Can US generals say 'no' to Trump if he orders a nuclear strike?

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42065714

If President Trump wanted to fire nuclear weapons, he could first discuss a range of options with his advisers.

He'd then issue an order to top military officials at the Pentagon.

They would confirm the president's identity by exchanging codes printed on a card called the "biscuit", which the president carries wherever he goes.

The order would pass to US Strategic Command, which would then send further instructions and access codes to crews on the ground (or, perhaps, underwater in a submarine.)

Those crews would then launch the missiles.

The BBC's Inquiry podcast covered the practicalities of launching a nuclear strike in much more detail.

Is there anyone, at any of those stages, who'd be allowed to say "no" to the president?

Chain of command

A briefing from the Congressional Research Service makes the legal situation plain. "The US president has sole authority to authorise the use of US nuclear weapons."

Ordinarily, nobody is allowed to over-rule the president's decision - it's part of his role as Commander-in-Chief.

In theory, the vice-president could oust the president if a majority of the cabinet agreed that the president was unfit to serve.

In practice, that would be difficult to organise in time to stop the president launching nuclear weapons.

But Peter Feaver, professor of political science at Duke University in North Carolina, says it's not true that President Trump could launch a nuclear strike as easily as he could fire off a tweet.

"The president is giving an order which is transmitted down a chain of command. Someone further down that chain of command turns the key or presses the button."

Much more in the link

[Doctor Amadeus]

Can they Yes, they are human beings and not machines they CAN say NO.

Will they, more than likely probably NOT, and if they did they would be removed so fast it wouldn't matter anyways, because their replacements can be called almost immediately.

Trump could order the military to do anything he wants with no authorization from anyone except the House of Representative.


Trump would also be impeached and removed from power almost immediately without prudent cause for ignoring his advisers.

[Dextroden]

/popcorn

I'm really enjoying this fear that Trump is going to nuke something. Goes right up there with him installing himself as a dictator.

[the game]

sure they can. Then they'll be relieved of duty for disobeying a lawful order and somebody else will do it.

[ranzino]

As nobody says no to president, chain of command is useless here. just give him a remote code, it's all the same.

[akris15]

/popcorn

I'm really enjoying this fear that Trump is going to nuke something. Goes right up there with him installing himself as a dictator.

To be fair this one is actually a reasonable fear. Yes its a long shot that he actually would unless we attack North Korea but we know that Trump views the nuclear arsenal as tactical in nature. There have been many leaks, probably from military officials briefing the president, that Trump keeps bringing up a nuclear situation in places where conventional but heavy bombing strikes are the general response. In one session he kept saying if we have (Nukes) why don't we use them and the military advisory in the briefing had to explain to him the political repercussions of using a nuclear weapon in a tactical fashion instead of its current usage of a deterrent.

[Mosotti]

Trump has a nuclear briefcase with a single red button, he doesn't need any authorization. The system is designed so that a single person can trigger WW3. At least something like that is in the mind of the retarded liberals that still mourn for that crazy bitch

[Dextroden]

To be fair this one is actually a reasonable fear. Yes its a long shot that he actually would unless we attack North Korea but we know that Trump views the nuclear arsenal as tactical in nature. There have been many leaks, probably from military officials briefing the president, that Trump keeps bringing up a nuclear situation in places where conventional but heavy bombing strikes are the general response. In one session he kept saying if we have (Nukes) why don't we use them and the military advisory in the briefing had to explain to him the political repercussions of using a nuclear weapon in a tactical fashion instead of its current usage of a deterrent.

And people said he was going to shoot people because he was dumb enough to point out people vote blindly. And I'm still waiting on internment camps and the Nazi uprising he was supposed to bring in.

Plus, I get the distinct feeling if I look, I'll find "Bush is going to nuke the middle east" stories. So, this is looking par for the course on fearmongering.

[akris15]

And people said he was going to shoot people because he was dumb enough to point out people vote blindly. And I'm still waiting on internment camps and the Nazi uprising he was supposed to bring in.

Plus, I get the distinct feeling if I look, I'll find "Bush is going to nuke the middle east" stories. So, this is looking par for the course on fearmongering.

But the difference between your Nazi intermittent camp comment is this concern is rooted in reality. Trump has actually been on the record, several times, wanting to know why we cannot bring up a nuclear shooting solution. I mean when your own political party is bringing up legislation to limit your powers on the ordering of a nuclear strike you just don't do that just for shits and giggles. If you are not aware but Republican currently have legislation in committee that a President cannot order a first strike without the consent of congress. Even Republicans fear he might order a strike when a heavy bomb would be the true solution.

[Dextroden]

But the difference between your Nazi intermittent camp comment is this concern is rooted in reality. Trump has actually been on the record, several times, wanting to know why we cannot bring up a nuclear shooting solution. I mean when your own political party is bringing up legislation to limit your powers on the ordering of a nuclear strike you just don't do that just for shits and giggles. If you are not aware but Republican are bringing up legislation that the President cannot order a first strike without the consent of congress. Even Republicans fear he might order a strike when a heavy bomb would be the true solution.

Supposedly, so were the Nazi claims.

Again, this just reeks of the same old shit. In addition, if it isn't a justified nuking, everyone on the chain of command knows he'll ditch them to save his own skin from prosecution. So they have a reason to keep him in check.

Or real life is a Tom Clancy novel and he has a nuke button on his desk.

[akris15]

Supposedly, so were the Nazi claims.

Again, this just reeks of the same old shit. In addition, if it isn't a justified nuking, everyone on the chain of command knows he'll ditch them to save his own skin from prosecution. So they have a reason to keep him in check.

Or real life is a Tom Clancy novel and he has a nuke button on his desk.

If its not a concern why is there actual legislation right now being debated on the floor of the house?

[Dextroden]

If its not a concern why is there actual legislation right now being debated on the floor of the house?

Grandstanding. Pretending that Trump is going to bring the apocalypse is a great way to do nothing.

[Paranoid Android]

So far we had the Congress have a "discussion" about the President's authority to order a nuclear strike and Mattis and Kelly have been reported behind the scenes of taking precautions if Trump goes crazy (crazier than normal) one day. I think that says something about the guy we have in office.

[Independent voter]

The president can launch the nukes without consulting anyone.

There was a bill in congress that would remove this power, make it so the Joint Chief of Staff a military guy had to sign off on it but I'm not sure what happened to that. It was Congress' way of voting no confidents in Trump so I suspect it was a partisan thing.

[Kujako]

The president can launch the nukes without consulting anyone.

No, he can order them to be launched. He does not have a "make nukes go boom now" button. The military can refuse to follow the order. After-which there will be trials and what not to see if what the President or the Generals did was legal and who if anyone goes to jail.

[Savagemoon]

If history is any indication, he isn't the only person involved in this decision.

http://www.businessinsider.com/drunk...h-korea-2017-1

[Kasierith]

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a soldier must follow the lawful orders of his or her superior officer. This duty to disobey unlawful orders would extent to crimes against humanity, such as what we saw in Iraq where individual soldiers tortured and humiliated prisoners of war and were denied the umbrella of only following orders because they had a duty to disobey. If an order were given to the soldiers operating nuclear weapons to abruptly launch a nuke, I don't see a reasonable situation where they would blindly follow such an order during peacetime without a rather drastic amount of communication.

Not that I think Trump would do this to begin with. He can barely keep up with 5 days of work a week during peacetime. He's far more likely to bow and scrape to foreign leaders to avoid war.

[Easo]

Would have to take more than one person to say No for this to actually work.
Also, there is no real point for USA in nuking anyone currently, including North Korea, so you all can chill.
P.S.
Nazi's mentioned in the 9th post already, thats almost a record.

[Noxx79]

And people said he was going to shoot people because he was dumb enough to point out people vote blindly. And I'm still waiting on internment camps and the Nazi uprising he was supposed to bring in.

Plus, I get the distinct feeling if I look, I'll find "Bush is going to nuke the middle east" stories. So, this is looking par for the course on fearmongering.

Nobody said he was going to shoot anyone. Do you post anything that isn’t a straw man or whataboutism?

[Lenonis]

At least something like that is in the mind of the retarded liberals that still mourn for that crazy bitch

you are the only one bringing up "that crazy bitch". I think maybe you are the one in mourning... Or at least you haven't kicked your obsession yet.