| > If the President orders a launch, the military launches ... that's it Sure. That doesn't mean every launch must be legal or undeliberateable. > they don't have a place in the chain between POTUS deciding to launch and the launch Why not? The Constitution "vests in the Congress the power to declare war" [1]. It has largely delegated that power to the President. But the spirit of the War Powers Clause recognises that war is a major political decision with national consequences. So is a nuclear first strike. > Ordering a strike before any missiles have landed on US soil has been possible the entire time (ie ordering what would be an effective First Strike) Not what first strike means [2]. (You're describing launch on warning, which is firmly in the retaliatory column [3].) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike_(nuclear_strategy... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_on_warning |
"Why not?" as a philosphical question is a bit esoteric for me.
"Why not?" in the straight forward sense is easier- they simply do not appear a prerequisite for ordering a nuclear strike in the linked Nuclear Operations (2020) procedures.
> The Constitution "vests in the Congress the power to declare war"
Sure - but that's been bypassed a good many times to date hasn't it? Congress can declare war - but they don't appear to be neccessary for war to be declared, it seems a sitting POTUS can do that with an executive order.
In any case what is specifically being discussed here is that order to launch a nuclear strike, not an order to "start a war" and all that entails (spinning up additional arms production, etc.).
> Not what first strike means [2]. (You're describing launch on warning,
The full quote included predicated on having accurate justification [ such as ] (knowledge of incoming missiles) etc. meaning a POTUS can hand wave or invent any number of reasons in addition to being fooled by false alarms and issue an order to launch missiles.
More importantly .. none of that really matters, these operation procedures were written with the expectation that time would be critical and that the POTUS would be a rational judge of the appropriate actions and thus vested with the power to simply issue an order sans any pesky chain of required justification when the clock was supposedly ticking.
Once the order is issued it requires someone to bell the cat and actually mutiny to stop the ordered launch .. questioning whether the order was justified isn't on the cards.
I did originally link to a long form three part look into all these scenarios for a reason, there's much reference there to expert commentary on the ins and outs of the US chain of command for nuclear launch.