One Man Shouldn't Control the Nuclear Button - William Perry WSJ oped

[question everything]

Gen. Mark Milley is being criticized for taking actions to forestall the possibility of an inappropriate nuclear launch order by President Trump. The criticism is based on steps the general allegedly took, as described in Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s new book, “Peril.” Gen. Milley was ostensibly concerned that Mr. Trump was unstable and might order a nuclear launch for political reasons. The general told Congress last month that because he believed China had unwarranted worries of a U.S. attack, he acted to “de-escalate” the situation and contacted his Chinese counterparts to indicate that no attack was planned.

The critics are missing the point. The overriding issue is not whether Gen. Milley was correct in his assessment, or whether he was authorized to take the reported actions, but what the consequences could have been if his concern had been warranted. It is not hyperbole to say that the consequences could have been a profound tragedy and, in the worst case, the end of civilization.

This is not the first time unauthorized actions might have been taken to stop an unstable president from starting a nuclear war. During the end of Richard Nixon’s presidency, when the president was known to be drinking heavily, Defense Secretary James Schlesinger is reported to have called the commander of the Strategic Air Command and instructed him that if he got a launch order from Nixon, he shouldn’t take any action without first checking with Schlesinger or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The defense secretary had no authority to do so—and couldn’t be sure the general would follow his orders. But he felt he had to do something to head off such a possibility. Schlesinger wasn’t criticized because neither he nor the general made his action public. From my conversations with Schlesinger many years later, I am convinced the story is true.

(snip)

Gen. Milley should be praised, not condemned, for seeking to avoid a nuclear holocaust. America is fortunate to have military leaders with the judgment and courage to take such actions, even when it means disregarding policy. Punishing Gen. Milley could make it harder for his successors to act with the same courage. The problem is not that Gen. Milley deviated from policy; the problem is the policy. No president should have the sole authority to start a nuclear war. The Constitution gives war-making responsibility to Congress, and launching a nuclear strike is certainly starting a war.

(snip)

A decision to launch nuclear forces requires serious deliberation and appropriate consultation. We should reject a policy that gives the president the sole authority to launch nuclear forces and instead establish one that allows for deliberation, including consultation with leaders in Congress. Such a policy would pre-empt the perceived need of military leaders to break the rules to save the world.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nuclear-button-launch-general-milley-unauthorized-trump-china-11633359093 (subscription)

Mr. Perry served as U.S. defense secretary, 1994-97.

[Jim__]

1. My recollection of the justification for that policy - the president can order a nuclear strike -...

... was to give us an effective nuclear deterrent.

It goes back to the days of the cold war and fear of a Soviet launch. If we needed to go through some bureaucratic process before launching nuclear weapons, the Soviets could believe that they could launch a first-strike and wipe out any effective nuclear response from us before we could get through the decision process. In that scenario, giving the president that authority is a deterrent to nuclear war. The world situation has, of course, completely changed since then so a review of the policy makes a lot of sense. Our experience with Trump exposes the extreme risks involved with that policy.

I really think the only sane policy with respect to nuclear weapons is a complete ban, with, of course, a rigorous enforcement policy of that ban.

Note: I couldn't read the journal article, so I'm not sure if this touches on anything that the editorial addressed.

[twodogsbarking]

2. One person shouldn't control the nuclear button.

[marie999]

3. What General Miley did took courage and could have ended his career.

It may not have been as important as what 2 Russian military men did that most assuredly prevented WWIII but it was important. If you don't know who Vassili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov are and what they refused to do and disobeyed protocol you may want to read about them. In short, Arkhipov refused to fire nuclear torpedoes against American vessels during the Cuban Missile Crisis and on September 26, 1983, Petrov refused to fire nuclear missiles against the United States when his computers showed that Russia was under attack by nuclear missiles of the United States. I wonder how many other times we have come this close to WWIII?

[XanaDUer2]

4. He's a hero to me nt