@wellerstein My reading of this is that in 1948, the military definitely did not have the authority for use.
I'm not saying they had authority to use — I'm saying there wasn't a formal policy. It's clear that military did not feel they had authority but also didn't feel they knew who really did. What I am interested in is how that got assigned to POTUS and not other possibilities.
-
-
Why do you think the military would assume it didn’t default to POTUS? I don’t think it’s a question of assigning to POTUS, I think it’s a question fo reassigning from POTUS.
-
The whole reason to have NSC-30 was to clarify the policy because *there wasn't one in place.* Royall & State clearly aren't sure. The relevance of the AEA here is that military had custody of zero weapons in 1948, so anything had to flow from POTUS in *practical* terms.
-
But once they had custody of any cores (as they were pushing for), then question of authority for *use* would become paramount. (And they did not get custody of any until 1950.)
-
But aren’t these the same question. Asking for authority for custody and use, or just for use when custody is already assured is still the same respect for presidential decision to use atomic weapons. Use of weapons is an act of war, which requires presidential decision….
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.