Could a President Trump simply fire off a nuke, as Clinton warned during debate?

Could a President Trump simply fire off a nuke, as Clinton warned during debate?

During Monday’s presidential debate, Hillary Clinton questioned whether Donald Trump has the temperament to handle America’s nuclear arsenal.

Clinton’s concerns would have been far better directed at outgoing Vice President Joe Biden, who clearly demonstrated, at one of her own rallies no less, that he does not. Crazy Joe was attempting to make the same argument about Trump when he shared with the audience the fact that a “guy” who “has the nuclear codes” follows him and went so far as to point to the man out.

But Biden won’t be a problem much longer, whereas Trump — in Hillary’s considered opinion — poses a threat to national security. Again, I need to pause and emphasize the irony of this charge coming from a woman who sent and received hundreds, if not thousands, of classified messages over a private unsecured computer.

Back to Clinton and her allegation. “A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes,” Clinton said.

Throughout her campaign, Clinton regularly asks whether Trump should be entrusted with the nuclear football.

Clinton’s statement raises the question of whether the President of the United States actually possesses the ability to launch a unilateral nuclear strike against another country?

Theoretically, the answer is yes.

In the nuclear age, leaders must have the ability to respond to potential nuclear threats quickly. The system in place for a nuclear attack, be it preemptive or reactive, ensures expedience first and foremost.

Were China or Russia to fire a nuclear-tipped missile at the U.S. from a land-based firing position, the president would have roughly thirty minutes to respond. In the case of a submarine strike, the time available for the president to make a decision might be less than half that time.

The president has a card with the nuclear codes called the “biscuit.” The president is also accompanied by an aide carrying the “nuclear football,” a briefcase with the equipment for a nuclear strike.

The president has the authority to  order a unilateral nuclear strike. The Secretary of Defense, however, must confirm the order. Were the Secretary of Defense to choose not to relay the order, the president could fire the Secretary of Defense, allowing the Deputy Secretary of Defense to take over as acting Secretary of Defense and make a decision on the nuclear strike order.

The Secretary of Defense is tasked with approving the President’s nuclear strike order under the provisions of the Two-Person Concept (TPC); however, the Secretary of Defense does not legally have the ability to cancel the order.

The TPC is implemented down the line, but it is strictly for verification purposes, not approval.

The only way to prevent the president from launching a nuclear strike is to have him deemed incapacitated. Were a president to attempt to launch a preemptive strike recklessly against another country, top officials and cabinet members might choose to go this route.

Trump’s stance on nuclear weapons is somewhat unclear. “I would certainly not do first strike,” he said during the debate. “At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table,” he added.

Then again, you have to wonder Clinton’s capacity for keeping the nation safe. As noted yesterday, she failed to take the highest security training at the State Department in 2009 when she assumed the mantle of secretary. Between that and her capricious use of a private email account to conduct highly classified affairs of state, she has little room to criticize her opponent over not having the right mindset.

This report, by Ryan Pickrell, was cross-posted in altered form by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.

Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.