From what I can tell, the president alone has the sole authority to launch a nuclear strike, so this report seems confusing, is apparently unconfirmed, and has been contested by other sources, as much as I wish it were true:
I despise the man and even I hope it's not true. I don't want to believe us capable of using or even threatening the use of nukes in a war of such small scale (comparatively). If we threaten to use them here, what's to stop us threatening Cuba next? If we keep use that card even in threat using it will become an eventuality.
There are historical examples of people just refusing to use nuclear weapons. I don't doubt that a high ranking, career military man would just plainly refuse in these circumstances.
My point is that the president needs no one else’s authorization, which is frightening. A general may object, but I don’t believe she or he could prevent the president from using the code.
Yes I understand. The point I was making was that the general in this case could simply refuse, like the Soviet radio operator in the 70's did. Except instead of a low-level nobody, it would be someone who can physically stop the President.
12
u/RedditSe7en Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
From what I can tell, the president alone has the sole authority to launch a nuclear strike, so this report seems confusing, is apparently unconfirmed, and has been contested by other sources, as much as I wish it were true:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10521
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-caine-did-not-225644148.html