Could a nuclear situation develop in the way Dr Strangelove suggests?

>>35168291
No. A wing commander could not order a nuclear attack by himself.

>>35168305
What if it was the president that went nuts?

>>35168369
If he goes insane and "pushes the button" then we're fucked. The president has sole nuclear command authority and if he orders a launch the only way to stop it would be mutiny.

However, if a majority of the cabinet belIves a president has gone insane and can catch him BEFORE he orders a launch they can relieve him of his authority with a simple letter to Congress (note, this will likely cause a civil war).

>>35168369
A clearly insane order is an unlawful order.
So of he wakes up and tells the CINC STRATCOM that he want to nuke Russia and there is no ongoing crisis, the order would be likely ignored.

>>35168305

Pretty sure the Titan missile operators could spoof/generator perfectly valid launch orders had they felt like it.

>>35168469
No.

>>35168291
Kinda wish for it, but just like winning the lottery it will never happen.

Former Trump voter here, not gonna lie it's been hilarious watching him crash and burn. But seriously we can't let this guy get his hands on the nuclear codes

>>35168474

Yeah, I recall it being discussed in Eric Schossers 'Command and Control' (both in book and documentary format).

The launch code system was a massive farce as it would set to 000-000-000-000 to launch or something to that effect.

>>35168446
>A clearly insane order is an unlawful order.
Wrong, fucko. the president has ABSOLUTE SOLE AUTHORITY over nuclear release.

>>35168508
If I remember correctly that was because congress mandated that nuclear weapons had a release code (or something) but SAC didn't want to use one because "lol we already have failsafe in place" (they didn't) so they just made the code all zeros so no one would ever forget it if they had to launch.

I genuinely don't know how humanity survived the cold war.

>>35168508
Thats a simplifacation. They could not arm the warheads or launch the missiles.

>>35168514
The order has to be a lawful order.

Deal the fuck with it, bitch.

>>35168552
Any order by the president to launch nukes is by definition lawful as the decision to launch nuclear weapons is legally his and his alone. In fact it would be UNLAWFUL for any personnel to disobey it. You can dance around it and try and say "but muh civilian deaths" all you want but that doesn't change reality.

>>35168552
>The order has to be a lawful order.

And what is an unlawful order in the context of the president?

>>35168588
This is 100% inaccurate.

>>35168591
Nothing. Anon doesn't realize that the system is literally set up so if the president want's to launch nukes he can do so. He literally doesn't have to ask anyone permission.

>>35168598
Okay then, who determines if the order is lawful?

>>35168591
Insane orders are not lawful orders.
The orders of the President is not immune from the requirement that it be a lawful order.
As an example, the Persident can not give a lawful order to commit a war crime.

Ordering a nuclear attack is not a defacto war crime, but one of the components of a lawful order is that it is given by a competent authority.
If the President issues a clearly insane order would mean that he is not compentent, and thus the order is illegal and the military is not required to obey an unlawful order.

>>35168591
Being a big meanie, if reddit is anything to go by.

File: Capture.png (111KB, 1014x509px)

111KB, 1014x509px

>>35168552
>launch the missiles

Are you sure?

>>35168625
STRATCOM.
They pass along the order with the defacto assurance that they would not pass down an unlawful order.

>>35168598

It literally isn't and the fact that you won't even just do a quick google search to verify your own argument is embarassing.

The system was set up this way for a fucking reason, because responding to a massive strike requires seconds, not 30 minutes or three weeks.

>>35168634

>insane orders are not lawful orders

What a fucking idiot you are.

>>35168654
And STRATCOM is ultimately under the control of the president. Your reasoning is circular. The president has ultimate command authority over nuclear weapons.

>>35168634
Where in the UCMJ does it say that an insane order isn't a lawful order?

>>35168656
>The system was set up this way for a fucking reason, because responding to a massive strike requires seconds, not 30 minutes or three weeks.
That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

An unlawful order and a lawful order take the same amount of time to issue. There is no time factor here.

>>35168690
Agreed.
But he must still issue a lawful order.
If he is not competent, it is not a lawful order. Being under the command of the President does not excuse you if you are ordered to commit an unlawful act.

>>35168702
>Where in the UCMJ does it say that an insane order isn't a lawful order?

Directive CTR, subsection R.E.D.D.I.T.

>That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

No, it has everything to do with it. Nobody in the chain of command has any legal basis for even questioning an attack order once it has been authenticated as having originated from the President, and any hesitation amongst strategic forces personnel in such a situaation is basically a dereliction of duty which in wartime would probably mean the death penalty for them. There is simply no room whatsoever for considering the ramifications or """legality""" of the order. The concept doesn't even exist. No council is meeting to consider the state of mind of the President, nor would they have any legal basis to do so.

Just please stop using this "lawful order" thing, there's nothing to it at all.

>>35168705
>President: launch
>STRATCOM: Is this lawful? Let's check with our superiors. Hey, Mr. President, is this lawful?
>President: Yes
The military is not in a position to disobey orders given by their civilian leaders. An order given by someone mentally incompetent is NOT automatically unlawful, and I don't know where you got this notion. If that WAS the case, the military could simply disregard its civilian commanders whenever they were told to do something they didn't want to do citing their "incompetence".

>>35168497
Naw, breh. That's why I voted for him. He's the only sonuvabitch dumb enough to burn this motherfucker down.

>>35168747
>Nobody in the chain of command has any legal basis
Yes. The military is not bound by unlawful orders.

>>35168748
Thats not how this works.

>President: LAUNCH
>STRATCOM: There is no crisis ongoing, there is no attack warning, the President must be mentally unstable, and we are not bound by this order.
>President: Fug

>>35168804

Everyone, this is bait. Let's just stop responding to this guy.

>>35168747
>and any hesitation amongst strategic forces personnel
There would be no hesitation.
There is either a world situation where a nuclear strike is likely or there is not. In the absence of it, that order is from a deranged maniac and so he can not issue lawful orders.

> No council is meeting to consider the state of mind of the President,
You don't need one. The CINC STRATCOM can determine if the order is a lawful one from a competent authority.

>>35168825
Yeah, I would run off like a little bitch too, if I were you.

>>35168588

Lawful and legal are two different things

>>35168552
Can you respond to
>>35168649

>>35168830

It is not legal for soldiers to make decisions based on their perception of what the "world situation" is. That is illegal and flouting civilian authority. Deciding that they know better than the president and that they must have a better picture of the "world situation" is such a fucking ridiculous idea. The general doesn't see missiles on CNN so it must be a deranged """"unlawful"""" order! Better do what is tantamount to a coup d'etat!

You don't know fucking shit about anything and I'd bet anything your only knowledge about anything to do with this is you watched crimson tide once.

>>35168804
No. Thats not how this works, thats not how any of this works. STRATCOM doesn't check for ongoing crisis or conflict, they do not make assumptions as to the presidents mental state, the ONE AND ONLY THING THEY DO IS VALIDATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LAUNCH ORDER then it's disseminated to wing commanders ordering them to fulfil the mission.
The entire system is set up to PREVENT what you've just described. There is no legal basis for our nuclear assets refusing an authenticated order to release from the president. Doing so would be considered dereliction for duty at best, treason at worst, both of which are potentially capital crimes.

The ONLY WAY a deranged president can be prevented from launching a rogue nuclear attack is if he is removed from office by the appropriate CIVILIAN PROCEDURE, via a declaration of incapacity.

The military has no legal basis for refusing a Presidential attack order in any way, shape or form. Period. Considering the whole process takes maybe 10 minutes from start to finish, there's nothing to even discuss.

>>35168747
There is no statutory basis for refusing the order of the President.
However, from a practical standpoint, it would be within reason that if the Chain of Command had good reason to believe that the President was unhinged, the order would not be followed.

There is some precedent for this. Kissinger apparently short circuited the chain of command with Nixon.
James Schlesinger did the same thing, telling the chain of command to ignore all orders from the President unless he ok'd them. It is worth it to note that, depending on your point of view, this is likely little comfort.
Just as the Chain of Command may refuse to follow the order, they might carry it out as well, and depending on a small handful of men making a judgement to effectively disrupt an otherwise lawful process may not be a sufficient safeguard.

OP, short answer is that no, a commander could not, and the President, could possibly do it, but the likelihood of the order of an insane President being carried out is impossible to determine one way or the other.

>>35168649
Yes.
Minutemen specifically require multiple LCCs to effectively vote to launch their missiles. One LCC turning the keys would not trigger a launch.
Unless it is overridden by ALCS.

File: 1462775558501.jpg (8KB, 200x282px)

8KB, 200x282px

>>35168830
>There is either a world situation where a nuclear strike is likely or there is not. In the absence of it, that order is from a deranged maniac and so he can not issue lawful orders.
NO! NO NO NO JESUS CHRIST NO! The entire purpose of vesting sole nuclear launch authority in the president is to take AWAY that kind of subjectivity. Our military is under complete civilian control. It is unconstitutional for military personnel to refuse orders from their civilian commanders. There is no secret STRATCOM council that convines when the president issues a launch order to determine if there's a proper "world situation" for nuclear war. All they do is validate that the order came from the president, then carry it.

>>35168942

Thanks on the question Minutemen.

What is the two-man rule?

>>35168942
>However, from a practical standpoint, it would be within reason that if the Chain of Command had good reason to believe that the President was unhinged, the order would not be followed.

Yes, practically. However it is also unlikely and I still doubt the efficacy, considering it is within the President's power to replace all commanders until he finds some that will obey his orders.

At the end of the day, any overt attempt to stop him from following through with this would effectively be a military coup

>>35168942
Cool, we summoned Oppenheimer.
Also,
>James Schlesinger did the same thing, telling the chain of command to ignore all orders from the President unless he ok'd them.
In that situation couldn't the president just fire the SECDEF and have the Deputy SECDEF issue the order instead?

>>35168998
>However it is also unlikely and I still doubt the efficacy,
So do I, but I do not dismiss it out of hand.

>considering it is within the President's power to replace all commanders until he finds some that will obey his orders.
This would likely exacerbate the situation, rather that help him find a solution, but that is also up in the air.


>At the end of the day, any overt attempt to stop him from following through with this would effectively be a military coup
Yes but we have seen something like this twice, so it is hardly unprecedented.


>>35169002
The SECDEF is not required to issue the order and is not in the nuclear chain of command (probably, details are somewhat murky).
In this case, this was someone not in the chain of command, inserting himself into it and telling those elements further down it to ignore orders from the president.

>>35168993
Something that only applies to nuclear release, not for the initial order to launch.

Technically, the President and Secretary of Defense have to approve the order to launch before it's given but since the Secretary serves at the President's leisure if he refuses POTUS could just fire him on the spot and have the Deputy Secretary of Defense (who would at that point be Acting Secretary of Defense) authorize the launch instead.

>>35169039
>Secretary of Defense have to approve the order to launch
This is widely held, but appears to be incorrect.

>>35169052
Mmmm... you might be wrong about this one, Oppenheimer
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority
>Only the President can direct the use of nuclear weapons by U.S. armed forces, including theSingle 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 atwo-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.

File: 1475177383782.jpg (77KB, 384x480px)

77KB, 384x480px

>>35169133
>Looks at article footnotes
>Sources are literally just articles from Vox, Politico, and The New York Times
>All three articles are literally "we can't let Blumph get dah nuclar codes"
>All three articles cite no sources of their own
(((Wikipedia))) is trash

>>35169147
ov vey, this post is anti-semitic!

>>35169133
Alex Wellerstien has done some good work here:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/04/10/president-bomb-iii/

> I found perhaps the only piece of military doctrine that actually explained, in a clear and concise fashion, how a nuclear order would be carried out. And it’s not some ancient Cold War archival document… it’s from 2015! On the website of the USAF’s (appropriately named) Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, one can find ANNEX 3-72 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, last updated in May 2015. It states, in a clarity that (after reading a lot of DOD doctrine) makes me want to weep with joy, despite the message:

>The President may direct the use of nuclear weapons through an execute order via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the combatant commanders and, ultimately, to the forces in the field exercising direct control of the weapon


>. But one other useful piece of evidence is that we asked Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, at point blank whether the Secretary of Defense was in the chain of command. The answer was a clear “no.”

>>35168291

No, it said so in the opening

>>35169197
This makes sense. President has the authority, but people along the chain off command could second guess it. I mean what if the president said to nuke NYC? I'm pretty sure people are going to second guess that.

>>35169275
They can second guess it until the cows come home, but at the end of the day there's no mechanism for the military to defy civilian order except for treason. Even if the president did order for NYC to be nuked and the chief of staff said "no, wtf?!" him doing so would still be a violation of our constitution. Granted, the president nuking NYC for no reason would ALSO be in violation of our constitution, but he operates under civilian law, not military.

File: 225px-Fail_safe_moviep.jpg (24KB, 225x338px)

24KB, 225x338px

>>35169275
>I mean what if the president said to nuke NYC?
Then we would have to be in a very desperate situation.

>>35169324
>ALSO be in violation of our constitution,
Remind me what officers take an oath to defend, again?

>>35169377
The constitution. But is it constitutional to violate the constitution to defend the constitution? You can see the dilemma here.

>>35169422
>But is it constitutional to violate the constitution to defend the constitution?
...Yes.

>>35169324
>>35169377
>>35169422
The president ordering NYC to be nuked would be CRIMINAL, not unconstitutional.

>>35169428
You sure about that? So is it legal for the NSA to violate the forth ammendment to prevent terrorist attacks? Is it legal to violate the 8th amendment and torture terror suspects for information?

>>35169436
>>35169428
>>35169422
>>35169377
>>35169374
>>35169324
>>35169275

Half of /k/ would probably think twice about NYC desu

>>35169471
You can not order someone to nuke NYC.
Stop being stupid.

>>35169508
Why not?

>>35168613
>>35168588
>>35168637
LMAO all this is good

File: 1462740608557.jpg (54KB, 1016x568px)

54KB, 1016x568px

>>35168649
>a stolen weapon could still be detonated with a simple DC signal

File: 1366519543873.jpg (171KB, 768x576px)

171KB, 768x576px

>>35169482
But the other half of us wouldn't

>>35168637
and a no good, big orange poo poo head!

seriously they really are a pack of slack jawed faggots there.

>>35169030
BASED Oppenheimer, have you had a chance to read a book called Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself--While the Rest of Us Die by Garrett M. Graff?

also since you are in the know about this, are those old missle silos that are up for sale all a bunch of leaky flooded out rape dungeons or is that just a meme?

>>35169030
twice? First was Nixon era. What was the second one?