US loophole with nukes?

[ybbor]

i was just thinking, the thing today that stops the US from not declaring war and calling it a police action, or something is somelaw that states we can't send our troops overseas without congres' permission [i'm not sure what's called, i'm sure someone knows] does this leave open the possibility of launching missles [nuclear or non] as long as we don't send troops overseas? or does the text forbid that to?

 

[Archer 007]

I dont even think that laws forbid the use of force without Congression approval, at least if it is a short-term action.

 

[Shadylookin]

I thought the US policy on a nuclear attack was that the agressor had to use them first(or launch them first), in the unlikely hood of a nuclear exchange there will likely be no congress left. I thought we had to get congress permission anyway I know we got permission for iraq.

 

[TubaGuy]

The President can send troops anywhere for a set duration of time. I think that came about from the Gulf on Tonkien and LBJ.

 

[marshal zhukov]

Can the US launch a nuclear attack against a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons?

 

[cgannon64]

Would the US?

This question is moot.

 

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by ybbor
i was just thinking, the thing today that stops the US from not declaring war and calling it a police action, or something is somelaw that states we can't send our troops overseas without congres' permission [i'm not sure what's called, i'm sure someone knows] does this leave open the possibility of launching missles [nuclear or non] as long as we don't send troops overseas? or does the text forbid that to?

Well, I don't recall every airstrike ordered since the War Powers act was passed being approved by an act of Congress.

However, nuclear warheads in the US military are rather more strictly controlled than high explosives. (In other words, there is no Button that the President or whomever can press to bathe some target in nuclear fire.)

 

[Speedo]

Nuclear weapons operate under the 2-man rule. Only certain people high up in the government have authorization to give/confirm a nuclear launch order. If the president orders a nuclear launch, his order must be confirmed by a second authorized person (ie, the National Security Advisor).

And of course, the anywhere along the military chain of command the order may be rejected as unlawful.

 

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Speedo
Nuclear weapons operate under the 2-man rule. Only certain people high up in the government have authorization to give/confirm a nuclear launch order. If the president orders a nuclear launch, his order must be confirmed by a second authorized person (ie, the National Security Advisor).

And of course, the anywhere along the military chain of command the order may be rejected as unlawful.

Right down to the crews of the plane/submarine/silo who will fire the weapons.

(Though IIRC, the SSBNs require at least five people to launch an SLBM.)

 

[cegman]

Ybbor you sig is too long

it is unlikely that there would be any chance of anything but a land invasion of the US other than by Illegal immigrants will cause a nuclear launch and even them they would have to have nukes or be able to defeat our Military and Hunters.

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

You might be talking about the War Powers Resolution.

 

[Pirate]

Originally posted by Shadylookin
I thought the US policy on a nuclear attack was that the agressor had to use them first(or launch them first), in the unlikely hood of a nuclear exchange there will likely be no congress left. I thought we had to get congress permission anyway I know we got permission for iraq.

Not true. The U.S. expressly maintains the right to first strike, as does Russia. This was the policy throughout the cold war. More recently both Clinton and Bush reaffirmed that it may be necessary to use nuclear weapons against chemical or biological weapons that would be neutralized by the sustained high heat of the blast. Nuclear weapons, though, are always thought of as a weapon of last resort (even by Bush).

Sources:
http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/12/971208-ap.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...e?searchtext=U.S. nuclear first strike policy

 

[joycem10]

The War Powers Act is on questionable constitutional footing, and Congress has never fully attempted to excercise the power granted under the act. Basically it gives the president sixty days to act as he sees fit. After that 60 days the congress must authorize the action or extend the time period in which the president is given free reign.

In practical terms there is little to limit a presidents' powers as commander in chief of the armed forces other than the Congress ability to limit available funding.

 

[vonork]

Did the US-congress ever declear war on Iraq btw... or was it a free reign to the pressident only, and never a delceard war?

 

[joycem10]

There has not been a declared war by the US since WWII. the Congress typically passes "resolutions" that are non-binding and serve only to release any congressional obligations under the war powers act. This was the case with both Gulf Wars.

No matter how much the Democratic presidential canidates like to bleat about which of them gave Bush a blank check via a resolution, they have no impact other than political cover.

Assuming that the Congress ever did attempt to enforce the provisions of the War Powers Act and voted to return troops from a foriegn engagement, the US would likely have its biggest constitutional crisis since the Nixon subpoeans. Presidents from both sides of the aisle, including Clinton and Carter, have argued that the WPA is unconstitutional as a direct interference of seperation of powers (there are some other minor constitutional issues as well). To my knowledge, none have accepted it as a legitimate check on presidential power.

 

[Ozz]

Re: US loophole with nukes?

Since when has the US needed a loophole?

Seems the President just plows ahead illegal or not.
(Bush - Iraq, Reagan- Contra, Nixon - Waterg....)

 

[Souron]

The president has full power to send troops anywhere. However, congress has ruled that for troops to stay in a foreign country for more then 60 days, it must ok it. This law has never been tried, but it is likely a president could call it unconstitutional. Also only the congress can formally declare war. We were never officially at "war" with Iraq.

 

[vonork]

Did Iraq after the first US attacks declear war against the US then?

 

[panzer_kevlar]

Originally posted by joycem10
There has not been a declared war by the US since WWII.

Not true. The US declared war against North Korea in the 1950's. However, Viatnam, Gulf War I, etc. were not officially declared "wars" by congress

 

[marshal zhukov]

Originally posted by cgannon64
Would the US?

This question is moot.

What I meant was in the case of war between the US and a country that does not have WMDs, the US would not attack this country with nuclear weapons at any circumstances. From what I read in here this seems to be true.