MEDIAWATCH: Whose finger on the nuke button?

CONCERN over North Korea’s nuclear program and Donald Trump’s emotional stability has led to the US president’s authority to launch a nuclear attack being seriously challenged for the first time in more than four decades says The Week.

As commander-in-chief, “the president has the sole authority to order a nuclear a strike [and] while existing procedures call for the president to consult first with military and civilian leaders, the final decision rests with him”, says USA Today.

Now, in a move not seen since 1976, congressional hearings are questioning the president’s authority to order the use of the US nuclear arsenal.

Republican Bob Corker, chairman of the foreign relations committee and a strong critic of the president, opened the hearing by confirming: “The president has the sole authority to give that order, whether we are responding to a nuclear attack or not. Once that order is given and verified, there is no way to revoke it.”

Stressing he “would not support changes that would reduce our deterrence of adversaries or reassurance of our allies”, Corker said he “would like to explore, as our predecessors in the House did 41 years ago, the realities of this system”.

Quixotic
Democrat Chris Murphy went further, saying: “We are concerned that the president 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 US national-security interests.”

The debate over presidential authority has so far divided the Senate. Some members agree Trump might irresponsibly order a nuclear strike, while “others said he must have the authority to act without meddling from lawyers”, reports the BBC.

CNN says the administration is trying to “soothe concerns by arguing the existing launch process that presidents have operated under for decades has sufficient checks in place that would discourage Trump from taking imprudent action”.

However, the broadcaster also reports that despite Trump receiving multiple briefings on the nuclear launch cycle and more conventional, non-nuclear alternatives, at least one “Nato partner country” has raised concerns about his command of the US nuclear launch system.

Addressing the committee this week, General Robert Kehler, head of US Strategic Command from 2011 to 2013, said he would refuse a presidential order to carry out a nuclear first strike he thought was “illegal”.

The question of legality is linked to “requirements of proportionality and necessity under the law of armed conflict”, says The Guardian. This means a presidential order could be ignored if it was expected to cause undue widespread human suffering when other, less dramatic military options, were available.

Peter Feaver, professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, told the BBC a presidential order “requires personnel at all levels” to sign it off, meaning it would be vetted by lawyers as well as the secretary of defence and military officials.

“The president cannot by himself push a button and cause missiles to fly,” he added.

Bruce Blair, a former nuclear launch control officer who is now a researcher at Princeton University, disagreed. “There are really no checks and balances,” he told the Los Angeles Times.

All Trump needs do is call in the military officer who carries the “nuclear football” – the bulky briefcase containing the nuclear codes – and work through a brief procedure to transmit launch orders to US Strategic Command, he said, adding: “The presidency has become a nuclear monarchy.”

The lack of accountability led Democratic Senator Edward Markey to propose legislation requiring a congressional declaration of war before a president could authorise a first-use nuclear strike.

Under current protocol, “there is no secret alternative chain of command in place”, says CNN. “The military would treat Trump as they would any other president ordering a nuclear strike. To do otherwise would be considered treasonous.”