@wellerstein My reading of this is that in 1948, the military definitely did not have the authority for use.
-
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….
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The reason for requesting predelegation authority is simply to respond to an attack in progress.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Perhaps we can continue this offline… DM me if you’d like.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.