It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

National Command Authority

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
the U.S. president is declaring a heavy handed response to north korea's testing of ICBM and nuclear development. i'm referencing his "fire and fury" speech.

this speech has generated a lot of (heated) discussion among my friends. i, for the most part, remained quiet.

you might be wondering why i chose to hold my tongue. it's because i didn't know what authority the president had to launch a nuclear strike. so i went to yahoo and searched. i found that it isn't too difficult for a sitting president to order a nuclear launch.

the president calls a meeting with the secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense, and the vice president. this meeting is called by the secretary of defense as the National Command Authority. then the order is handed to the chairman of the joint chief of staff.

president: donald trump
vice president: mike pence
secretary of defense: james mattis
deputy secretary of defense: patrick shanahan
chairman of the joint chief of staff: joseph dunford

these are the people who can authorize a nuclear strike.

from the wikipedia article it goes like this:




Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.

if the President fires the Secretary, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will look to the Deputy Secretary of Defense to confirm that a nuclear strike is warranted. He will not pass a nuclear strike order to the operating forces unless the two-man rule has been followed.


my take is that if a sitting president wants to launch a nuclear strike, he can do it. he may run into some resistance but if he is persistent a nuclear launch is inevitable.

it is quite scary if you think about it.

i learned this this week and wanted to share.

national command authority wikipedia

secretary of defense wikipedia

deputy secretary of defense wikipedia

chairman of the joint chief of staff wikipedia

fire and fury article with video from new york times




posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
That's why he has the football

It's part of the Gig



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab
the U.S. president is declaring a heavy handed response to north korea's testing of ICBM and nuclear development. i'm referencing his "fire and fury" speech.

this speech has generated a lot of (heated) discussion among my friends. i, for the most part, remained quiet.

you might be wondering why i chose to hold my tongue. it's because i didn't know what authority the president had to launch a nuclear strike. so i went to yahoo and searched. i found that it isn't too difficult for a sitting president to order a nuclear launch.

the president calls a meeting with the secretary of defense, deputy secretary of defense, and the vice president. this meeting is called by the secretary of defense as the National Command Authority. then the order is handed to the chairman of the joint chief of staff.

president: donald trump
vice president: mike pence
secretary of defense: james mattis
deputy secretary of defense: patrick shanahan
chairman of the joint chief of staff: joseph dunford

these are the people who can authorize a nuclear strike.

from the wikipedia article it goes like this:




Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it.

if the President fires the Secretary, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will look to the Deputy Secretary of Defense to confirm that a nuclear strike is warranted. He will not pass a nuclear strike order to the operating forces unless the two-man rule has been followed.


my take is that if a sitting president wants to launch a nuclear strike, he can do it. he may run into some resistance but if he is persistent a nuclear launch is inevitable.

it is quite scary if you think about it.

i learned this this week and wanted to share.

national command authority wikipedia

secretary of defense wikipedia

deputy secretary of defense wikipedia

chairman of the joint chief of staff wikipedia

fire and fury article with video from new york times



Obviously, a nuclear strike in the current situation isn't warranted.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

i agree with you.
a nuclear strike is definitely not warranted.
but considering today's political environment and the lack of basic knowledge americans have of our politics, it wouldn't surprise me that a nuclear strike is approved.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Usual response is to send a couple of aircraft carriers in the direction of Little Boy Full of Trouble.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

I don't have time to parse the links and actually research this.

Are you sure POTUS can do this in the absence of a declaration of war?

If so, that's not a good thing! You might want to look into changing the authority guidelines, especially considering the ever lower quality of people elected to the position of POTUS.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: subfab

I don't have time to parse the links and actually research this.

Are you sure POTUS can do this in the absence of a declaration of war?

If so, that's not a good thing! You might want to look into changing the authority guidelines, especially considering the ever lower quality of people elected to the position of POTUS.


according to the wikipedia page, a declaration of war is not mentioned.
in fact the article states that the president can ask for a strike for any reason at any time.
edit on 10-8-2017 by subfab because: typo



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
This situation is different than other conflicts like Iraq.
North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces ready to rain death onto Seoul at a moment's notice.
Any strike against the north with get thousands of South Koreans killed unless it's a crushing blow.
A shooting war is going to cost the south dearly.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Thanks for answering the questions I came here for this morning!

Interesting...

I for one and glad Trump is taking this seriously and with a heavy hand - after the pussyfooting around over the last 8 years plus? We have to stop this madness.

Of course there are you that will say it's just replacing his madness with ours - but that's what being the big boy on the block means.

peace



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: nwtrucker

i agree with you.
a nuclear strike is definitely not warranted.
but considering today's political environment and the lack of basic knowledge americans have of our politics, it wouldn't surprise me that a nuclear strike is approved.


It would surprise me. Trump has shown both restraint and determination in his strike in Syria. Surgical and no further action taken. No further chemical incidents since then either.

If I was in his position, I'd order any missile launch, test or otherwise, that left NK territory to be shot down, be it by THAAD or any other available system.

On your political environment issue, I'd separate the D.C. drama from the NK issue. There IS overlap, albeit to few, between Trump and the Republican Party, NK is one of them. If the situation worsens, I'd support a surgical strike on the NK leadership and I believe Congress would, as well. JMO, though.
edit on 10-8-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

I would suggest that even if North Korea launched nukes at a U.S. Territory we shouldn't be considering a nuclear response. The North Korean people are not our enemy. We need to surgically strike their leadership and command structure and remove the problem at the source.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: subfab

I would suggest that even if North Korea launched nukes at a U.S. Territory we shouldn't be considering a nuclear response. The North Korean people are not our enemy. We need to surgically strike their leadership and command structure and remove the problem at the source.


i agree with you.
this is one of the most reasonable responses we (united states) could do if north korea decides to take action against a united states territory.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I disagree with you *if* NK successfully strikes any US territory with a nuke, then the USA needs to construct a 100 mile long, 200 miles wide canal connecting the Bay of Korea to the Sea of Japan.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

if the united states can retaliate with standard military action (non nuclear) then that is what the u.s. should do. nuclear strike should be the last option. we have to consider our allies in the region when we talk nuclear strike. china, south korea, and japan would be directly affected (fall out) if we drop a nuclear weapon on north korea. only after all other military options are exhausted and with the support of our allies in the region should the united states consider a nuclear strike.

not only do we have to consider united state's interest but the well being of the people who look to us as a rational super power.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Metallicus

I disagree with you *if* NK successfully strikes any US territory with a nuke, then the USA needs to construct a 100 mile long, 200 miles wide canal connecting the Bay of Korea to the Sea of Japan.


I share that sentiment to the degree that it invokes a truly nasty grin. It would also ensure no one else would even dare to contemplate a similar action against the U.S. far, far into the future.

Yet I hesitate in agreeing. Sigh.

A far better solution to NK would be China acting unilaterally. All of NK's military is facing south, not north. It would be over quickly. The refugees would be running south towards SK. Not China. The Chinese would then control the replacement regime and maintain their buffering client-state to their advantage as opposed to a SK-US victory which would end any client state that the Chinese could control. The U.S. might even help China in that effort....an interesting thought. Yes?



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

If that's true, and I can't refute it, its outrageous.

Something really needs be done about that.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I suggest the Radiolab podcast Nukes.

I'd also suggest the Boston Globe's article,
Trump has ‘unchecked authority’ to order a nuclear attack
.

60 Minutes had a segment last Fall on nuclear responsibilities:


David Martin: Have you ever had the conversation with yourself, well, what if the president issued an order to use nuclear weapons and I didn’t agree with it. Would I carry out that order?

Cecil Haney: The president expects me, as his combatant commander, to provide him the best military advice I have. So he would expect me to voice my opinion.

David Martin: You would have a voice but if you disagreed with a decision . . .

Cecil Haney: I’m a military man and we follow the orders of our commander-in-chief.


There's nothing stopping the president from ordering a nuclear strike. The SECDEF can say, 'no' but the president has the power to relieve the SECDEF of their authority on the spot and the responsibility would fall to whoever the president chooses.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: nwtrucker

i agree with you.
a nuclear strike is definitely not warranted.
but considering today's political environment and the lack of basic knowledge americans have of our politics, it wouldn't surprise me that a nuclear strike is approved.


If the President gives the order, it's going to be approved. The only way in which it won't be approved is if the Secretary of Defense determines the President to be out of his mind. If such a thing were to happen, the President could replace the Secretary of Defense with someone else (including a short term temporary replacement, which can be done near instantaneously) or it could fall to the Vice President who can also push for it.

Basically, if Trump were to order a nuclear strike, the entire system is set up to carry out that order. Unlike legislation which is intended to have a lot of roadblocks, nuclear protocol has few failsafes. The whole point is that we can launch them if necessary, not to have the system get bogged down.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
This situation is different than other conflicts like Iraq.
North Korea has thousands of artillery pieces ready to rain death onto Seoul at a moment's notice.
Any strike against the north with get thousands of South Koreans killed unless it's a crushing blow.
A shooting war is going to cost the south dearly.


More. Estimated deaths from the North firing on the South are 25 million. Estimated deaths from the Souths retaliation against the Norths are 15 million.

We're potentially talking about 40 million lives here should anyone begin shooting. That's to say nothing of the many trillions of dollars a war would cost.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: subfab
a reply to: burdman30ott6

if the united states can retaliate with standard military action (non nuclear) then that is what the u.s. should do. nuclear strike should be the last option. we have to consider our allies in the region when we talk nuclear strike. china, south korea, and japan would be directly affected (fall out) if we drop a nuclear weapon on north korea. only after all other military options are exhausted and with the support of our allies in the region should the united states consider a nuclear strike.

not only do we have to consider united state's interest but the well being of the people who look to us as a rational super power.


Use neutron bombs.



new topics




 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join