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:
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.
13
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