Should it be harder for presidents to press the nuclear button? That’s what some lawmakers are asking, with three dozen congressional Democrats recently urging President Biden to give up his sole authority. While that has led to cruel jokes about the new commander’s mental abilities, it’s actually a pretty good question.
Since the beginning of the Cold War, the United States has been poised to respond to a massive nuclear attack from an adversary – originally the Soviet Union, now Russia or China – by launching its own missiles and bombers while the attacking missiles are still on. were in use. flight, a strategy known as ‘Launch on Warning’.
The advantage of launching before enemy missiles even landed was that it became impossible for an enemy to wipe out our missiles on the ground so that a retaliatory attack would come through. If so, no sane enemy – or even a whole lot of crazy enemies – would bother to attack at all.
The disadvantages of this approach are twofold. First, there is the danger of false alarms. In fact, the Cold War era saw several false alarms on both the American and Soviet sides, which thankfully didn’t spark an unintended war, but sparked that terrifying prospect.
There is a second problem. In theory, an incoming nuclear strike would result in the president and several other senior officials being convened on a conference call to decide what to do. At this conference on missile threats, the president would be briefed, presented with options, and asked to make a decision. The problem is, with a total of about 20 minutes to work with responding to an incoming nuclear strike, there isn’t really much time to talk or think.
Perhaps that is the best we can do when faced with a massive incoming nuclear attack. But while that was the great fear of the days of the Cold War, all of today’s incoming nuclear attacks are likely to come from rogue states like North Korea and Iran. They can devastate their targets, but they will likely come in the form of a handful of missiles – or, more likely, weapons smuggled aboard cargo ships or civilian planes. There is no danger that such an attack will destroy the United States’ ability to retaliate.
Then there is the matter of an attack launched by, not by, the United States. In theory, the president has the nuclear codes and could launch a massive nuclear strike on a whim. That’s why Democratic lawmakers, led by Deputy Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Want to change the rules so that a president who starts a first strike must first consult other officials.
They recommend that the President consult with other officials, such as the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, neither of whom can be fired by the President, before a first nuclear strike is carried out.
It is not a bad idea and I encourage these Members not to just write a letter, but to introduce more legislation. The United States Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war. It also empowers the legislature to “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces” and, of course, to “make all laws that are necessary and appropriate”, not just for carrying out the powers. of Congress. , but “any other powers conferred by this Constitution upon the government of the United States or any department or officer thereof.”
Congress tried, with limited effect, to curb a president’s deployment to troops abroad through the War Powers Act of 1973. That law failed to some extent on the willingness of presidents to evade its provisions, and on the unwillingness of Congress to assert its privileges. But a nuclear first strike on another nation is a whole lot of fish, and it seems doubtful a president would try to evade a law regulating such an attack; indeed, any attempt to do so would ring alarm bells within the military leadership.
For longer than I’ve been alive, the United States has had one person check the nuclear trigger. Maybe it’s time that changed.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.