Presidential Authority on Nuclear War
Most Americans are generally aware that the United States and Russia have huge stockpiles of nuclear warheads. But this issue has never loomed large until recently. Now Americans are hearing bellicose statements from the president that can only be interpreted as veiled threats of nuclear strikes against Iran and North Korea. Such statements, if taken seriously, could precipitate a nuclear conflict.
How has this situation come about? Previous administrations did not boast about the US nuclear arsenal, nor did they take actions that would escalate international tensions. In fact, in July 2015, the United States, along with five other nations, agreed to lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for that country’s promise not to develop nuclear weapons. Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly inspected all possible nuclear weapons sites and certified Iran in compliance, most recently on May 24, 2018.
Despite this, the current president stated that “The Agreement with Iran was one of the worst and most unilateral transactions that the United States has ever entered into”, and in August 2018, his Administration once again imposed economic sanctions on that country. . .Mister. Trump justified his action by saying that “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction. And we will not allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America’ to gain access to the most powerful weapons.” deadliest on Earth.” On July 22, 2018, Mr. Trump posted the following statement on Twitter: “To Iranian President Rouhani: Never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences few in history have suffered… “. Are you referring, indirectly, to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Iran did not have nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles. American cities were not threatened with destruction.
The country of North Korea has also been the subject of Mr. Trump’s anger and sometimes ridicule. On January 2, 2018, Mr. Trump posted the following tweet: “North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has just declared that the ‘nuclear button is on his desk at all times.’ Could someone from his exhausted and starving regime inform him that I too have a nuclear button, but it’s much bigger and more powerful than yours, and my button works? Also, journalists Peter Baker and Choe Sang-Hun wrote the following in the August 8, 2017 issue of the New York Times: “President Trump threatened Tuesday to unleash ‘fire and fury’ against North Korea if it endangered the United States, as tensions with the isolated and impoverished nuclear-armed state escalated to perhaps the challenge most serious foreign policy move of his administration yet. In chilling language that evoked the horror of a nuclear exchange, Mr. Trump sought to dissuade North Korea from any action that might put Americans at risk. But it wasn’t clear what specifically would cross the line from him. Administration officials have said that a preemptive military strike, while a last resort, is one of the options they have made available to the president.”
A preemptive military strike against North Korea? Is it so easy to do? No. Also, it doesn’t matter if the military strikes against North Korea (or Iran, for that matter) are with conventional or nuclear munitions. Mr. Trump and his advisers should read applicable laws and Congressional Resolutions before threatening to militarily attack another country.
Let’s start with the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8, states that only Congress has the authority to declare war. In addition, the Presidential War Powers Resolution, often called the Presidential War Powers Act, states that the executive branch must consult and inform Congress before engaging US forces in foreign hostilities. Proponents of broad and unfettered action by the president argue that Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and militias of the various states. , and that position supersedes war. restrict the authority of Congress. This title, however, is more political than military. Their goal is to protect our civilian government from a military takeover. It is not a military title that empowers the president to personally command military forces. Most importantly, it does not mean that the president can unilaterally order nuclear attacks against other countries.
Department of Defense directive 5100.30 states that “NCAs (National Command Authorities) consist [singular verb] only the President and the Secretary of Defense or their designated alternates or successors. chain of command [for conventional military operations] it ranges from the President to the Secretary of Defense and, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the Commanders of the Unified and Specific Commands. The communication channel for the execution of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) [nuclear war] and other time-sensitive operations will be conducted from the NCA through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to the execution commanders.”
The directive thus imposes a two-man rule on the presidential authority to order or direct military operations, whether conventional or nuclear. In the first case, decisions must go through both the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff before they can be implemented. In the second case, NCA decisions go directly to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then to the executing commanders. There is no provision for the President of the United States to act unilaterally in either case.
There is one possible exception to the presidential two-man rule. In the unlikely event that a major nuclear power has launched a missile attack on the United States, our retaliatory response must be swift and sure. If the president hesitates or is not sure what to do, a senior military officer will make the decision for him. The scenario could be the following:
Mr. president. This is the NMCC. We’re tracking 60 incoming Russians.
missiles. We must execute the SIOP, and we recommend SAO-2, retain
Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
Our current president could respond by asking: What is SIOP? What is SAO-2? What does “retain” mean? Rather than attempt to run a last minute tutorial on nuclear war for Mr. Trump, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will simply direct the NMCC to issue an emergency action message and run the SIOP. The alternative would be widespread destruction in the United States without the benefit of retaliation. In this limited scenario, the two-man rule would be irrelevant.
Conclusion. Boasting and threatening statements by the President of the United States do not advance the security or other interests of this country. They can be misinterpreted by other countries, some of which have their own nuclear arsenals. In addition, since both nuclear and non-nuclear military missions are subject to a two-man decision rule for safety, response times are critically important if the United States is under attack. Our national leaders must always demonstrate maturity, professionalism, and restraint when discussing nuclear war.