By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Democratic Representatives Markey and Lieu urged President Biden to curtail the president’s sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, citing concerns about the potential for unilateral action by a future president. Their letter emphasizes the inherent danger of this unchecked power, particularly given Donald Trump’s past rhetoric regarding nuclear weapons. The lawmakers proposed requiring Congressional authorization for any nuclear first strike, reserving unilateral presidential response only to an existing nuclear attack. This policy change, they argued, would be a significant part of Biden’s legacy.
Read the original article here
Joe Biden is facing intense pressure to curtail Donald Trump’s access to nuclear launch authority. The calls for action stem from deep-seated concerns about Trump’s temperament, past rhetoric, and perceived lack of judgment. The underlying anxiety focuses on the potential for catastrophic misuse of nuclear weapons should Trump regain the presidency.
However, the practicalities of such a move are incredibly complex, bordering on impossible within the existing legal and constitutional framework. The idea that Biden could unilaterally strip Trump of this power is a significant oversimplification. The authority to launch nuclear weapons rests with the President, a power explicitly granted and deeply entrenched within the executive branch.
Any attempt to legislatively restrict this authority would face immediate and insurmountable hurdles. Crafting a law to that effect would be exceptionally challenging, likely deemed unconstitutional by many legal scholars, and would almost certainly fail to garner bipartisan support in Congress. Even if such a law were passed, its implementation and enforcement would be exceedingly difficult, and a future Republican administration could easily repeal it.
Some argue that the very nature of the situation makes any attempts to preemptively restrict access to nuclear codes futile. The argument goes that in a true crisis – such as a nuclear attack against the US – the President’s authority to retaliate unilaterally is paramount, regardless of any prior legislative restrictions. The military chain of command is structured to ensure swift response to such threats, without requiring congressional approval in the heat of the moment. This reality makes discussions about preemptive limitations on presidential power largely moot in crisis scenarios.
The inherent limitations of the suggested solutions are apparent. The suggestion of symbolic actions that could be quickly reversed is realistic but offers minimal assurance. Likewise, calls for legislative action are unlikely to succeed given the political climate and the fundamental power dynamics involved. The idea that the military could, or would, refuse to obey a presidential order regarding nuclear weapons is also highly improbable, given the established chain of command and the critical nature of such an order.
Furthermore, the very discussion highlights a deeper societal concern: the fear of a leader capable of triggering nuclear war. This concern extends beyond mere political posturing and reveals underlying anxieties about the potential consequences of electing leaders perceived as reckless or prone to impulsive decision-making. The debate reflects a broader discussion on the checks and balances within the American political system and the limitations of existing mechanisms to prevent potential catastrophes.
The suggestions to “hide the football,” to appeal to Trump’s vanity, or even to launch all nuclear weapons into space, while intriguing, are inherently impractical, unrealistic, and even fantastical. They highlight the sense of helplessness and frustration surrounding the situation.
The potential for a future Trump presidency to drastically alter the political, economic, and social landscape is a separate but related concern. However, focusing solely on the nuclear threat overlooks the multitude of other potentially damaging actions a Trump administration might undertake.
In essence, the pressure on Joe Biden to remove Trump’s nuclear launch authority is understandable, stemming from a justifiable fear of potential consequences. However, the feasibility of actually achieving this objective through any currently available means is exceedingly low. The discussion underscores a fundamental flaw in the system—the vesting of such immense and potentially world-altering power in the hands of a single individual. The ongoing debate highlights the critical need for a thorough review of processes and safeguards surrounding nuclear weapons control, a discussion that should transcend partisan politics and focus on the safety and security of the entire world.