18

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces.

Source: Wikipedia

How does launching a nuclear bomb work in the US? I would imagine that there is a human "next to" the bomb who has to do something to prevent hackers from taking control over it. But besides that, is there any oversight? Could the US president give the order to nuke Belgium and it would just be done (except for people denying the order)? Or is there a person / group of people who actually have the right to not follow this order / revoke this order?

Is there a set of rules which have to apply first so that the president would be allowed to give this order (e.g. the US has to be formally at war with the country which e.g. has to be done by Congress)?

Improve this question
2

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
15

Every enlisted member of the military in the US takes an oath to obey the orders of the president of the united states. (Every officer has a slightly different oath that refers the constitution, rather than the POTUS)

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, however, is a bit more specific. Article 92 of the UCMJ states:

Any person subject to this chapter who (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Note the key word lawful. This has been interpreted to mean that any unlawful order does not necessarily need to be obeyed within the military.

In fact, obeying an unlawful order can be punishable.

So that leaves the question when is it lawful for the President to order a nuclear strike?

As I am not a scholar on this topic, I'll do my best here to understand what the president can and can not do.

For starters, the command to launch a nuclear weapon requires 2 people approving. One being the president, the second being the Secretary of Defense:

The United States has a two-man rule in place, and while only the president can order the release of nuclear weapons, the order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense

If the SoD disagrees with the president, the president has the right to relieve them of duty, and ask the person next in line to take the position and approve the command.

However, the VP among others have the right to enact Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and have the President declared disabled.

In addition to the above, there appears to be some other protocols in place that make it not as simple as just pushing a button. Alas, I can't find any conclusive sources for these (so other's, please refute or confirm these)

  • While it appears the 2-man rule is in place to actually launch the codes, the president must also notify many other parties in government that it is happening
  • The military may want to see signs of imminent threat before deciding the order is warranted and lawful
  • In addition to US law, there are also international treaties that may restrict how and when nuclear weapons can or can not be used.

To answer the question: No, it appears that the president cannot uni-laterally launch nuclear weapons. This view is based on an offensive strike. In a retaliatory decision the President can launch without being questioned. There is some latitude given to submarine and other Officers in charge of nuclear forces controlled by the football as well. That infi I believe is classified.

Improve this answer
13
  • 2
    But if the President and the SoD were both crazy enough to do it, we'd end up with Fallout being worshipped as a prophet in the post-apocalyptic wasteland.
    – PointlessSpike
    Feb 2, 2016 at 8:46
  • 1
    @pointlessspike that woul be the biggest hurdle but see the bullet points. There still seems to be some failssafes of a sort
    – user1530
    Feb 2, 2016 at 14:59
  • 1
    AFAIK, only enlisted personnel take an explicit oath to obey orders. Officers instead swear that they will faithfully discharge the duties of the office they are about to enter. And I'm pretty sure the missile operators are officers.
    – cpast
    Feb 2, 2016 at 15:03
  • 1
    @cpast but they all are under the UCMJ, which is where they key 'lawful' phrase is at.
    – user1530
    Feb 2, 2016 at 15:08
  • 3
    You cut the wikipedia article on the SoB's role before fundamental information. The rest of the sentence reads: "the order must be verified by the Secretary of Defense to be an authentic order given by the president (there is a hierarchy of succession in the event that the president is killed in an attack). This verification process deals solely with verifying that the order came from the actual President. The Secretary of Defense has no veto power and must comply with the president's order.". That seems to me that the SoD cannot "disagree" with the President.
    – Taladris
    Aug 18, 2018 at 8:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .