Senators question extent of Trump's power to order nuclear strike

Ajustar Comentario Impresión

The Democrat who represents Maryland said today's security challenges require the Senate to revisit the United States' posture that the commander in chief should have the 'sole and unchecked authority' to authorize the use of nuclear force.

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, the chair of the committee, has been publicly feuding with Trump and declined to answer last month if he trusted the president with the nuclear codes.

Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said on Tuesday that he's concerned President Donald Trump is "so unstable, so volatile" that he may fire off a nuclear attack that would be "wildly out of step" with U.S. national security interests.

Corker says numerous lawmakers have raised questions about legislative and presidential war-making authorities and the use of America's nuclear arsenal.

To the extent that the American people have given much thought to what a war with North Korea might entail, my guess is that most have assumed that the United States could bomb North Korea back to the Stone Age, thus finally making the world safe from that despotic regime's delusions of nuclear grandeur.

"Many interpret that to mean that the president is actively considering the use of nuclear weapons in order to deal with the threat of North Korea".

"Every single word that has been uttered this morning at this hearing is going to be analyzed in Pyongyang", said Republican Senator Jim Risch, who is in line to become chairman after Corker retires next year.

Another Duke connection at the hearing comes from committee member and Kentucky Sen.

"Once that order is given and verified, there is no way to revoke it", the Tennessee senator said.

Under certain circumstances, he explained: "I would have said, 'I'm not ready to proceed'". Trump himself has had multiple briefings on the nuclear launch cycle and more conventional, non-nuclear alternatives. "It's going to be a very robust period of time". "The military is obligated to follow legal orders but is not obligated to follow illegal orders", Kehler said, adding that he always made sure he had legal advisers at hand when he was at Strategic Command.

But even Corker has questioned Trump's 'stability' and 'competence' in the past.

"This shouldn't be taken as something that is specific to anyone", he said. "Fortunately, these are all hypothetical scenarios".

The US is closely monitoring the spread of extremism in the Southeast Asia.

"I remain concerned about China's efforts to build and militarise outposts in the South China Sea".

Alongside Singapore, the US has proposed that all members of the East Asia Summit adopt a statement reaffirming their commitment to the elimination and non-proliferation of chemical weapons, Trump said. "Unfortunately, I cannot make that assurance today".

Two other witnesses also warned that any attempts to restrict the president's power to order nuclear strikes could have unintended consequences.

Trump said the US supported efforts to end the violence, to ensure accountability for atrocities committed, and to facilitate the safe and voluntary return of the refugees. "Stop. We need to resolve these issues, or we need to address these questions, or whatever". Is the president waking up the military demanding a strike, or is the military waking up the president asking for action.

At the same time in terms of negotiations to avoid war, Trump offered the North Koreans not the slightest enticement to enter into talks, by firmly restating the U.S. demand for "the complete, verifiable and permanent denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula".

New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen noted said she wanted "the President to act in a way that acknowledges input from a lot of experts and not to act based on a Twitter post". Edward Markey, is why his bill requiring a president to seek congressional approval before launching a first strike is so necessary.