Miscellaneous desk
< July 20	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 21[edit]

Can a US President set off the nukes anytime he wants, even for no reason?[edit]

That's what a recent issue of Scientific American said.144.35.114.226 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not quote the wording from Scientific American? Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true, but generally there's some underling who is smart enough to countermand such an order. For an historical example, consider the time Henry Kissinger saved the planet from World War III: [1].--Jayron 32 04:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article: "Take Nukes Off a Short Fuse". ---Sluzzelin talk 00:32, 21 July y2017 (UTC)

(redactorial comment): The title of the question was changed (not by the OP). The original question, as phrased in the title, is about the current US President (2017). As some of the procedures involved have been modified during the past six decades, I think it's a relevant distinction. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable change. If Trump were to resign, Pence would become president, and the question about Trump would be irrelevant, while the question about "a US president" would still work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As our Nuclear football article says with sources, there is actually a requirement for someone generally the Secretary of Defense to verify the order, but this is only to verify that the order is genuine not that it makes sense. There isn't supposed to be a veto power. Whether this would actually be what happens in practice as Jayron32 hinted at, well I think everyone here is hoping we never know. As our article Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, nominally the VP only has to submit a written declaration to the "President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representative" that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and they take over as acting president and if there's dispute Congress decides. And it's not like there's a clear constitutional requirement for the Secretary of Defense or whatever to verify the order. So there are a lot of avenues, we hope, whereby what is supposed to happen in theory won't happen in practice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the difference between written policy and actual practice. Sure, as far as we can tell, Trump has the authority to order a nuclear attack and that authority is absolute. Whether a) the order is followed and b) whether, if disobeyed, there would be consequences for the person who disobeyed it depends on many factors. What we do know is that it has happened at least once that the President of the U.S. has issued an unambiguous order to use nuclear weapons, which was countermanded by an underling and where the order was not followed. --Jayron 32 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But do we know? The only evidence presented thus far seems to be the Nixon case linked above but the source presented above is fairly ambiguous. It says "The President got on the phone with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ordered plans for a tactical nuclear strike and recommendations for targets." Ordering plans for a tactical nuclear strike and recommendations for targets is something different from actually ordering a strike. There's also mention of the case of someone being "put on alert to carry out his part of the SIOP". But being put on alert is fairly unclear. Does it mean he was actually ordered to carry out the attack, or he was ordered to be ready in case it was needed? The other info strongly suggests it was the later. This would also suggest that the process the nuclear football is used for was probably not followed. AFAICT, that is only used for actually ordering strikes on specific targets but there's no evidence this ever got that far.

Notably while we don't know what would have happened if the Joint Chiefs hadn't been stood down, it's not clear to me that an actual strike would have been carried out. Was Nixon expecting the Chiefs to come up with a plan and then just carry out the attack themselves? This seems unlikely, I mean recommendations would seem to imply he still recognised it was his final decision what to attack, if anything. Further while the president's authorisation isn't required to carry out an attack in certain circumstances, I'm not sure whether even in theory "the president is drunk" is a good enough reason for the Joint Chiefs to carry out an attack without explicitly authorisation from the president when it isn't a clear MAD scenario. Heck even, then it would seem likely if there is time they'd prefer to get the VP to take over and given the authorisation first and actually this would probably be the expectation in theory too.

It's possible that, when presented with concrete plans when he was sober the president would have ordered an attack if his order to plan an attack was carried out. It's also possible the Soviets would have seen what was going on, panicked, things would have escalated. So I'm not saying it wasn't a very serious thing and possible the strike authorisation part would have come into play. But AFAICT it's not quite the same thing as what the OP seems to be referring to since AFAICT the authorisation was never actually issued.

And it's not even clear to me that the same rules apply. I would guess when the president orders plans to be developed, even when drunk, this ordered is supposed to be followed without question but I'm not sure. It's a different scenario and there are different considerations. Notably it seems to be a situation where there's a bit less urgency so it may be even in theory someone is actually allowed to ignore the president. (The president could fire them for example.) One of the reasons why an actual order for an attack may be expected to be followed without question is because of the MAD view that even a 10 minute delay could mean it's too late, so the president's specific orders for an attack may in theory be expected to be followed to the letter whatever the scenario.

To be clear as I said in my first reply, I'm not suggesting this would actually happen, I think there are good reasons to think it wouldn't in the right circumstances. My point is solely that AFAICT the Nixon scenario seems to be a different one from what we are talking about.

And I admit, I'm not even convinced theory requires that the president's orders are followed without question. As Insubordination says, it's generally held that refusing to perform something illegal or unethical is not insubordination. And the fact Superior orders is not an absolute defence is well established, particularly in the cases which gave it the common names Nuremberg defence. Of course one of the (many) problem is that you're often much more likely to be prosecuted for insubordination than for war crimes or whatever so many people do still carry out such orders.

Still I'd like to think that in the case of nuclear weapons, others involved would recognise that it doesn't have to be insubordination. Or maybe more likely, that they don't want them and their families and friends to die so who gives a damn whether it is or isn't. Of course the interesting point is that if it really is an extreme case where a delay would probably mean the orders can't be carried or it's too late, particularly in the Cold War days, there's a fair chance you weren't going to have to worry about whether it was insubordination or rightfully rejecting an illegal order anyway.

But this is perhaps detracting from the main point that despite what our article and other sources suggest, I'm not sure theory actually requires the president's order for a nuclear strike to be carried out without question. Of course not being an American, I am approaching this from an international POV that it's not okay for the president of the US to risk destroying the world just because they feel like it or because there's no point having nukes if you don't use them or because they want to prove once and for all that they're not friends with Russia or whatever, and any attempt to do so is a major violation of international law.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was very popular throughout the 80s. Media was flooded with images of Reagan launching all the nukes. The take-away was that Reagan had the authority to call for a nuclear strike, but it would be an act of war and follow the same rules as ordering a military strike on another country. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe only in theory. The fear with nukes has always been MAD, which is rather beyond the pale of conventional warfare and weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading: [2] 92.19.168.169 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License plate games[edit]

I don't remember when I started to do it, but I have always enjoyed looking at license plates and doing stuff with the numbers and letters. Sometimes I add all the numbers, trying to do it as fast as I can. Sometimes I imagine words using the letters. Do you do this too or any similar game? Do we have an article about this? Is there a name or explanation for this? emijrp (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try the License Plate Game [3] - with variants in different countries depending on how the system works. There is a British version here [4] Wymspen (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but do this instinctively with British number plates, which are readily "anagrammable" as they have either four or five letters depending on the age of the car (admittedly, pre-1963 cars had three or fewer letters...!). I do it in my head, seeing how many 4- or 5-letter words I can make, if any. I suppose I must have been doing this for over 30 years now! Funnily enough, I was in Northern Ireland earlier this week on holiday and I found it weird not to be able to do it as much, because Northern Irish number plates have only three letters and always include a Z and/or an I. I still have (kicking around somewhere in a cupboard) a book by Gyles Brandreth called Games for Trains, Planes and Wet Days which had several games of this type, both for numbers and for letters. I can try to find it if you like. I would also be interested in hearing if there has been any research into this, or any explanations etc. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The horrible license plate game when I had a 40 minute commute was to note the license plates of slow drivers I passed or fast drivers who passed me each day. A large cadre of drivers follow the same route at about the same time each day. Edison (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this article Car numberplate game. emijrp (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three - letter registration plates are still used on some London buses. They all contain the letter "Z", although as pointed out that historically indicated an Irish registration. 92.8.217.19 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]