Bin claims he's got nukes

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:


No but Bush is really to only American that can take the actions in his own hand and authorize the launch of nuclear device... I really doubt that his advisers would be able to contain him like they did after the 9-11 strike!

---

The presidency just doesn't work like that. Bush doesn't have a free hand to do whatever he pleases. The US government is a series of checks and balances between the three branchs of government. He is not a dictator and has not acted like one in this situation. The President of the United States has to operate within parameters and in conjuction with Congress.

He doesn't have his hand hovering over the "button" thinking, "go ahead, make my day." "Dirty Georgie" he is not...

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


The presidency just doesn't work like that. Bush doesn't have a free hand to do whatever he pleases. The US government is a series of checks and balances between the three branchs of government. He is not a dictator and has not acted like one in this situation. The President of the United States has to operate within parameters and in conjuction with Congress.

He doesn't have his hand hovering over the "button" thinking, "go ahead, make my day." "Dirty Georgie" he is not...

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

---

OK, but who, under the current US law as the sole power to authorize the launch (or use) or nuclear weapons? Only one person can do it: the President of the United States. It's within his power and he doesn't have to go to Congress or the Senate for that. (plus he already has their approval: the bill to fight terrorism authorized him to use "every means available").

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not affraid of Bush sending the world 20 minutes from now to nuke Afghanistan. What worries me is his retaliation to a nuclear strike on US soil (or another allied country).

(For some reason, everytime I talk about Bush and nukes, the image of that Texan pilot ridding his load in Dr Strangelove comes to my mind... maybe that's why the guy scares the crap out of me!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] )

[Barry the Sprout]

I should also point out, as a Brit, that there is absolutely nothing stopping Blair firing nukes off at anyone he likes. It is one of the most overlooked and scary aspects of Prime Ministerial power - the authorisation for nucleur missiles to be fired comes straight from Blair with no consitutional checks holding him back. And there is nothing in place to reprimand him if he does with the exception of Parliament which he shows complete contempt for. As Skunk says: Sleep Tight guys!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:


OK, but who, under the current US law as the sole power to authorize the launch (or use) or nuclear weapons? Only one person can do it: the President of the United States. It's within his power and he doesn't have to go to Congress or the Senate for that. (plus he already has their approval: the bill to fight terrorism authorized him to use "every means available").

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not affraid of Bush sending the world 20 minutes from now to nuke Afghanistan. What worries me is his retaliation to a nuclear strike on US soil (or another allied country).

(For some reason, everytime I talk about Bush and nukes, the image of that Texan pilot ridding his load in Dr Strangelove comes to my mind... maybe that's why the guy scares the crap out of me!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] )

---

AH-HAH! Now we get to the root of it. It's all Hollywood's fault..lol.

Bush w/couldn't fire a nuke without consulting Congress just as he does with everything else, but maybe, in theory... I find it hard to believe their aren't some pretty serious guidelines. I'll have to do some research. He'll consult Congress though if for no other reason than he won't want to take all the blame and there certainly won't be any glory [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Skunk]

I find it hard to believe that Bush has to seek the permission of congress in all situationsif he can fire a nuclear weapon...

What happens if china launches an all out attack at 4.00 am? With just 20 minutes flight time, do you really think that he would have to summon congress to a meeting in order to retaliate? Maybe the rules say that he should seek the approval of congress - but I think he has the means to act unilaterally if he feels he needs to...

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skunk:
I find it hard to believe that Bush has to seek the permission of congress in all situationsif he can fire a nuclear weapon...

What happens if china launches an all out attack at 4.00 am? With just 20 minutes flight time, do you really think that he would have to summon congress to a meeting in order to retaliate? Maybe the rules say that he should seek the approval of congress - but I think he has the means to act unilaterally if he feels he needs to...

---

Not the whole of congress, but the leadership. They are in constant contact in situations like this. He would consult them just as he would his advisors. It's not like someone could tell him "it's coming", and then he runs for the button. He wouldn't fire without confirmation and while they seek confirmation, consultations will be held, it's just the way it works. In that situation he probably could do it if they didn't agree, but they would be notified. With an inbound nuclear ICBM who's going to disagree?

The situation with Osama Bin Laden is different because it's not something that will be seen on the radar, but instead, discovered and stopped before hand (hopefully) or pointed out by a mushroom cloud. In the case of the latter, he would have to consult, and I don't think he could/would do it without approval. The world would certainly be against it, if for no other reason than the precident it would set, so he'd have to be damn sure his country was behind him.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

I don't know how good a news source this is, but here's something I didn't want to hear about terrorist nukes.

http://frontierpost.com.pk/main.asp?...te1=11/10/2001

Thoughts on the legitimacy of this article?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


AH-HAH! Now we get to the root of it. It's all Hollywood's fault..lol.

Bush w/couldn't fire a nuke without consulting Congress just as he does with everything else, but maybe, in theory... I find it hard to believe their aren't some pretty serious guidelines. I'll have to do some research. He'll consult Congress though if for no other reason than he won't want to take all the blame and there certainly won't be any glory [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

---

Yes, it's all Hollywood's fault (well, not totally, I don't base my information solely on Crimson Tide) [img]smile.gif[/img]

The fact remains that under the Constitution the President as the responsability to defend the country with any means available to him. In the case of an attack at 4:00, he would not consult with Congress or the Senate, he's just say "yes, retaliate" to the watch officier in Cheyenne Mountain and from there, the whole sequence of action would go.

As we speak, Bush can use Nuclear weapons to fight terrorism without discussing it with either Congress or the Senate. He's already go the approval of both bodies to fight "terrorism with ALL means available to him". So, if he desired to do so, he could authorize a nuclear strike on that 30sq miles of mountain and nobody in the US chambers could say anything about it because they already approved it!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:

As we speak, Bush can use Nuclear weapons to fight terrorism without discussing it with either Congress or the Senate. He's already go the approval of both bodies to fight "terrorism with ALL means available to him". So, if he desired to do so, he could authorize a nuclear strike on that 30sq miles of mountain and nobody in the US chambers could say anything about it because they already approved it!

---

But something would be said about it, he knows it and they know it. What they said and what they meant are clear. "Do what you have to do and we're watching." The use of nuclear weapons has not been approved since 1945, and even then, before weapons of mass destruction worries, the usage was discussed with the leadership because of the weapon's previously unheard of power.

None of us know the exact requirements for the launch of nuclear weapons, but based on the lack of use, it's pretty obvious it's not as easy as one man deciding. Admittedly, the safeguards were mainly due to fear of accidentally incurring a retaliatory strike from the Soviets. I doubt those safeguards have been removed with the fall of the Soviet Union. He would consult because it's the constitutional thing to do.

BTW, will someone check and resize their post so this page will all fit on the same screen without scrolling left to right?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:

BTW, will someone check and resize their post so this page will all fit on the same screen without scrolling left to right?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

---

I don't have any problems with left-right scrolling on my screen. What resolution are you on? I'm 1024x768 but I think the board runs on 800x600.