilaterally start the nuclear war. He has to communicate with the military to activate the nuclear football and call NMCC. The order will be handled by EAC (emergency actions controller), who has to input their own codes, which needs to be confirmed by the superior officer. Choosing the nuclear option beyond what is already in nuclear football (where only retaliatory options are placed, not applicable in the first-use context) will require active input from STRATCOM, which will take hours. At all these points, there are many opportunities to intervene and/or seek additional confirmations from multiple authorities.
Tl;dr the nuclear _retaliation_ can indeed be launched by the president in minutes, if it is already proposed by the military and the only thing the president needs to to is to reply with nuclear launch codes from the biscuit and the football. Initiating a first use attack is a whole another story, will take hours, and most probably will not succeed at all.
P.S. Mark Milley is not in the nuclear launch command chain, so he has no authority to do anything about the procedure. Neither is Nancy Pelosi.
This is great insight. Do you know what role political appointees play in the decision tree? e.g. NSC, Esper, the Republican theory of unitary executive
To which I might add that the POTUS who removed most troops f/ Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq; and who held off on retaliation for Iran's shelling of US bases in Iraq -- would appear to be a very low risk candidate for starting a nuclear holocaust. So, we might ask ourselves why this narrative is being pushed as POTUS and many conservatives are being purged from social media. Its almost as if there's something else taking place.
Sadly, the statistics on drone attacks paint very different picture.
Obama had more drone strikes and killed US citizens without due process.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Pres....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#:~:text=Pres....
Trump is honestly the least war mongering president since Carter.
But he's also now clearly lost control with reality and is taking unprecedented steps.
But he's also now clearly lost control with reality and is taking unprecedented steps.
If anyone is interesting in more details, I really recommend the recent book "The Button" about how precarious the situation really is:
https://www.amazon.com/Button-Book-Sally-Nicholls/dp/0735267...
https://www.amazon.com/Button-Book-Sally-Nicholls/dp/0735267...
Another similar book is Command And Control by Eric Schlosser.
It goes into a lot of detail about how nuclear weapons and their control systems evolved. Covers a number of accidents and near apocalypses along the way. One of my favorite books of the last decade, informative and very readable at the same time.
https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
It goes into a lot of detail about how nuclear weapons and their control systems evolved. Covers a number of accidents and near apocalypses along the way. One of my favorite books of the last decade, informative and very readable at the same time.
https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Ill...
Just came across this as well on today's fp:
https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-ti...
https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-ti...
Amazing book, although terrifying. In a similar vein is "The Doomsday Machine", Daniel Ellsberg. Reading this in conjunction with C&C will truly make you appreciate the insane run of luck we have had as a species in avoiding nuclear catastrophe (so far).
I think you meant
https://www.amazon.com/Button-Nuclear-Presidential-Power-Tru...
(what you linked to is a "silly and sweet picture book [which] introduces young children to colors through humor and clever interactive elements.")
https://www.amazon.com/Button-Nuclear-Presidential-Power-Tru...
(what you linked to is a "silly and sweet picture book [which] introduces young children to colors through humor and clever interactive elements.")
yes i did, thanks!
Do you guys understand that retaliatory use of nuclear weapons is very likely assured even if president says no?
People in underground command bunkers likely have families too, and will act like most normal people.
People in underground command bunkers likely have families too, and will act like most normal people.
And normal people would, if they realise that their family and countrymen are doomed, say, "ok, let's obliterate all those hundreds of million of other people, too!"?
In my mind, a nuclear first strike without Congress is definitely illegal because President's cannot declare war--only Congress can.
Presidents for a long time have engaged in limited quasi-wars without Congress by hand-waving over "what is war, anyway," conducting missile strikes and engaging in targeted special operations. Congress looking the other way is a clear abdication of responsibility here, but there has been enough plausible grey area to get away with this over many recent decades of American foreign policy.
But I don't know any serious person who would look at a nuclear first strike and think there's any debate about whether or not that constituted an outright declaration of war.
We definitely need to make this more explicit though, and not rely on out of control President to test it.
Presidents for a long time have engaged in limited quasi-wars without Congress by hand-waving over "what is war, anyway," conducting missile strikes and engaging in targeted special operations. Congress looking the other way is a clear abdication of responsibility here, but there has been enough plausible grey area to get away with this over many recent decades of American foreign policy.
But I don't know any serious person who would look at a nuclear first strike and think there's any debate about whether or not that constituted an outright declaration of war.
We definitely need to make this more explicit though, and not rely on out of control President to test it.
Herein lies the issue: the quasi-war. The US must make actions in the future to more accurately describe what a war is. In my mind virtually every “quasi-war” that the United States has waged since WWII has been waged unconstitutionally.
We’ve gone about for too long meddling in the affairs of others. Putting boots on their grounds and haven’t the slightest bit of gall to make it official and firmly support it. These acts of ill will (however good intentioned they may have been- and most have not *see War in Vietnam) have been nothing but racketeering and have violated our own Constitution.
I agree. We must clarify and make it more explicit. We must also create a nuclear armistice. We can’t continue to go on kicking the little countries and idealogies of the world and not expect the Big Ones to at some point decide to kick back.
“ Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say? Can't you see the fears that I'm feeling today? If the button is pushed, there's no running away There'll be no one to save with the world in a grave”
From Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction”
We’ve gone about for too long meddling in the affairs of others. Putting boots on their grounds and haven’t the slightest bit of gall to make it official and firmly support it. These acts of ill will (however good intentioned they may have been- and most have not *see War in Vietnam) have been nothing but racketeering and have violated our own Constitution.
I agree. We must clarify and make it more explicit. We must also create a nuclear armistice. We can’t continue to go on kicking the little countries and idealogies of the world and not expect the Big Ones to at some point decide to kick back.
“ Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say? Can't you see the fears that I'm feeling today? If the button is pushed, there's no running away There'll be no one to save with the world in a grave”
From Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction”
Let's say that country P's intelligence agency is implicated in helping a terrorist group based in country Q obtain a weapon from the leaky security of country R, which is then detonated in country S but with a smaller yield than expected due to deterioration in R's stockpile maintenance, so that most of the damage is the cost of the radioactive cleanup. Act of war?
Country P helping detonate a nuclear weapon in country S is absolutely unquestionably an act of war. I don’t think your scenario is as convoluted as you think just because the warhead didn’t come riding in on a rocket.
The key word there is "implicated." Who decides that they did it?
The reason the US won't sign no-first use agreement is the situation where Russia troops start an invasion of Europe (or the Chinese and North Koreans invade South Korea, etc.).
So there are scenarios where the President is not the one declaring war, but responding to aggression, but would still be the one using nuclear weapons first.
Either way you'd have to give the President the keys to the nuclear arsenal so that we'd have a second strike capability.
So there are scenarios where the President is not the one declaring war, but responding to aggression, but would still be the one using nuclear weapons first.
Either way you'd have to give the President the keys to the nuclear arsenal so that we'd have a second strike capability.
[deleted]
I cannot believe that if a deranged sitting President would task the Army (or whatever branch) with bombing a random country, the safeguards in place wouldn't be common fucking sense in all those involved.
So, while I agree, the chain of command thing is there for good reason, and it is supposed to be the case that you would just remove a leader so unpredictable you can’t trust him with the most critical tasks we have.
Didn’t prevent USA wars in the past, why would it be different this time?
You should read more, then.
Maybe not a random country, but I would give even odds that if Trump ordered an air strike against San Francisco they'd do it.
You would lose everytime, military officers aren't bloodthirsty villans.
Like the retired Air Force colonel who was looting the Capitol earlier week? The one with the nylon restraints because he was planning to abduct the legislative branch?
Sure, there are a few bad apples in every bunch, but they're not gonna fucking bomb an American city. I'm not arguing with you, just trying to anchor you to reality.
It's nice that you think this is impossible. I think with the prevalence of right-wing nationalists and white supremacists especially in the Air Force a strike order against "antifa hq" or whatever would find at least one all-fascist path down from the President to a weapon, and one is all they need.
By the way, you seem to have misunderstood the intended lesson of the apple and the barrel. The point of the proverb is that it takes only one apple to ruin the whole barrel, not that just one bad apple is not a problem.
By the way, you seem to have misunderstood the intended lesson of the apple and the barrel. The point of the proverb is that it takes only one apple to ruin the whole barrel, not that just one bad apple is not a problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Maybe things have changed in 10 years, but even the most racist southern farmer I knew in the officer cprps wouldn't have bombed am American city, for several reasons.
The US military is responsible for many atrocities, but I'll eat my own dick if a US military officer ever bombs an American city.
Also, thanks for the patronizing remarks, no one uses that phrase as intended and it's now become less likely anyone would use your version. The bad apples in the military officer corps get removed very quickly, I bet your example will be court martialed and ejected with dishonorable discharge by springtime. If I had been his CO, I'd have him on literal bread and water on his way to federal prison for life for his acts, and most officers I know would do the same; the rest would probably want to shoot him.
Maybe things have changed in 10 years, but even the most racist southern farmer I knew in the officer cprps wouldn't have bombed am American city, for several reasons.
The US military is responsible for many atrocities, but I'll eat my own dick if a US military officer ever bombs an American city.
Also, thanks for the patronizing remarks, no one uses that phrase as intended and it's now become less likely anyone would use your version. The bad apples in the military officer corps get removed very quickly, I bet your example will be court martialed and ejected with dishonorable discharge by springtime. If I had been his CO, I'd have him on literal bread and water on his way to federal prison for life for his acts, and most officers I know would do the same; the rest would probably want to shoot him.
I think it's time to distribute (what's the proper word here?) first-strike power - what I'm trying to say is make it a vote with at least 2/3rds majority from a diverse group.
Importantly as we've seen with Trump/Republican rule it should not be game-able with just executive power (many times non-confirmed) political appointees.
I don't like writing two party rule into law (FEC as an example) but I'm not sure a better solution even adding judiciary is partisan control these days. Even NSC has been gutted and politicized by Trump.
It's harder to confirm a low level judge or actually confirm a cabinet level staff member in Trump's admin than it is to launch an all out unprovoked nuclear assault.
Importantly as we've seen with Trump/Republican rule it should not be game-able with just executive power (many times non-confirmed) political appointees.
I don't like writing two party rule into law (FEC as an example) but I'm not sure a better solution even adding judiciary is partisan control these days. Even NSC has been gutted and politicized by Trump.
It's harder to confirm a low level judge or actually confirm a cabinet level staff member in Trump's admin than it is to launch an all out unprovoked nuclear assault.
The libs are sh*ting their pants for real now.
Who is a "lib"? Anyone concerned one person can end the Earth?
bra-ket(1)
The pure and utter mind control Trump has over people like the OP there is outright scary. How did it get so far that it is so obvious to everyone but themselves?
I wonder who could possibly benefit from this. We're seeing Russia's ultimate geopolitical goals playing out like clockwork here; the destabilization of the US and disarming of their major nuclear threat. It's terrifying how brazen and obvious Putin's strategy is here while going off without a hitch.
No one, especially Russia is interested in a nuclear war. Disarmed okay, but for what? Nuking a size of the US or Russia is ending the world, even without nuclear subs or allies striking back.
That Russia plays the US right now like a fiddle: hell yes. Disarming the nuclear weapons: not important. It is at best distraction.
Actually, I am pretty sure, in that regards they would prefer more stability. Putin plays the MAD game already longer than any other ruler currently in control of nuclear warheads.
That Russia plays the US right now like a fiddle: hell yes. Disarming the nuclear weapons: not important. It is at best distraction.
Actually, I am pretty sure, in that regards they would prefer more stability. Putin plays the MAD game already longer than any other ruler currently in control of nuclear warheads.
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to members on Friday that she's spoken to the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley about preventing President Trump from accessing the nuclear codes.
If Miley does it, wouldn’t it be a military coup, and isn’t Nancy Pelosi encouraging it? All the existing US law both statute and Constitutional is that the president is Commander in Chief of the US military and has sole authority to launch nukes.
Congress can impeach, but I am not sure I am happy with a precedent of political leaders going to the military and telling them to abrogate the constitutional authority that their political opponent has.
There are already other Constituional remedies such as impeachment or the 25th Amendment to deal with a rogue President. Telling the military to unilaterally assume authority in a matter is not one of them.
The military should Never be brought into any political dispute. That path only escalates and leads to ruin.
If Miley does it, wouldn’t it be a military coup, and isn’t Nancy Pelosi encouraging it? All the existing US law both statute and Constitutional is that the president is Commander in Chief of the US military and has sole authority to launch nukes.
Congress can impeach, but I am not sure I am happy with a precedent of political leaders going to the military and telling them to abrogate the constitutional authority that their political opponent has.
There are already other Constituional remedies such as impeachment or the 25th Amendment to deal with a rogue President. Telling the military to unilaterally assume authority in a matter is not one of them.
The military should Never be brought into any political dispute. That path only escalates and leads to ruin.
Where, in the constitution, is the President authorized to wage war without the consent of Congress?
It would not be a coup because it doesn't aim to oust the president. At worst the generals in question would be guilty of disobeying orders, and that's assuming the order was legal in the first place.
Usurping one of the three co-equal branches of government would qualify as a coup, we are not a kingdom or monarchy beholden to the executive.
You're right about that, but this isn't an example of usurpation since no one would be asserting the power to launch nuclear weapons.
The attempt by the President's supporters to overthrow Congress is a far better example.
The attempt by the President's supporters to overthrow Congress is a far better example.
To my mind, this effort by Pelosi (if true) is more dangerous than anything Trump said this week.
Really? Advocating the violent overthrow of Congress and the rule of law by a sitting president is less worrisome than trying to prevent that same sitting president from murdering tens of millions of innocent people in your name?
> trying to prevent that same sitting president from murdering tens of millions of innocent people in your
Any evidence at all that this was a thing?
Any evidence at all that this was a thing?
So you would rather gamble human civilization on the chance that it might not be true, with a psychopath that has shown he is willing to do anything to stay in office?
> willing to do anything to stay in office
So far he has tweeted, initiated legal actions and abided by the rulings.
Where is your evidence that he will "do anything to stay in office"?
So far he has tweeted, initiated legal actions and abided by the rulings.
Where is your evidence that he will "do anything to stay in office"?
That is a reference to a nuclear first strike.
Odd. I watched Trump's speech and I watched and heard him tell protestors to literally go home and not engage in violence, and then it was reported Trump activated the DC national guard to defend the capital. We must live in different universes.
Yes. I live in the universe where it was actually Pence who approve sending in the Guard.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/national-guar...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/national-guar...
Give me the quote that justifies your statement that Trump was "Advocating the violent overthrow of Congress and the rule of law"
Another example (same speech):
> And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down--
> We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--
> And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
> Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
> We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.
> And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down--
> We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--
> And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
> Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
> We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.
How is that an example of violent overthrow? Stating that Congress should act in a particular way is advocating violent overthrow?
Another example (same speech):
> And I would love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed the military, the Secret Service and we want to thank you and the police and law enforcement great you're doing a great job, but I would love it if they could be allowed to come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them, please?
> And I would love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed the military, the Secret Service and we want to thank you and the police and law enforcement great you're doing a great job, but I would love it if they could be allowed to come up with us. Is that possible? Can you just let them, please?
That's it? That is your evidence that Trump was going to initiate a military overthrow of the government?
I do think was careless and even erroneous in many of his assertions but that is miles away from advocating for the violent overthrow of the government.
I do think was careless and even erroneous in many of his assertions but that is miles away from advocating for the violent overthrow of the government.
For example:
> We will never give up; we will never concede. We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
> We will never give up; we will never concede. We will stop the steal. We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol…We’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones…the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So advocating for Senators and representatives to vote in a particular way is a problem?
The sitting president advocating that Congress ignore the law is problematic, yes.
The certification by Congress is ceremonial, it's a counting of the results provided by the states, not an evaluation of those results.
The certification by Congress is ceremonial, it's a counting of the results provided by the states, not an evaluation of those results.
I don't believe that is correct. Congress has the power to reject electors and has done so on several occasions.
There are established procedures for this process: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-...
There are established procedures for this process: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/explaining-how-congress-...
Okay fine, but guess what a Democratic house is going to do with objections when there aren't wild irregularities, they are going to reject the objections. If the chambers are split, it becomes ceremonial.
You'd almost think the law they wrote was intended to make it ceremonial, while reserving the capability to do something in the face of a real problem.
You'd almost think the law they wrote was intended to make it ceremonial, while reserving the capability to do something in the face of a real problem.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/pelosi-letter-on-nuc...
All it says in the letter is that she discussed the process with someone at the Pentagon.
All it says in the letter is that she discussed the process with someone at the Pentagon.
And people need to keep in mind, the nuclear launch system while very efficient is not completely digital or automated. He can give the order, but it still requires military leadership to make a judgement call as whether to follow it.
https://time.com/5388648/watergate-nixon-anonymous-op-ed/