It's Crazy the President Can Launch Nukes on His Own

[Radagast]

You can't have a two man rule because two men can tie. [...] The guiding principle behind nuclear weapons as a deterrent is the fact that our enemies MUST believe that we can and will use nuclear weapons.

The US has had the two-man rule for a while -- for much of the Cold WAR, afaik.

I don't believe the Soviets were ever in any doubt that the US was ready to use nuclear weapons if circumstances justified doing so.

 

[Gadarene]

I do not mean to sound condescending but war and combat and military action simply can not be effective with the above structure.

You can't have a two man rule because two men can tie. So now you'd need a 3 man rule. Once you have 3 men now you have entered the realm of politics and political maneuvering...

We have two man rules for the actual launching of the missiles, why not giving the order?

I agree that more individuals increases complexity, but I'm literally saying to add one extra person.

 

[Radagast]

There are evaluators in the 25th amendment case too

Yes, and the then Congress would own the process. But who would own the process for a future President?

Could someone have gotten a Republican-biased psychologist to declare Hilary Clinton unfit, for example?

 

[Gadarene]

Yes, and the then Congress would own the process. But who would own the process for a future President?

Could someone have gotten a Republican-biased psychologist to declare Hilary Clinton unfit, for example?

The point was bias is also going to be in play for the 25th amendment case, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if this only applies to my approach.

 

[Radagast]

We have two man rules for the actual launching of the missiles, why not giving the order?

Why? Orders that are not followed aren't a problem.

I agree that more individuals increases complexity, but I'm literally saying to add one extra person.

That would massively compromise Command, as dgiharris has pointed out (among other things, there would be a vastly increased chance that one of the 3 wasn't available). And there would be virtually no benefit, given existing processes for taking advice.

 

[Radagast]

The point was bias is also going to be in play for the 25th amendment case, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if this only applies to my approach.

In the 25th amendment case, any bias would be in favour of the sitting Congress. That's something the country can live with.

It would be quite different if, for example, you would get the current Congress to evaluate the next President.

 

[Gadarene]

In the 25th amendment case, any bias would be in favour of the sitting Congress. That's something the country can live with.

It would be quite different if, for example, you would get the current Congress to evaluate the next President.

That is a fair point.

 

[Gadarene]

Why? Orders that are not followed aren't a problem.

The whole point of the two man rule at the launching stage is to reduce the odds of a lone-wolf firing of the most destructive weapons in the arsenal.

The exact same concern surely applies to the orders being handed out too. Why not the same solution?

That would massively compromise Command, as dgiharris has pointed out (among other things, there would be a vastly increased chance that one of the 3 wasn't available). And there would be virtually no benefit, given existing processes for taking advice.

Three? I'm saying two.

 

[Radagast]

The whole point of the two man rule at the launching stage is to reduce the odds of a lone-wolf firing of the most destructive weapons in the arsenal.

The exact same concern surely applies to the orders being handed out too. Why not the same solution?

Because orders that are not implemented don't really matter.

Three? I'm saying two.

There's currently 2. You said 1 extra.

 

[Gadarene]

Because orders that are not implemented don't really matter.

POTUS doesn't have absolute power in other respects - e.g. declaring war - and that is dependent on an entire congress of people.

There's currently 2. You said 1 extra.

I was not responding to your claim there is a two man rule. Read the post I was responding to - the one who said we couldn't have a two man rule so we'd need a three man rule. Also factor in that I'm not sold on the idea that the US has a reliable two man rule.....

 

[Radagast]

Read the post I was responding to

I'm also confused as to what exactly you mean by "orders being handed out too," if it doesn't refer to the stage when SecDef authenticates a launch order (because SecDef is the 2nd man at that stage).

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm also confused as to what exactly you mean by "orders being handed out too," if it doesn't refer to the stage when SecDef authenticates a launch order (because SecDef is the 2nd man at that stage).

But SecDef can't countermand the President.

 

[Radagast]

But SecDef can't countermand the President.

SecDef can not confirm the President, which has the same effect.

 

[Arcangl86]

SecDef can not confirm the President, which has the same effect.

Then SecDef gets fired until the President finds somebody who will confirm the order.

 

[Radagast]

Then SecDef gets fired until the President finds somebody who will confirm the order.

True, but it takes time to swear in a new SecDef.

And Presidents can be fired too (25th amendment).