At his town hall meetings, Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, despite being the highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, typically gets questions that are close to home. But lately, the question on people’s minds has turned more existential, perhaps the closest to home of all. People want to know, he said at a hearing on Tuesday, “Can the president really order a nuclear attack without any controls?”
The committee’s chair, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., meanwhile, has gone on record referring to the White House as an “adult day care center,” where aides do their best to minimize the day-to-day damage that can be done by the man-child in their care.
So it stands to reason that for the first time since 1976, the committee on Tuesday held a hearing on the president’s authority to launch a nuclear attack. The hearing comes amid Democrats’ bubbling anxiety over President Donald Trump’s Twitter feud with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and fixation on America’s military might. Corker, for his part, said the confab, of course, had nothing to do with Trump, insisting that members of Congress have long wanted to discuss the issue.
But nothing, as they say, focuses the mind quite like the sight of the nuclear gallows.
My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 9, 2017
The president has the sole authority to decide whether to use nuclear weapons, an arsenal consisting of 4,571 warheads as of September 2015. There are no legal or political restraints on the president’s power to order a nuclear strike: The president is not required to consult with anyone beforehand, and the Defense Department, Congress, and the judicial branch have no way of blocking an order once it happens.
Other countries with nuclear capabilities have adopted models that don’t give the executive unilateral authority. India and Pakistan have both established councils to authorize the use of nuclear weapons, and Russia gives the president, defense minister, and chief of general staff access to the nuclear codes, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The senators questioned retired Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler, Duke University professor Peter Feaver, and former Acting Under Secretary for Policy at the Department of Defense Brian McKeon about the process by which a president can order a nuclear attack. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about the president’s unilateral authority to launch an attack, although Republicans refrained from referencing Trump by name.
Democratic lawmakers have been voicing concerns over Trump’s authority to wage nuclear war and his incessant Twitter fights, saying he doesn’t understand the consequences of a preemptive strike on North Korea.
“We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with U.S. national security interests,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at the hearing.
Similarly, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said if the United States were ever threatened and the president had to act, she would want Trump “to act in a way that acknowledges input from a lot of experts, and not to act based on a Twitter post.” Trump’s behavior “contributes to the concern about whether we’re in a situation where we need to look at, in Congress, a first-nuclear strike policy and banning that,” she added.
These concerns are not new. In January, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., introduced S.200 and H.R. 669, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017, to prohibit the president from launching a nuclear strike without a declaration of war by Congress.
Kehler, the former head of U.S. Strategic Command, on Tuesday said the U.S. military is “obligated” to prevent Trump from launching a nuclear strike against North Korea if it deems the order to be illegal.
But Kehler admitted it’s unclear how the military would determine if an order is illegal. If he were in a position in which he had questions about the legality of an order from the president, he would say “I have a question about this” and “I’m not ready to proceed,” he told the senators.
The public’s concern, Cardin said, has been fueled by Trump’s comments on North Korea. Trump threatened in August to unleash “fire and fury like the world has never seen” against North Korea, when he spoke to reporters at his golf club in New Jersey.
“Now, many interpret that to mean that the president is actively considering the use of nuclear weapons in order to deal with the threat of North Korea,” Cardin said. “That is frightening.”
On Sunday, Trump again lashed out against the North Korean leader, who issued a statement referring to Trump as a “dotard,” which means “very old person.”
“Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me “old,” when I would NEVER call him “short and fat?” Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend – and maybe someday that will happen!” Trump tweeted in response.
Sen. Corker post hearing pic.twitter.com/OfEcprDuc0
— aída chávez (@aidachavez) November 14, 2017
Corker last month called Trump’s threats toward other countries reckless, saying they could set the U.S. “on the path to World War III.” But he and other Senate Republicans didn’t reference Trump or any of his statements on North Korea on Tuesday, insisting that the hearing was a part of the “normal process.”
“This hearing is something that committee members have asked for, and you haven’t had one for 41 years,” Corker told reporters after the hearing. “Again, for anybody to think these hearings are taking place over any specific individual, it’s really about the condition we find ourselves in the world. … I think we’ll continue to look at this issue because you know it is a sober issue at a time when we have someone in North Korea who’s advancing their abilities in this regard.”
Corker said he doesn’t have plans for any legislative fixes yet and that the committee should see if there are additional hearings or processes “we ought to look at,” adding “I don’t wanna walk out of a hearing and say that I’ve come to some formal conclusion.”
Even without unleashing America’s nuclear capabilities, Trump has overseen a U.S. military that killed more civilians in Syria and Iraq in seven months than it did in three years under former President Barack Obama, according to the monitoring group AirWars. The Trump administration is also considering loosening Obama-era regulations on drone strikes and commando raids.
Top photo: Chair Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., left, talks with ranking member Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., before the start of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on North Korea on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 14, 2017.
This inquiry by congress is absurd. The US alone has enough nuclear armaments to render the planet unlivable and they’re debating who has the authority to do so. Lunacy incarnate. You can’t have weapons that can’t be used and expect any deterrence from their existence. Sheer madness. Speak up people.
The US government is famous for its system of checks and balances. I sincerely doubt they would have given a single person the power to launch nuclear Armageddon. But it reflects well on Congress that they are sufficiently concerned to ask whether they may have inadvertently given the President that authority.
Unfortunately, the US HAS given a single person this authority.
I pray that you are correct re: checks and balances though congress has abdicated it’s responsibility for AUMF. so it is past time that these “representatives of the people” start deliberations on what to do about the lunatic in the white house.
it has been apparent for a couple of decades now that the military is out of control. how convenient that it now has a willing idiot as their commander in chief.
it is truly frightening that this master if distraction is threatening another lunatic who has nuclear capabilities.
perhaps congress can come up with some sort of bipartisan compromise, f’rinstance that Trump is only able to launch Armageddon on days of the week that have letters in their names.
“…insisting that members of Congress have long wanted to discuss the issue.”
But just because Obama authorized a $trillion nuclear “upgrade”, and Clinton instituted a Nazi coup in Ukraine to get WWIII with Russia up and going, is no reason to be hasty…
Congress is being silly now. They now full well that the US can – and regularly does as a matter of course – bomb anyone or anything they want. And heavens help anyone who try defend themselves or fight back against such lawless and criminal acts of wanton aggression. This is one of the privileges of being supreme ruler of the universe.
Korea is the only divided country left. Most Koreans would like to reunite as the Germans
Easy task? No but why does the US have to make it more difficult?
There is also the PRC and ROC, but since Clinton and Trump and the media all back the PRC…
One major fact has been missed by everyone ?quoted by and commenting on this article.
Unique among all countries of the world, North Korea is, in fact and under international law, currently in a state of war against South Korea and the U.S.
How easily we forget, since the active fighting stopped almost seven decades ago. The original Congressional authorization for the use of military force is still in effect even though not in active use aside from military exercises.
The topic of preemptive action is definitively moot and Trump is not constrained in any legal way from military action of any kind and at any time under his sole choice as commander in chief of the armed forces which are currently authorized for all wartime activities against North Korea.
This fact, more than all others combined, is why all military options are “still on the table,” as White House and Pentagon staffers have been saying over and over again in recent months. The bombing can start again at any time, and no American or international law stops Trump from using nukes against North Korean military or civilian targets. Not even the proposed laws.
This is why the situation is as serious as it is, not just because Kim might have a few nukes of his own in his back pocket, soon to be loaded onto missiles. American nukes are already locked and loaded, no law can stop them and Trump is on that trigger.
Get it now? ;]
No, I don’t get it. I have questions.
1. Is North Korea in a state of against South Korea and the US or is the US in state of war against North Korea (and the rest of the world) and using South Korea as a proxy in the hostilities?
2. Since North Korea and the US are in a state of war, they are also permitted to take pre-emptive action against anyone (including the US) that threatens them, correct?
Let’s the bombing begin!
1. The Korean War never ended. The armistice is just a pause.
2. The only thing holding either side back is the cost in lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Division_of_Korea_.281954.E2.80.93present.29
Good point. You look at that and the other eternal, globe-spanning AUMFs and I think that a declaration-of-war requirement like Ted Lieu proposes is not any sort of hurdle to a president.
I asked my senator, Susan Collins, to answer the simple question; “Can trump unilaterally blow up the world”? I asked for a simple YES or NO answer.
Of course, the reply was a one page circle jerk non answer
It is absolutely and completely stupid to allow only one person to launch a nuclear attack even if that person is perceived to be completely sane and stable. This needs to be quickly changed and put a first strike launch capability into some sort of group of people. Maybe, President, Sec. of Defense, Sec. of State, and the head of the Joint Chiefs, then the decision should be by a supermajority (in the case of four, then, at minimum, three of the four).
“This hearing is something that committee members have asked for and you haven’t had one for 41 years,”
“The Trump administration is also considering loosing Obama-era regulations on drone strikes and commando raids.”
Glad to see the congress final addressing who’s hand(s) holds the nuclear trigger. if it gets pulled who are the decider(s). Sadly, acts of war with out congressional declaration have become routine in a Republic lost.
Hope Trump scares our congressional elected officials into doing their job. That would be real CHANGE. It is an ill wind that does not blow some good. The executive has been over-powered and the congress corrupt and lazy far to long. Vote them ALL out 2018-2020 or get decades more endless war and button button who’s got the button.
Having one of their own shot at a baseball game didn’t seem to scare them enough to enact any gun laws. They really are imperturbable.
This is Bob Corker:
“(By Roger Stone) Lost in the coverage of the announcement by Senator Bob Corker that he would not run is the fact the senator has been under FBI investigation for corruption because of a series of business enterprises where it appears he used his public position for his personal gain.”
https://stonecoldtruth.com/roger-stone-the-real-reason-why-sen-corker-resigned/
“it appears he used his public position for his personal gain.”
Everyone should look at their Congressional representatives and see what heir net worth was when they arrived in congress how long they have been there and current net worth. Congress been Very Very good to many of “Them.”
This is Roger Stone:
“Over the course of his political career, Stone has been widely regarded as promoting a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone
;]
Name one.
Educate yourself. Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone
;]
Name one.
“Trump has overseen a U.S. military that killed more civilians in Syria and Iraq in seven months than it did in three years under former President Barack Obama”
Wow, worse than even Obama.
Or is it something else?
According to the source, the AirWars article, “As the two campaigns became increasingly urban, civilian casualties increased substantially. ”
Trump has been in charge during the phase when the campaigns became more urban.
It was during Obama/Clinton that ISIS was created and al Qaeda was supported and armed by the CIA in Syria, which also spilled over into Iraq.
Let us not forget that it was during Obama/Clinton that Yemen was turned into a bonfire, Libya was shattered and Ukraine coup-ed and splintered…
But, yeah, pass a law about no First Strikes with nuclear weapons – period.
Should have been a law long ago, especially during Ronald “we start bombing in five minutes” Reagan.
Bombing in five minutes, or starting a coup in Ukraine in order to start a planet-destroying WWIII with Russia, is the way nuclear war is supposed to happen. This is completely different.
“Democratic lawmakers have been voicing concerns over Trump’s authority to wage nuclear war and his incessant Twitter fights, saying he doesn’t understand the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.”
How is it “pre-emptive” if we nuke a nation that hasn’t attacked us? Ms. Chávez, why do you employ this terminology? Why regurgitate this obfuscating-at-best and pure-propaganda-at-worst language of our national security state in your journalism? Whenever I see/hear those words, “pre-emptive” strike…..all I can think is that the Vietnam era mantra “we had to destroy that village in order to save it” is very much alive and well these days. I urge you and other writers here to please refrain from employing such framing in your work. Just like torture is not “enhanced interrogation” or a “harsh technique”, please do not label a nuclear strike against an entity that has done nothing other than try to survive being bombed into the “stone age” (please see some of the fine quotes of General LeMay, such as “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.”) a “pre-emptive” strike.
Gotta love that LeMay guy. At any given stage, one always assumes things can’t really get any worse… , sort of a nuclear “Jude the Obscure”. However, there is the following regarding LeMay and his second-in-command at SAC , Gen. Thomas Power:
“LeMay had the authority to order a nuclear strike without presidential authorization if the president could not be contacted. That option was extended down to General Thomas Power, head of SAC, whom LeMay himself described as “not stable” and a “sadist.” ”
From:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/no_author/the-happy-warrior/
That General Jack D. Ripper, who reveled in white phosphorous and napalm in Tokyo, describes his own lieutenant in that way, is pretty extraordinary.