It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.
if the President fires the Secretary, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will look to the Deputy Secretary of Defense to confirm that a nuclear strike is warranted. He will not pass a nuclear strike order to the operating forces unless the two-man rule has been followed.
Obviously, a nuclear strike in the current situation isn't warranted.
originally posted by: subfab
the U.S. president is declaring a heavy handed response to north korea's testing of ICBM and nuclear development. i'm referencing his "fire and fury" speech.
this speech has generated a lot of (heated) discussion among my friends. i, for the most part, remained quiet.
you might be wondering why i chose to hold my tongue. it's because i didn't know what authority the president had to launch a nuclear strike. so i went to yahoo and searched. i found that it isn't too difficult for a sitting president to order a nuclear launch.
the president calls a meeting with the secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense, and the vice president. this meeting is called by the secretary of defense as the National Command Authority. then the order is handed to the chairman of the joint chief of staff.
president: donald trump
vice president: mike pence
secretary of defense: james mattis
deputy secretary of defense: patrick shanahan
chairman of the joint chief of staff: joseph dunford
these are the people who can authorize a nuclear strike.
from the wikipedia article it goes like this:
Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.
if the President fires the Secretary, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will look to the Deputy Secretary of Defense to confirm that a nuclear strike is warranted. He will not pass a nuclear strike order to the operating forces unless the two-man rule has been followed.
my take is that if a sitting president wants to launch a nuclear strike, he can do it. he may run into some resistance but if he is persistent a nuclear launch is inevitable.
it is quite scary if you think about it.
i learned this this week and wanted to share.
national command authority wikipedia
secretary of defense wikipedia
deputy secretary of defense wikipedia
chairman of the joint chief of staff wikipedia
fire and fury article with video from new york times
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: subfab
I don't have time to parse the links and actually research this.
Are you sure POTUS can do this in the absence of a declaration of war?
If so, that's not a good thing! You might want to look into changing the authority guidelines, especially considering the ever lower quality of people elected to the position of POTUS.
originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: nwtrucker
i agree with you.
a nuclear strike is definitely not warranted.
but considering today's political environment and the lack of basic knowledge americans have of our politics, it wouldn't surprise me that a nuclear strike is approved.
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: subfab
I would suggest that even if North Korea launched nukes at a U.S. Territory we shouldn't be considering a nuclear response. The North Korean people are not our enemy. We need to surgically strike their leadership and command structure and remove the problem at the source.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Metallicus
I disagree with you *if* NK successfully strikes any US territory with a nuke, then the USA needs to construct a 100 mile long, 200 miles wide canal connecting the Bay of Korea to the Sea of Japan.
David Martin: Have you ever had the conversation with yourself, well, what if the president issued an order to use nuclear weapons and I didn’t agree with it. Would I carry out that order?
Cecil Haney: The president expects me, as his combatant commander, to provide him the best military advice I have. So he would expect me to voice my opinion.
David Martin: You would have a voice but if you disagreed with a decision . . .
Cecil Haney: I’m a military man and we follow the orders of our commander-in-chief.
originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: nwtrucker
i agree with you.
a nuclear strike is definitely not warranted.
but considering today's political environment and the lack of basic knowledge americans have of our politics, it wouldn't surprise me that a nuclear strike is approved.
originally posted by: Bluntone22
This situation is different than other conflicts like Iraq.
North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces ready to rain death onto Seoul at a moment's notice.
Any strike against the north with get thousands of South Koreans killed unless it's a crushing blow.
A shooting war is going to cost the south dearly.
originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: burdman30ott6
if the united states can retaliate with standard military action (non nuclear) then that is what the u.s. should do. nuclear strike should be the last option. we have to consider our allies in the region when we talk nuclear strike. china, south korea, and japan would be directly affected (fall out) if we drop a nuclear weapon on north korea. only after all other military options are exhausted and with the support of our allies in the region should the united states consider a nuclear strike.
not only do we have to consider united state's interest but the well being of the people who look to us as a rational super power.