I will breathe a lot easier a week from now. This system definitely needs to be reformed.<p>Daniel Ellsberg's recent book <i>The Doomsday Machine</i> supports a lot of this, but adds that historically, theater military commanders have also had independent launch authority, and as far as he can tell, they still do.<p>(Ellsberg is best known for the Pentagon Papers but his job was actually nuclear strategy. He'd intended to publish documentation on that as well, but thought if he did that first, nobody would even care about the Vietnam stuff. The nuclear papers were lost before he published them.)
The U.S nuclear protocols are secret and very little is known about their current situation. Optimal deterrence position is when enemy is uncertain what the protocol is but the US actually has launch after confirmation. Land launched ICBM's are not absolutely necessary for US deterrence anymore, so launching them before they are destroyed is not necessary.<p>While the US certainly maintains the technical ability to have launch on warning, it seems that it might not be the policy.<p>Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine
<a href="https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-new-guidelines-us-nuclear-weapons-doctrine" rel="nofollow">https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/news/clinton-issues-...</a><p>> ... while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.
Seems like a rogue presidential order wouldn't get past the "war room at the Pentagon", they need to actually send the message to the silos.<p>I assume they are fully aware of the threat level and aren't going to level London on a Tuesday afternoon for no reason.
More about the lack of or simply bad protocols, but if you want a good read and scare yourself “Command and Control” by Eric Schlosser is highly recommended.
If you're ever around Tucson AZ, I recommend a visit to the Titan Missile Museum. (No affiliation, just a fan.) The tour includes a simulated launch order, two volunteers are chosen to turn the keys, and the ancient control panel will blink its lights in sequence.<p><a href="https://titanmissilemuseum.org/" rel="nofollow">https://titanmissilemuseum.org/</a>
Really good article.<p>I don't know much about nuclear policy myself, but I know this guy @DavidSantoro1 in Oahu who works on that, and recommend following him if you are interested in nuclear issues.<p>This is especially relevant to people in Hawaii, which is the only state, as far as I know, to have sent all its residents an emergency warning that a missile was about to hit (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Hawaii_false_missile_alert" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Hawaii_false_missile_aler...</a>). Luckily it was a mistake and the only affect was a million funny stories about how everyone reacted (btw: someone should write a book cataloging the best reactions!).
William J. Perry Project: Working to End the Nuclear Threat
<a href="https://www.wjperryproject.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wjperryproject.org/</a>
A good read if you are interested in the topic. I do take exception with the constant tonal use of absolutes which seem to be trying to lead the reader to a false conclusion based on that false fear.<p>If the president (Biden or Trump) ordered a first strike nuke against Toronto or London there is a 0% chance it would happen. I personally doubt that an order against Moscow or Pyongyang would be followed either, but I wouldn’t argue with someone who wanted to take a position that those first strike orders would be followed.<p>My point is just that there is obvious a lot more...”human nuance” in the situation that the author is describing.