What, if any safeguards are there from the Prez saying "f-u <insert country here"

[SunnyD]

I've been listening to the radio and TV this last week and all of the 9/11 stuff is starting to come to a head... it's about that time of year so I'm not complaining. But it got me to thinking about this.

As Commander-in-Chief of our fine country's military assets, are there any safeguards in place from the President pointing at the map and saying, "Fvck this crap, I'm tired of <Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of a dozen other countries> screwing around. Nuke 'em."?

This is a serious and legitimate question, as the President can basically call for military action anywhere in the world short of an actual war declairation (which I know needs congressional approval). Are there ANY additional safeguards with respect to the nuclear arsenal (and I'm not talking about mutual annihalation), or could the Prez just have a bad day and nuke someone for the hell of it?

Again, I'm not asking about the ramifications of it, I'm asking about the hypothetical possibility/ability of it.

 

[Lonyo]

The threat of the US being totally destroyed in retaliation.
If one person uses nukes, you can be sure that someone else will soon after, and that will start a chain reaction.

Those are the ramifications and safeguards.
You fire nukes, you die.

 

[wazzledoozle]

The world isnt going to come to an end if Bush decides to fire off a few , but it would have severe politcal and economic consequences. I could see China and Russia, maybe some European countries imposing sanctions.

 

[SunnyD]

Again, I'm not asking about the ramifications of it, I'm asking about the hypothetical possibility/ability of it.

I know reading is a chore in the morning, but come on guys...

 

[wazzledoozle]

I believe the President, along with a few other top military dudes must turn a key and enter a code at the same time. Bush couldnt order the strike by himself.

 

[dxkj]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
The world isnt going to come to an end if Bush decides to fire off a few , but it would have severe politcal and economic consequences. I could see China and Russia, maybe some European countries imposing sanctions.

Countries: We will now sanction the US
US: Sanction us and we nuke
Countries: hrmmmm
US: You know we're crazy fvckers, we just nuked Iran Iraq and Israel
Countries: Yeah why did you nuke Israel
US: The guy who aims was on the crapper
Countries: You couldn't wait for them to get back?
US: Mr trigger finger is getting itchy
Countries: Would you like fries with that?

 

[Kelemvor]

Ever seen the movie War Games? That's reason enough it would never happen.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I've been listening to the radio and TV this last week and all of the 9/11 stuff is starting to come to a head... it's about that time of year so I'm not complaining. But it got me to thinking about this.

As Commander-in-Chief of our fine country's military assets, are there any safeguards in place from the President pointing at the map and saying, "Fvck this crap, I'm tired of <Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of a dozen other countries> screwing around. Nuke 'em."?

This is a serious and legitimate question, as the President can basically call for military action anywhere in the world short of an actual war declairation (which I know needs congressional approval). Are there ANY additional safeguards with respect to the nuclear arsenal (and I'm not talking about mutual annihalation), or could the Prez just have a bad day and nuke someone for the hell of it?

Again, I'm not asking about the ramifications of it, I'm asking about the hypothetical possibility/ability of it.

Question: Why dont you go attack a person who is standing among some of his friends?
Answer: Because then all of his friends are gonna beat the sh1t out of you...

Question: Why won't the president of the US start throwing nuclear bombs at the other parts of the world?
Answer: Because he's afraid they'll throw them back.
Reality Check: We had them at the end of WWII, when we used them... BUT No-one else did yet. We weren't afraid of the backlash then. We are now.

 

[Chiller2]

He is not asking why a sane person would not do it, he wants to know what safegards are in place to keep the President, be it Bush or whomever, from just going around the bend one day and saying Fu_k It NUKE their A$$. I don't know the answer but maybe someone else does.

 

[dug777]

I assume there's a clear protocol for what to do if the President's actions are judged to be insane

 

[sandorski]

Bush wouldn't understand the "insert country here" part.

 

[JackOfHearts]

It takes 2 or 3 people to launch... I would hope the VP or someone else would wave something shiny and distract they guy.

 

[marvdmartian]

Basically, there's not much, other than the humanity of the people involved, to keep that from happening. But knowing that there will be repercussions (sp?) involved afterwards is usually enough to stop people from seriously considering that approach to settling a disagreement.

On a side note, that's the biggest reason why the world would like to keep nukes out of the hands of crazy sumbit*hes like Osama, or Kim Jung Il, or any of the other tinpot dictators/extremist fanatics out there.......because it's highly likely that they wouldn't CARE what happened to them after, as long as they got to take some of the rest of us out first. The idea of mutually assured destruction only works for those that aren't insane, ya know?

 

[waggy]

oh that does not bother me at all. what scares me is the Presidant continueing to send troops into country's for bullshit reasons. now that really terrifies me.

 

[yllus]

1. Especially after the Nuremberg Trials, there has been an emphasis on ensuring that soldiers follow legal orders, even if they're handed down directly from the Commander-in-Chief. Ideally, you would not be able to find anyone in the military chain of command who would agree to carrying out an unwarranted nuclear strike.

2. Even at just the executive branch level of government, I believe that more people than just the President must sign off and provide codes to launch a strike.

3. This President Bush has in fact been an advocate of removing a large number of nuclear missiles from a quick-launch posture, considering it too dangerous:

"In addition, the United States should remove as many weapons as possible from high-alert, hair-trigger status. Another unnecessary vestige of cold-war confrontation, preparation for quick launch within minutes after warning of an attack was the rule during the era of superpower rivalry. But today for two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch."

- George W. Bush, May 23, 2000

 

[Sc4freak]

If the US fired a complete unwarranted nuclear strike against anybody, it'd basically be The World vs. The USA. And if a nuclear power is attacked, you can bet on mutually assured destruction. Those are both the ramifications and safeguards.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: waggy
oh that does not bother me at all. what scares me is the Presidant continueing to send troops into country's for bullshit reasons. now that really terrifies me.

Inevitably the world will eventually consolidate to one political entity which will rule the entire planet. (whether through internation politics, or conquest)
At that point, i'd rather it be the american government and the english language than any other...

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Chiller2
He is not asking why a sane person would not do it, he wants to know what safegards are in place to keep the President, be it Bush or whomever, from just going around the bend one day and saying Fu_k It NUKE their A$$. I don't know the answer but maybe someone else does.

At least you understood the question. Thanks!

If the US fired a complete unwarranted nuclear strike against anybody, it'd basically be The World vs. The USA. And if a nuclear power is attacked, you can bet on mutually assured destruction. Those are both the ramifications and safeguards.

That is a moral safeguard, but not an actual physical safeguard.

2. Even at just the executive branch level of government, I believe that more people than just the President must sign off and provide codes to launch a strike.

Okay, I'll bite. Can you find the EXACT procedure to prevent "abuse" of this power?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Chiller2
He is not asking why a sane person would not do it, he wants to know what safegards are in place to keep the President, be it Bush or whomever, from just going around the bend one day and saying Fu_k It NUKE their A$$. I don't know the answer but maybe someone else does.

At least you understood the question. Thanks!

If the US fired a complete unwarranted nuclear strike against anybody, it'd basically be The World vs. The USA. And if a nuclear power is attacked, you can bet on mutually assured destruction. Those are both the ramifications and safeguards.

That is a moral safeguard, but not an actual physical safeguard.

2. Even at just the executive branch level of government, I believe that more people than just the President must sign off and provide codes to launch a strike.

Okay, I'll bite. Can you find the EXACT procedure to prevent "abuse" of this power?

meh, why do you care this much? Will you sleep better at night?

I assure you there will be a stict protocol in place, not only, as i said before, as to what happens if the actions of the president are judged by his top staff to be insane, but also as to how a strike is launched, and i can assure it's not a case of GW pulling a remote out of his pants and pressing the big red button labelled 'OMGASPLOSION!!11one!11'

 

[pontifex]

doesn't anything regarding war have to go through congress 1st?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: pontifex
doesn't anything regarding war have to go through congress 1st?

My understanding is that these immediate matters are executive branch decisions...but hey, you're the yanks, not me

EDIT: think about what you typed tho, looks pretty stupid doesn't it? 'Yeah, we'll just call congress, who are all on vacation, to decide what to do about an impending nuclear strike'

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: pontifex
doesn't anything regarding war have to go through congress 1st?

No, the Executive branch can exercise our nuclear option without consulting congress as it has been long recognized as far too impractical in the event of an in progress nuclear attack. We would have a maximum of 25 minutes to decide on a retaliation.

Only the National Command Authority can authorize a nuclear strike. The NCA consists of the President and the Sec. of Defense. Neither can give the order on their own.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: pontifex
doesn't anything regarding war have to go through congress 1st?

No, the Executive branch can exercise our nuclear option without consulting congress as it has been long recognized as far too impractical in the event of an in progress nuclear attack. We would have a maximum of 25 minutes to decide on a retaliation.

Only the National Command Authority can authorize a nuclear strike. The NCA consists of the President and the Sec. of Defense. Neither can give the order on their own.

:thumbsup: Finally someone who kows what they are talking about.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: pontifex
doesn't anything regarding war have to go through congress 1st?

No, the Executive branch can exercise our nuclear option without consulting congress as it has been long recognized as far too impractical in the event of an in progress nuclear attack. We would have a maximum of 25 minutes to decide on a retaliation.

Only the National Command Authority can authorize a nuclear strike. The NCA consists of the President and the Sec. of Defense. Neither can give the order on their own.

wait, we're talking about an already incoming nuke acttack? i thought he was asking if like right now, Bush got pissed off at say, N. Korea, and said "i'm going to nuke those evil-doers right now."

edit: i was right. the OP said:

"As Commander-in-Chief of our fine country's military assets, are there any safeguards in place from the President pointing at the map and saying, "Fvck this crap, I'm tired of <Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of a dozen other countries> screwing around. Nuke 'em."? "

wouldn't he have to go through congress to do that?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: pontifex
doesn't anything regarding war have to go through congress 1st?

No, the Executive branch can exercise our nuclear option without consulting congress as it has been long recognized as far too impractical in the event of an in progress nuclear attack. We would have a maximum of 25 minutes to decide on a retaliation.

Only the National Command Authority can authorize a nuclear strike. The NCA consists of the President and the Sec. of Defense. Neither can give the order on their own.

wait, we're talking about an already incoming nuke acttack? i thought he was asking if like right now, Bush got pissed off at say, N. Korea, and said "i'm going to nuke those evil-doers right now."

edit: i was right. the OP said:

"As Commander-in-Chief of our fine country's military assets, are there any safeguards in place from the President pointing at the map and saying, "Fvck this crap, I'm tired of <Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or any of a dozen other countries> screwing around. Nuke 'em."? "

wouldn't he have to go through congress to do that?

Technically, no.