Democrats don't trust Biden with nuclear weapons

[url]https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-defense/2021/02/23/tester-outlines-defense-budget-strategy-793538[/url]

[quote]REDUCING ‘REAL RISKS’: Nearly three dozen House Democrats on Monday called on Biden to relinquish his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, in the latest appeal to reform the command-and-control structure so that no single person can initiate a nuclear war.

“...Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks,” states the letter spearheaded by Rep. Jimmy Panetta of California. “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.“

“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter adds. “The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”

They offer a number of alternatives, including requiring other officials in the line of succession, such as the vice president and the speaker of the House — “neither of whom can be removed by the president if they disagree — to concur with a launch order.”[/quote]

[img]https://cdn.talkingpointsmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/GettyImages-1203461561.jpg[/img]

Who would trust him? He has dementia.

They probably don't want him to confuse it for his Life Alert button

For a matter of expediency, it’s probably best to leave it in the sole decision of one person.

If a US city is nuked, it would most likely be from an undetectable surprise attack. Most likely, there would be more on the way that will be landing in minutes. A retaliatory decision must be made immediately in order to have a chance.

If the government has to loop in 3 people, it’s going to take time to contact them in each location, then patch them in on a call, then for an agreement to be made, and the order to be sent. Probably would take 10-15 minutes.

With one individual the decision can be made 1-5 minutes.

Now the question is, which US city is most likely to be first one nuked? DC is my pick.

[QUOTE=MuscleXtreme;1632176463]For a matter of expediency, it’s probably best to leave it in the sole decision of one person.

If a US city is nuked, it would most likely be from an undetectable surprise attack. Most likely, there would be more on the way that will be landing in minutes. A retaliatory decision must be made immediately in order to have a chance.

If the government has to loop in 3 people, it’s going to take time to contact them in each location, then patch them in on a call, then for an agreement to be made, and the order to be sent. Probably would take 10-15 minutes.

With one individual the decision can be made 1-5 minutes.

Now the question is, which US city is most likely to be first one nuked? DC is my pick.[/QUOTE]

It's easy enough to address that. We can have automatic contingencies for secondary strikes. Primary strikes should still have some check.

The Bay Area would probably be the priority target due to its importance for internet infrastructure.

I don't trust anyone with nukes.

[QUOTE=MuscleXtreme;1632176463]For a matter of expediency, it’s probably best to leave it in the sole decision of one person.

If a US city is nuked, it would most likely be from an undetectable surprise attack. Most likely, there would be more on the way that will be landing in minutes. A retaliatory decision must be made immediately in order to have a chance.

If the government has to loop in 3 people, it’s going to take time to contact them in each location, then patch them in on a call, then for an agreement to be made, and the order to be sent. Probably would take 10-15 minutes.

With one individual the decision can be made 1-5 minutes.

Now the question is, which US city is most likely to be first one nuked? DC is my pick.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure ICBM sub commanders have the authority for a second strike. USAF used to have an EC-135 in the air at all times with second strike authority.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EC-135#:~:text=The%20Boeing%20EC-135%20is%20a%20retired%20command%20and,Air%20Command%20in%20the%20event%20of%20nuclear%20war[/url].

We still have aircraft that serve this purpose notably the E6B, VC-25, and E-4

I wouldn't trust Biden with a microwave and a pop-tart.

Hahaha they're putting grandpa in the home already and it's only been a month.

i would give my life for thermonuclear mirv missile systems

[QUOTE=climberbrah;1632177313]i would give my life for thermonuclear mirv missile systems[/QUOTE]

So would Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

[QUOTE=wincel;1632176593]

The Bay Area would probably be the priority target due to its importance for internet infrastructure.[/QUOTE]

The Bay Area is NOT important for Internet infrastructure. The "Internet" is TCP/IP v4 and v6, which was designed around mass loss of circuits in a nuclear war to be survivable until the last POP is gone. Google and ******** aren't the Internet, jackass.

[QUOTE=terrorgunt;1632182563]The Bay Area is NOT important for Internet infrastructure. The "Internet" is TCP/IP v4 and v6, which was designed around mass loss of circuits in a nuclear war to be survivable until the last POP is gone. Google and ******** aren't the Internet, jackass.[/QUOTE]

Just lmao at the **** he posts


The springs would be a bigger target than the bay area

[QUOTE=GooBaaa;1632182823]Just lmao at the **** he posts


The springs would be bigger target than the bay area[/QUOTE]

They could rename Cheyanne Mountain to Cheyanne Valley

[QUOTE=terrorgunt;1632182563]The Bay Area is NOT important for Internet infrastructure. The "Internet" is TCP/IP v4 and v6, which was designed around mass loss of circuits in a nuclear war to be survivable until the last POP is gone. Google and ******** aren't the Internet, jackass.[/QUOTE]

Were you around when google went down for a few mins? Do you remember that 40% of the internet went dark?

[url]https://www.cnet.com/news/google-goes-down-for-5-minutes-internet-traffic-drops-40/[/url]

That was in 2013. Yes, Google and ******** are a huge part of all internet activity now.

You guys are pretty dumb. The economic damage of losing the Bay Area would outweigh most other targets.

[QUOTE=wincel;1632182953]Were you around when google went down for a few mins? Do you remember that 40% of the internet went dark?

[url]https://www.cnet.com/news/google-goes-down-for-5-minutes-internet-traffic-drops-40/[/url]

That was in 2013. Yes, Google and ******** are a huge part of all internet activity now.

You guys are pretty dumb.[/QUOTE]

40% of the Internet absolutely did not "go dark". You don't even know what the Internet is. ********'s only involvement in "the Internet" is it has services attached to routable addresses.

40% of web activity is not 40% of "The Internet" you baboon.

The Internet is completely decentralized. If Google and ******** ceased to exist overnight, the peering that makes up the Internet wouldn't even notice.

Services that are used over the Internet have nothing to do with the Internet itself. Got it, dingleberry?

[QUOTE=wincel;1632182953]Were you around when google went down for a few mins? Do you remember that 40% of the internet went dark?

[url]https://www.cnet.com/news/google-goes-down-for-5-minutes-internet-traffic-drops-40/[/url]

That was in 2013. Yes, Google and ******** are a huge part of all internet activity now.

You guys are pretty dumb. The economic damage of losing the Bay Area would outweigh most other targets.[/QUOTE]

Yes because during a nuclear attack the first concern is making sure soccer moms can Google a banana bread recipe.

People searching for pron =/= the internet, and the Bay area is 4th as far as size of economy, more than 3x smaller than NYC and not all that much bigger than Atlanta, which is like 20th. Hell, LA is 2x larger economically.

Your knowledge in this subject is on par with an 85 year old i know who believed Qanon that the "internet killswitch" was going to be deployed last spring so Hillary Clinton and Forrest Gump could be arrested for child trafficking, just btw. Good company for you to be honest.

[QUOTE=MuscleXtreme;1632176463]For a matter of expediency, it’s probably best to leave it in the sole decision of one person.

If a US city is nuked, it would most likely be from an undetectable surprise attack. Most likely, there would be more on the way that will be landing in minutes. A retaliatory decision must be made immediately in order to have a chance.

If the government has to loop in 3 people, it’s going to take time to contact them in each location, then patch them in on a call, then for an agreement to be made, and the order to be sent. Probably would take 10-15 minutes.

With one individual the decision can be made 1-5 minutes.

Now the question is, which US city is most likely to be first one nuked? DC is my pick.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the decision should be up to one person - but I don't think it should because of expediency. If we get surprised by an attack, there would be no way to know what happened within 15 minutes. A nuke can wait 15 minutes, to make sure that the right target is on the business end.