The Unsteady Hand: The U.S. Presidency, the Nuclear Button, and the Demand for Checks and Balances
The American presidency’s relationship to nuclear weapons has become far more close in the recent years and this issue has become especially more relevant and publicized (as well as concerning) due to the Donald Trump presidency. Not only this, but is has been revealed that members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff took care to try and prevent Trump from misusing nuclear weaponry in addition to the fact that the nuclear arms industry boomed under the Trump administration.
The ability for the president to call a nuclear launch upon an enemy country in literal minutes and the ability to deliver multiple warheads through a single missile has been made very possible due to the innovations and advent of technology. With instantaneous communication through multiple formats, the United States and the nuclear arsenal they rely upon now allows for a nuclear launch, flight, and detonation to occur within an hour. This has made the Office of the President an extremely important role, far more than what was publically considered in the pre-FDR era.
Due to the sensitivity of America’s nuclear weapons programs, practically all sections of the Legislative and Executive branches essentially hold no real role in making policy decisions in regards to the launching of nuclear weapons, the entire decision is in the hands of a single person. The Union of Concerned Scientistswrites, “In the United States, a single person is authorized to make the decision to use a nuclear weapon—the president. They are not required to consult with any advisors before issuing a launch order. No one in the Defense Department, Congress, or the judicial branch can lawfully prevent the use of nuclear weapons once the president’s order is given”.
In Garrett Graff’s article for POLITICO Magazine, he mentions the concern showcased by government officials in the final days of Richard M. Nixon’s presidency. He writes, “Defense Secretary James Schlesinger recalled years later that in the final days of the Nixon presidency he had issued an unprecedented set of orders: If the president gave any nuclear launch order, military commanders should check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before executing them. Schlesinger feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon”. In the past, Nixon had commented on the abilities of the presidency in ordering a nuclear strike within minutes and had even developed an entire foreign policy strategy which painted himself “a bit crazy because it made potential enemies wary that he might actually use nuclear weapons”.
With the Trump administration, the question of his sanity was often raised and validly so. Trump, by multiplepsychologists and mental health professionals, was alleged to exhibit some sort of personality or mood disorder which could heavily affect one’s personal and professional conduct. Mary L. Trump, a psychologist and niece of Donald Trump, also covered much of her family’s mental health in her 2020 book Too Much and Never Enough, yet stopped short of making an official diagnosis about her uncle. Combine this potential mental health illness with his general bombastic personality, his lack of intellect or desire to be educated, and his inclusion of sycophantic “yes men” makes for an incredibly dangerous world leader. Adding in the nuclear button further increases the level of danger for the world.
While much appropriate discussion and assessment had been made about Trump’s mental health (with some valid criticism), there has also been discussion about Biden’s mental health. While it is known that Biden’s health is of no major concern for taking on the duties of the presidency, many Americans (40% according to a poll by Politico) worry about Biden’s mental health and abilities to lead. Given Biden’s conduct behind closed doors and in public, it is highly unlikely he suffers from a similar or the same mental illness that plagued our previous president. However, all of the discussion surrounding mental health within the Executive Office of the President has shown that America’s nuclear weapons program needs far more checks and balances than our nation currently has.
There are only two real qualifications to attain the Office of the President these being age (being above thirty-five) and being a natural-born citizen. The President of the United States is not required to be subject to a mental health screening nor take a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) test. It is simply assumed that the President will be of the necessary mental and physical standards to undertake the stresses and duties of the position; it is further assumed that the electorate will care about their president’s mental faculties and abilities to lead.
While, ideally, a mental assessment by a qualified and unbiased psychologist of potential presidential candidates (with the results being released publicly) would allow for the public and others to know if their candidate is of the right mental abilities, few candidates would be willing to submit to such an examination.
Because of this, it is more than reasonable that there should be some form of secondary human measures in place if a launch is necessary. Other nations have already performed these measures and ensured that the ability to launch a missile does not line in the hand of a sole person. The United Kingdom, for example, has a similar system in which the Prime Minister can be the only one to issue a launch order but, “If officials in the Ministry of Defence receive a launch order that they judge wrongful, they can lawfully appeal to the queen to overturn it. Parliament could also call for a vote of no confidence, which would require the prime minister’s immediate resignation”. Israel, Russia, India, and Pakistan also have similar systems in place for a valid launch.
A system for launch similar to how our allies operate would have true benefits for the United States. A June 2021 piece for the Arms Control Association, written by David S. Jonas and Bryn McWhorter, both lawyers with extensive experience in the nuclear arms world, covers this very topic. Jonas and McWhorter write, that while some have argued for inclusion of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Attorney General, or the Supreme Court, these solutions are not viable. Rather, they argue “In situations where the United States or its allies have been attacked with nuclear weapons, when a decision about retaliating must be made within minutes, the president should retain the sole power to authorize their use. In instances of first use, when the United States has time to decide whether to initiate an attack, the authorization to launch nuclear weapons should require the unanimous consent of the president, vice president, and the defense secretary”.
The two write quite convincingly that, given the Vice President is next in line for the Presidency and that the Secretary of Defense would, in theory, have a strong understanding of military, national defense, and armed conflict matters. As well, the two advocate for the inclusion of legal staff from the Department of Defense and allow these person’s assessments on the release of nuclear weapons and military law to be provided to those policymakers in charge.
The dangers many policy theorists and members of the public are concerned about can be reduced by this option. While they cannot be completely reduced and there could still prove to be problems, these safe guards would ensure for more options to be considered and thoroughly thought out with careful, legal assessments being made by knowledgeable professionals dedicated to their craft.
In an age where a single misstep would result in all out nuclear war and the destruction of human life entirely, the need to correctly evaluate a first use nuclear launch with calm and through collation, analysis, and dissemination of the facts is a must. Even more seriously, the need for joint collaboration and discussion along with mentally competent leaders is a must.
The idea of leaving a decision of this magnitude up to a single person who may not be thinking logically or in a factual way is a foolish one in my view and one that cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to occur.
