Should it be harder for presidents to press the nuclear button? That is what some lawmakers are demanding, with 30 Democrats in Congress recently urging President Biden to relinquish his sole authority. Although this has led to cruel jokes about the mental skill of the new commander-in-chief, it is actually a pretty good question.
Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has remained ready to respond to a massive nuclear attack by an adversary – originally the Soviet Union, now Russia or China – by launching its own missiles and bombers while the missiles were still in flight, a strategy known as “Warning Launch”.
The advantage of launching before enemy missiles landed was that it made it impossible for an enemy to wipe our missiles off the ground, ensuring that a retaliatory strike would ensue. Thus, no healthy enemy – or even many crazy enemies – would bother to attack at all.
The disadvantages of this approach are twofold. First of all, there is the danger of a false alarm. In fact, the Cold War era saw several false alarms on both the American and Soviet sides, which fortunately did not trigger an accidental war, but which raised that terrifying prospect.
There is a second problem. In theory, a new nuclear strike would lead to the convening of the president and other senior officials at a conference to decide what to do. At this missile conference, the chair will be briefed, presented with options and asked to make a decision. The problem is that with a total of about 20 minutes to work to respond to a nuclear attack, there is not much time to talk or think.
Perhaps this is the best thing we can do in the face of a massive nuclear strike. But while this was the great fear of the Cold War days, any nuclear strikes received today are likely to come from dishonest countries such as North Korea and Iran. They could wreak havoc on their targets, but they will probably come in the form of a handful of missiles – or, more likely, smuggled weapons aboard transport ships or civilian aircraft. There is no danger that such a strike will destroy the United States’ ability to retaliate.
Then there is the issue of an attack launched by the United States, not by them. In theory, the president has nuclear codes and could launch a massive nuclear strike on a whim. That’s why Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-California), want to change the rules, so a president who launches the first strike should consult with other officials first.
They recommend that the president consult with other officials, such as the vice-president and president of the House of Representatives, who cannot be fired by the president before launching a first nuclear strike.
It is not a bad idea and I encourage these members not to simply write a letter, but to step up and introduce legislation. The US Constitution gives Congress the only power to declare war. It also gives the legislature the power to “establish rules for the governance and regulation of land and naval forces” and, of course, to “adopt all laws that will be necessary and appropriate” not only for the exercise of the powers of Congress, but “all other powers.” vested in this Constitution by the United States Government or any department or officer thereof ”.
Congress tried, with limited effect, to limit the president’s commitment to forming troops abroad by the Powers of War Act of 1973. The action affected to some extent the willingness of presidents to evade its provisions and Congress’s refusal to assert itself. prerogatives. But a first nuclear blow to another nation is a whole “fish kettle” and it seems doubtful that a president would have intended to evade a law governing such an attack; indeed, any effort in this regard would sound alarm bells within the military leadership.
More than we have lived, the United States has left only one person in control of the nuclear trigger. Maybe it’s time to change.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.