Newly introduced this week in both the House and the Senate, a new bill being sponsored by Congressional Democrats would restrict the ability of the United States to launch nuclear first strikes, forbidding a sitting president from unilaterally ordering such strikes without a Congressional declaration of war.
Sen. Edward Markey (D – MA), who introduced the bill in the Senate, argued that the legislation is needed because President Trump has “suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists,” insisting that giving the president unilateral control over the arsenal gives him that option, and risks “unintended nuclear escalation.”
It’s not at all clear that Trump would seriously consider a nuclear first strike against a terrorist group, however, and recent comments from Trump have centered on calls to negotiate a disarmament agreement with the Russian Federation. Still, the bill would limit nuclear strikes not just by Trump, but by other future presidents.
The legislation is seen as unlikely to pass in a Republican-dominated Congress, and there is as yet little sign of serious bipartisan support. The question of a US policy not to strike first with nuclear weapons has been a contentious one, with President Obama considering a pledge not to do so at all, and several more hawkish cabinet members warning it would be a “sign of weakness.”
This is comical President Bush announced that United States has claimed the right to use a first strike to prevent a war . Now I noticed the democrats want to tie Trump up .. I thought this very stupid to announce this to Russia . Where a first strike might be a very big advantage .. I presume Russia and China might have announced the same policy by now . I don’t think I have every struck first in my whole life except maybe with my mouth . I think whoever strikes first is the aggressor and the fault of the fight . I don’t like to be the criminal , so I won’t fault the democrats on this .
While I recognize how this may have seemed a practical approach that may be good overall, it could expand the trend where the US engages in wars without declaring them. Declaring war would legalize the president nuking that country, which Trump might be crazy enough to do in a perfect storm situation. The real way to keep presidents from going nuclear is to stop funding new nukes and dismantle the ones we have.
What could go wrong?
Is anybody contemplating mass murder on a scale never before seen likely to be prevented by a “law”? If you can kill millions, what are a few Senators, Congressmen, judges, gays, illegals, CNN reporters etc.?
If anybody believes that nuclear weapons can be used and then everybody will slap on a “Support our Troops” sticker and go to the mall they are nuts. If it comes to pass, I’ll be eating some rich people and taking everything they own.
This is totally out of character for the US. It’s designed by the Dems to show how dangerous Trump really is. And how could it fail to do that unless Trump and his party agree with it.
Which is good politics. Not to suggest that the Dems are any less warmongers than the Repubs because they aren’t. But to help to destroy Trump, which seems to be going along quite well so far. The psychopathic Trump is dangerous to the future of the world.
Why I feel like seen Trump as a 12 years old boy somehow managed to get Kalashnikov running around in the shopping centre and say ; boom boom boom.
The USA’s most probable “first use” of nuclear weapons will be a stealth strike against Iran’s Parchin underground nuclear weapons factories. It will be carried out by F-35As flying from the USA’s airbase in Turkey. The bombs will be the B61-11 (a 400 KT ground penetrator) and the B61-12 (a variable yield smart bomb.) I’m sure that DJT wants to retain this option, so even if the measure were to be passed into law, he would veto it.