Pelosi's talk of limits on Trump nuke power raises old worry

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's concern about President Donald Trump potentially ordering launch of a nuclear weapon in his final days in office highlights a little-kwn fact: Launch authority rests with president alone. It also resurfaces a question with certain answer: What would happen if a military commander determined, based on legal judgment, that a president's nuclear launch order was illegal? commander might refuse such an order, but n what?

Trump has given indication he is considering using nuclear weapons, but Pelosi expressed worry that an “unhinged” president might start a war. She said she spoke Friday to Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, about “available precautions” to prevent Trump from initiating military action or ordering a nuclear launch, and she told colleagues she was given unspecified assurances that re are longstanding safeguards in place.

A spokesman for Milley, Col. Dave Butler, confirmed that Pelosi called Milley. “He answered her questions regarding process of nuclear command authority,” Butler said, declining to reveal details. Pelosi's concerns highlight fact, dating to dawn of nuclear in 1940s, that president has sole authority to order a U.S. nuclear attack. ne since Harry Truman has done so. president is t required to gain consent of anyone else — t within his administration, t in military, t in Congress. re are, however, some safeguards that could come into play.

Although it would be unprecedented, a military officer could refuse to obey a president's order to launch a nuclear weapon if a legal assessment concluded that it constituted an illegal act under internationally recognized laws of armed conflict. This is a murky area, given that circumstance has never arisen.

“If military gets an illegitimate order from president of United States, military can and should refuse that order in a situation where it is widely seen that president is unfit and incapable of making a rational decision,” said Tom Z. Collina, co-author with former Defense Secretary William J. Perry of a book, “ Button,” about nuclear dangers and presidential command authority.

Under existing procedures, a president who was considering need to use nuclear weapons would be expected to consult with advisers, most likely to include secretary of defense, chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commander of U.S. Strategic Command, which has operational control over nuclear arsenal. Various assessments would be made, including legal aspects of strike options.

current arrangement in which sole authority to order a nuclear launch rests with president is t written in law. It was created by Truman as a means to keep decisions about use of world's most dangerous weapons in civilian rar than military hands. authority is considered inherent in a president's constitutional role as commander in chief.

During Cold War, prospect of nuclear war meant having to respond within minutes to a wave of Soviet missiles zeroing in on United States. Time would be of essence. Thus is seemed to make sense to leave decision to one person, without need for time-consuming consultations with Congress.

But times have changed. Some argue that traditional “sole-authority" approach must change, too. “Once in office, a president gains absolute authority to start a nuclear war,” Collina and Perry wrote in a Politico opinion article published Friday. “Within minutes, Trump can unleash hundreds of atomic bombs, or just one. He does t need a second opinion.”

Collina, Perry and ors have been pushing for Congress to alter nuclear command authority so that it is shared between president and Congress. issue has been raised repeatedly during Trump's presidency. In vember 2017 Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a public hearing on subject — first hearing of its kind in several decades.

Testifying at that hearing, a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces, retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, was asked what would happen if a president ordered a nuclear strike, for whatever reason, and four-star general at Strategic Command balked or refused, believing it to be illegal.

“You’d be in a very interesting constitutional situation," Kehler replied. Also in vember 2017, Air Force general who was commanding Strategic Command at time raised possibility of having to refuse an illegal launch order. That officer, Gen. John Hyten, who is w vice chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed that in any circumstance military is obliged to only follow legal orders.

“I provide advice to president,” Hyten said. “He’ll tell me what to do, and if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m gonna say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ Guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever situation is, and that’s way it works. It’s t that complicated.”

(Im Credit: AP)