Yes. This is not an automated process, the president can't just hit a button to launch. While the generals have to obey the rules - they still can just say "no" if there is no logical explanation for the strike.
Adding more safeguards could slow down the response in case of an actual attack and could do more harm than good.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42065714
> Adding more safeguards could slow down the response in case of an actual attack and could do more harm than good.
Retaliating doesn't actually do any good. It increases the body count on the other side, but does nothing to help those in the US about to be atomized. It's not like the missiles will collide in mid-air.
What matters is the believed threat of retaliation because that may prevent an attack in the first place. The optimal system in terms of human life and safety is:
1. All foreign governments 100% believe that the US has complete capability to retaliate with devastating force at a moment's notice and will do so with zero hesitation.
2. But the US actually has no such capability so that an accidental first strike on a false alarm is impossible.
The tension between those two is the hard part. :)
International law is one consideration but under US law, the generals are not allowed to refuse a launch order. Possibly they would anyway, but it's a poorly designed system that in some circumstances relies on people stepping outside the system in order to prevent WWIII.
Retaliation is another matter, but we at least need more safeguards against a president launching first. A good argument can be made that we shouldn't allow first strikes at all.
> International law is one consideration but under US law, the generals are not allowed to refuse a launch order.
That is not my understanding from talking with people in the army. What I understand is that anyone in the armed forced is not only allowed, but required, to refuse a unlawful order given by anyone, even the president. Executing on a unlawful order is a crime and you can end up court marshalled or even executed if the outcome is bad enough. The Nuremberg defense ("I was just following orders") does not fly in the US military.
I wonder how someone who receives an order is expected to determine if it's lawful or not, especially within 60 seconds? Doesn't that require a court of law to decide?
I asked a similar question, my understanding is it's a matter of degrees. If you follow a unlawful order and say file paperwork the wrong way that probably won't result in a court marshal, if you burn down a village in a friendly country you most certainly would.
That said Congress is supposed to declare war so most of the wars we have been fighting for the past two decades are likely unlawful. I doubt you would be successful refusing to execute a drone strike on that basis. However if the president called up drunk one night and ordered your to bomb London, I suspect you'd be safe in that refusal.
For a use of nuclear force to be legal, it must satisfy customary requirements of necessity, distinction, proportionality, and avoidance of unnecessary suffering.
I presume that was sarcasm, but it has some truth to it. Yes, the military trains for obedience. It also trains for independent thought. Your comms can be compromised, meaning you could be receiving information and orders from a hostile party. Or they could be completely cut off, and you could be receiving no orders, meaning you have to figure out what to do on your own. Or you could have a window of opportunity that lies outside the scope of your orders, and it could be gone by the time you get permission or approval. Or...
So, yes, the military does train for a degree of independent, critical thinking.
