A former US defense secretary has called on President-elect Joe Biden to reform the system that gives sole control of the nation's nuclear arsenal to the president, calling it "outdated, unnecessary and extremely dangerous."

The call from William Perry came the same day US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke with the nation's top military leader about ensuring that an "unhinged" President Donald Trump not be able to launch a nuclear attack in his final days in office.

"Once in office, Biden should announce he would share authority to use nuclear weapons with a select group in Congress," said Perry, who served under President Bill Clinton.

He was writing in Politico magazine with Tom Collina of the Ploughshares Fund, which advocates for stronger nuclear controls.

They said Biden, who takes office January 20, should also declare that the United States will never start a nuclear war and would use the bomb only in retaliation.

The piece argues that the current system gives the president -- any president -- "the godlike power to deliver global destruction in an instant," an approach the authors call "undemocratic, outdated, unnecessary and extremely dangerous."

Perry, who was defense minister from 1994 to 1997, calls Trump "unhinged" and adds, "Do we really think that Trump is responsible enough to trust him with the power to end the world?"

American presidents are accompanied at all times by a military aide who carries a briefcase known as "the football" which contains the secret codes and information needed to launch a nuclear strike.

Perry and Collina warn that presidents possess the "absolute authority to start a nuclear war.

"Within minutes, Trump can unleash hundreds of atomic bombs, or just one. He does not need a second opinion. The Defense secretary has no say. Congress has no role."

They then ask: "Why are we taking this risk?"

Such vast presidential authority, the article notes, dates from the waning days of World War II, when president Harry Truman decided, after the nuclear horror unleashed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan, that the power to order the use of atomic weapons should not be left in the hands of the military -- that it should be up to the president alone.

US president has sole power to launch nuclear strike
Washington (AFP) Jan 8, 2021 - Concerns on Friday over US President Donald Trump's mental state have drawn focus on his power to unleash a nuclear attack.

Two days after Trump supporters, under his encouragement, stormed the US Capitol and shut down Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had contacted the Pentagon's top general, Mark Milley, to understand how to prevent "an unhinged president" from using the secret nuclear launch codes to order a nuclear strike.

As Milley presumably told her, the US constitution gives the president the sole power to launch a nuclear weapon.

Congress cannot interfere, and the leaders of the Pentagon, the generals and civilians, are bound to transmit his order, whether they agree with it or not.

Everywhere he travels, the president is accompanied by an aide carrying the "nuclear football", a bag containing instructions, attack plans and codes for initiating a nuclear strike that only the president can use.

Given the need to consider the justification, what equipment to use and what targets are chosen, such a decision would normally be done in consultation with defense chiefs.

But once the president decides -- whether after much deliberation or in a fit of anger -- "neither the military nor Congress can overrule these orders," said a December report on nuclear command and control from the Congressional Research Service.

- Strike must be 'legal' -

The only restriction on the US leader in this case is the legality of the strike. The laws of war would allow a military official to refuse to execute an order to do something illegal.

"But questions about the legality of the order -- whether it is consistent with the requirements, under the laws of armed conflict for necessity, proportionality, and distinction -- are more likely to lead to consultations and changes in the president's order than to a refusal by the military to execute the order," according to the Congressional Research Service report.

If the president does decide to order a strike, he would normally consult the military chiefs for his options.

In the "football", he would find options for the attack and communications equipment to formally order it.

He would make use of a card of codes unique to himself, called the "biscuit", to certify his identification as the commander-in-chief empowered to order a launch.

The launch order would then be transmitted to the US Strategic Command, where an officer would confirm it came from the president and execution would take place.

It could be as little as two minutes from order to the launch of a ground-based nuclear-tipped missile, or 15 minutes from a submarine.

"People in the chain of command might technically refuse to obey an order, but a verified order is presumed to be legal," said Derek Johnson of the anti-nuclear organization Global Zero.

"Pressure to obey would be massive."

In all of this, there are no exceptions in the system of nuclear command and control for a scenario in which the president is seen to be mentally unstable and ignores the advice of his generals.

In that case, the only option -- which Pelosi has called for in the case of Trump -- is to invoke the constitution's 25th amendment on removing a president from power.

Related Links
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com
Learn about missile defense at SpaceWar.com
All about missiles at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com

Tweet

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only

NATO: U.N. anti-nuke treaty 'at odds' with existing non-proliferation efforts
Washington DC (UPI) Dec 15, 2020
NATO released a statement Tuesday explaining its opposition to the United Nations' new treaty banning nuclear weapons. The alliance said it is committed to the preservation and strengthening of arms control, disarmament and non-profileration, but that the treaty "is at odds with the existing non-proliferation and disarmament architecture." "NATO is a defensive alliance," the statement said. "The fundamental purpose of NATO's nuclear capability is to preserve peace, prevent coercion and d ... read more