Alex WellersteinVerified account

This has two important consequences: 1. it makes it entirely un-transparent (these procedures seem to have changed quite a bit over the years), and 2. it means that two branches of government (Legislative and Judicial) have had essentially zero input.

The President always had a 60 day window to enter into a conflict and resolve or remove forces. Nuclear forces can be considered under current law to be a proper Military Option. Grenada is one example of Presidential approval to invade a nation.

The President was always (and still allowed) to launch our forces towards the former Soviet Union without Congressional approval.

But your observations that other hostile actors now have dirty bombs and atomic weapons are fact. How can a President launch a legal nuclear response? The truth? Because he’s in office and the civilian leader of our country.

The Strategic Air Command provides the launch scenarios and practice routine fueling & launch exercises including checking if their silo crews are willing to deploy their assets.

So, if the President of the United States cannot be trusted to responsibly deploy our conventional and nuclear forces, he should resign or legally removed from office.

The problem with this approach is 1) an untrustworthy (for whatever reason) President unlikely to resign for that reason, and 2) the means for removing Presidents are slow, purposefully difficult.

Separately, the "untrustworthiness" of a President may not be obvious at all times, in far advance, etc. And so while I agree that, in general, if you don't trust a President with nukes, you shouldn't allow them to be or remain President, it's not very realistic policy.