Can Trump Actually Start a Nuclear War?

[orangecrush]

"Like it or not, President Donald Trump will have a large say over the question of war and peace in the next four years.

Nevertheless, while Trump would be able to get the United States into a war, Congress can cut off funds if it believes that the president has misled them or that the military engagement is not in the interest of the United States. Fighting modern war is expensive and has so far always required special funding legislation. If Congress opposes military action, it could just refuse to pass a law funding the president’s military adventure rather than actively passing legislation to reduce the size of the military or cut the defense budget. Consequently, Trump’s war powers in the long run will depend on how well he will be able to work together with the Republican majority in both the House and Senate.

The Worst-Case Scenario

The question of war and peace under a Trump presidency becomes imminently more pressing when discussing the use of nuclear weapons. In the summer, an American talk show host claimed that Donald Trump repeatedly asked a foreign policy expert why, given that the United States possesses nuclear weapons, it cannot use them. (Trump denied the veracity of the story.) President Barack Obama repeatedly stated he would not trust Trump with the nuclear launch codes for U.S. intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles given the latter’s temperament. Rather than being guided by deliberate and rational thought when making a decision that could annihilate the lives of millions, emotions could take the better of the president-elect and cloud his judgement, resulting in a nuclear holocaust."
http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/could-trump-actually-start-a-nuclear-war/

This is a read that will simultaneously make you crap your pants and still have hope.

[underthematrix]

1. Nope. Believe it or not but even wingnut

generals are not gonna go down that path. However, it doesn't mean because of Twitler's rhetoric that we won't be threatened with nuclear attack.

[Dan]

2. I suspect that you are incorrect

Generals, in theory, have nothing to do with the president's decision to launch ; If Trump decided to take the suitcase and engage the switches - the silos are trained to act on his orders. The President does not need approval of the Generals to make that decision.

A nuclear war - in theory, I suspect that you are saying an exchange between two or more countries having nuclear capability - maybe if he decides to launch against North Korea.

[Hortensis]

12. Supposedly a nuke could hit DC in about 6 minutes,

and the president can launch in a little over 4. No time for "generals." This harsh reality is probably why Obama did not change the launch procedure to a lengthier one before turning our nuclear arsenal over to Trump. No wonder the man's hair is gray.

[Dan]

3. Oh reference your last

This I think scares most of us.... if another hot-head leader (like North Korea) threatens (even if it is just bluster) - then I suspect that Mr. Trump is too unreasonable to think, before he reacts. But more than that - I think at the heart of the man, he is a coward - so he would ensure that we launch. That is what is so dangerous about him - he acts without thinking. But, as I said, at the core of the man, in my opinion is a coward.

[LisiFFXV]

5. As a senior in college...

I wrote a paper on this very subject. People fail to realize exactly what the president's powers are and are not. The two big arenas open to them to get into trouble (read: largely unchecked) are war and foreign trade.... The two arenas Trump has alluded to doing "huge things" in.

His war making powers - including atomic war - are virtually unchecked. In my paper, I concluded that one day, this unchecked power may be the biggest oversight of the founders. (Of course, many of them never imagined the USA would even have a standing army... that an army would be raised on an as needed basis, or that we would simply pay foreign nations to use their military to protect us.)

"The generals" are largely powerless to stop Trump. Also, his power over and who is - and is not - an officer in the military is near absolute. I would expect a quiet purge to go on throughout this year of any high ranking military officers who might not be loyal to him.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

7. Lots of people don't seem to understand the protocols.

Maybe they're mostly young people who've mostly heard about the dangers of global warming and terrorists instead? It seems like the nuclear weapons issue has been largely swept under the rug by most of the media.

At least 60 Minutes had an episode a few weeks ago that showed how easily the missiles could be launched with little oversight.

[orangecrush]

8. Thank you

That seems to be,an accurate appraisal.

[Dan]

13. I enjoyed your comments

But suspect that on the last you might not be correct. The armed forces primary obligation is to protect the Country and support the Constitution. They are obligated to obey the President, but if having to make a choice between the Country/Constitution - then Mr. Trump comes in third place.

The military corporation will not need to do a purge of Officers that might/might not be loyal to Trump, never happen. The Corporation understand and communicates on a different level and officers that have strong political opinions have more sense than to be vocal about same.

If Mr. Trump starts to politicize the military officer corp - then he will have a bigger problem than the Woman's march of Washington. The corporation will not allow it - and if it starts, then we may see a coup.

Oh, by the way, if he really starts sleeping with the Russians, same situation - the ties that bind us to Western Europe are too strong, too deep and trying to get the military to turn your weapons on your historical friends to support your historical enemy might damn near be impossible.

Same situation with the vast majority of people within America - except for the Red States (not sure how they think).

My opinion.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

6. The personnel involved are trained to follow orders quickly, and...

the only "safeguard" is the Secretary of Defense who is supposed to confirm the codes from a "nuclear football" order of the POTUS.

Is that enough? Maybe. Our SoD is nicknamed "Mad Dog," however. And there's no telling if he'll always be there. Trump could possibly replace him with a full-blown kook.

[orangecrush]

10. Full blown kook

Like Flynn.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

11. Yes! At least he's not the SoD!

[Jacob Boehme]

18. ARTICLE 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION

From the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
"..having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order.

The operative term here is lawful order. By the Constitution, tRump is the Commander in Chief of the military. But would any unilateral "order" by him to engage in nuclear war be a "lawful order"

Quite a conundrum.... quite a conundrum.

[Foo Fighter]

19. A friend of mine looked into this a bit

and said that while they're trained to follow orders quickly, there's nothing against going about carrying out the order verrrrry slooooowly in order to buy time. (I'm assuming at that stage, there is a protocol to follow that would allow someone to intervene and stop the process in order to prevent certain disaster.) So anyway, apparently that's the plan in the event that Trump goes (even further) off the rails and gives the launch order.

That said, I can't believe we even have to think about this. Don't get me wrong. It's certainly a valid concern. It's just kind of insane that we have a madman at the helm that is so unstable that we have to question what safeguards are in place in the event that he becomes completely unhinged.

BTW, I blame Obama for this. If he had gotten off his butt and fast-tracked that whole "colonize Mars" thing, I could have been out of here and on my way to Mars and wouldn't have to worry about any of this crap.

[orangecrush]

21. Great post!

Thanks!

[orangecrush]

9. Hope you are right

But I have zero faith in Trump or
his appointees.

[roamer65]

14. It was said that Kissinger and Haig stepped in on nukes during Nixon's last days.

Hopefully we have similar today.

[orangecrush]

15. I am hoping

For a modern Smedley Butler.

[HipChick]

16. I think we're screwed..

and thinking about retiring to a small Island

[orangecrush]

22. ...

4

[Txbluedog]

17. I don't think it's possible.....

Believe in it or not, i don't think it is possible for the President to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons. Yes, he has to give the go ahead to launch but there are several safeguards in place. There is no way that the military would ever give a civilian that much power.

[stevenleser]

20. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He has that power by law

according to the Constitution.

Can the President unilaterally launch nukes? If we are not under nuclear attack ourselves, he needs someone else in the cabinet to concur, usually the Secretary of Defense. But uniformed military are not involved in making the decision, they just carry it out.

If a member of the military refuses, the President can relieve them of duty instantaneously and order their replacement or deputy or next in the chain to carry out the order.

[haele]

23. Not one the U.S. starts...but there are other countries with Nukes.

And some of those countries are both politically and socio-emotionally unstable. If the U.S. goes isolationist, and Russia doesn't want to intervene (not that they care about nuclear fall-out anymore after Chernobyl), there are a few countries that would not see any problem in detonating or launching nuclear weaponry at their perceived mortal enemies.

Haele