Congressman Proposes Law To Prevent Trump From Being Able To Launch Nukes On His Own

[Cali_Democrat]

Source: Think Progress

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) plans to introduce legislation that would make it more difficult for presidents to launch nuclear weapons.

In a press release distributed Thursday, Lieu writes that “the erratic and impulsive behavior of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has highlighted the structural dangers of America’s nuclear weapons launch protocols. Having taught the Law of War when I served on active duty, and as a graduate of Air War College, it is clear to me that the traditional checks and balances on the Executive branch do not apply when it comes to nuclear weapons. This process needs to be fixed.”

Lieu’s solution is to essentially require congressional approval for nuclear launches. Currently, the president only needs to consult with the secretary of defense, and even they don’t have veto power. During a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden said the current system “is designed for speed and decisiveness. It’s not designed to debate the decision.” Lieu isn’t comfortable with that, especially if the next president ends up being Trump.

“When Congress comes back into session, I plan to introduce legislation that requires the concurrence of leaders in Congress — who are not beholden to the President — before a nuclear strike can be launched,” Lieu adds. “We can no longer have the fate of civilization depend on just two people in the Executive Branch.”

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/08/04/3805276/ted-lieu-trump-nuclear-weapons-protocol/

[Salviati]

1. Even if the closest trump gets to the white house is the public tour...

... I approve this proposal.

[4lbs]

2. Couldn't a President just veto the legislation? nt

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Not if we pass it this year.

That is, Trump couldn't veto it. I doubt Obama would.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Of course. And Congress can override the veto. . . nt

[Statistical]

5. It undermines our nuclear deterrence.

Honestly Drumpf has put us in a no win scenario.

MAD is based on the calculation that an adversary can not destroy our strategic forces before they launch. The President has very little time to reach a decision and execute OPLAN 8010 and that includes time for selecting type of response and sending the codes. We are talking at most 5 minutes. Taking longer than that would make a retalitory strike useless as strategic forces would be destroyed before they launched.

It is intentionally designed to be quick so that no adversary can (even incorrectly) reach the conclusion they could wipe out our forces before a retaliatory strike. That is the very basis of our nuclear deterrence. If they felt they could "win" at nuclear war with a surprise strike they might try.

[Massacure]

13. Couldn't Congress just limit the scope of the law to prohibiting "first strike"?

How difficult would it be for Congress to say "the President can use nuclear weapons if and only if NORAD detects a nuclear attack"?

[Stonepounder]

6. Nope, this is an impossible idea.

What happens when we detect a first strike against us at 2:00am? You can't summon Congress into session and what for their approval. With all due respect to Congressman Lieu, such a law would be an open invitation to our enemies to launch a first strike attack against usm perhaps when Congress wasn't in session (like now).

Even if we were going to launch the first strike, you still don't want your prospective enemy to know that you are bloody debating the issue in Congress before you launch.

[PuppyBismark]

7. As good as that sounds, it cannot work as the decision may only have 6 to 12 minutes

The US has always said we would not use nukes first, but only as a result of a nuke attack. As such, the warning would be very quick about 12 minutes or less in the event of a rocket launch. A better posibility is the requirement that secretary of Defense would have to also input launch codes along with the POTUS.

Thus another reason to not let Trump near the launch codes.

[Massacure]

14. NORAD would if we are under a nuclear attack or not.

Couldn't Congress just pass a law that states any authorization to launch nuclear weapons must first originate from NORAD?

[Purveyor]

8. Incredibly stupid idea and it will never pass... eom

[drray23]

9. maybe a better solution is to make sure trump can not be president.nt.

[ffr]

10. I support this ^^^

The system works. If our democracy elects a screwball like Drumpf and he ends all humanity, so be it. That's the way it was meant to be. It is up to us to take a stake in our nation to make sure people like him don't get elected.

[SCVDem]

11. I suggest the congressman listen to

last nights Lawrence O'Donnell.

The football and the biscuit. It covers the time it takes for a sub sitting in the Caribbean to launch on DC.

Meanwhile you would be getting voice mailboxes.

Do you want to play a game?

I think that October will have Daisy ads back on TV.

[Glamrock]

12. I agree, bad idea

But you gotta give Lieu kudos man. If for no other reason than the pure political theatre. This will put the alleged (because it came from Joe scar after all)"nuclear discussion" back on the front pages again in a few weeks...if we are smart enough to follow his lead.

[Sgent]

15. I disagree about needing

congressional approval for nuclear retaliation.

That said, I would support congressional authorization for first use of nuclear weapons.