For most people today, the threat of nuclear war seems like a forgotten memory or a science fiction plot. But the truth is far more disturbing than that. Nuclear launch procedures appear to have changed, and the power to end life as we know it now rests in the hands of just two men  – one a political leader, the other a military leader.

That is not an opinion or idle speculation. It is a structural reality baked into official nuclear command protocol. As global tensions rise and conflicting ideologies grow more strident, the frightening implications of such a precarious system become more ominous.

Systems Built for Speed, Not Safety

Nuclear command authority has always been concentrated in the hands of a few. In most countries, heads-of-state usually issue nuclear strike orders, with various degrees of oversight possible. Sometimes a leader’s decision to use nuclear weapons can be overridden by others. Sometimes it cannot.

In America, the president ultimately decides if nuclear weapons should be used. Observers may note that a large metal suitcase carried by a military officer is never far from the president’s side. That titanium suitcase is the president’s “emergency satchel,” sometimes called the ‘football.’ Inside is a mobile nuclear command center from which the president can order a variety of nuclear strikes.

In Russia, the president’s mobile command center is called the Cheget. The idea is the same in both countries: Ensuring the president can respond quickly to incoming nuclear strikes under any circumstances. The systems are built for speed, not safety. 

Cold War Ideology

The logic behind one person having ultimate control of nuclear weapons is rooted in Cold War ideology. Military planners feared that nuclear strikes could happen by surprise. If a counter-strike could not be ordered in time, their country might be destroyed before retaliation was possible. To keep that from happening, America and Russia designed systems that permitted a nuclear response almost instantly.

But with that speed came enormous ethical and existential concerns. Given just minutes to decide, very little time is left for debate, verification, or reconsideration. A false alarm, or a momentary lapse in judgment, could spark a global catastrophe with unimaginable consequences.

Unlike other presidential decisions in America, the order to use nuclear weapons is not evaluated or approved by cabinet members, courts, or lawmakers. Yet some verification measures were put into place.

For instance, the senior duty officer at the National Military Command Center asks the president a ‘challenge’ question, to which the president must respond correctly before the order to attack is confirmed. Some people say the Secretary of Defense must agree that nuclear strike orders came from the president before action is taken. Other confirmation procedures may exist as well. 

Only a few people know precise details of nuclear launch protocols, but whatever safeguards were adopted in the past may now be outdated, as indicated by official military doctrine.

Power Without Oversight

The Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education, garrisoned at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, creates official doctrine and procedures for the US Military. In 2015, it issued ANNEX 3-72, NUCLEAR OPERATIONS. The doctrine stands today.

It states: “The president may direct the use of nuclear weapons through an executive order via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the combatant commanders and, ultimately, to the forces in the field exercising direct control over the weapons.”

That’s as clear as it gets. Communication with the Secretary of Defense is not required to use nuclear weapons, since the Secretary of Defense is not in the nuclear chain of command. Instead, the president can directly order the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to proceed.

Today, that would involve President Trump and General Dan Caine – an officer who does not possess the qualifications normally required to be Chairman. Nicknamed “Raizin Caine” for his aggressive attitude, the General is a devout Trump loyalist. At one point, the President quoted General Caine as saying, “I’d kill for you sir.” With that in mind, it’s hard to imagine the General disobeying orders from Trump to use nuclear weapons.

This situation is unacceptable. Although some field officers might refuse to launch nuclear weapons on moral grounds, others would undoubtedly follow orders. Which, of course, is all it takes. Russia would surely retaliate if it saw ICBMs coming, regardless of whether every US missile was fired at it or not. WWIII would follow.

A Complex Situation

Civilian groups and concerned policymakers often advocate enacting reforms that would limit presidential authority over nuclear weapons. For example, approval from cabinet members, military leaders, or even Congress might be required before nuclear strikes could occur. Other analysts suggest taking nuclear weapons off high alert to allow more time for evaluation and verification.

But doing any of those things would negate the primary reason for having nuclear weapons in the first place – defense against nuclear-armed adversaries. Without the ability to respond quickly, a nuclear armed nation could attack any country at will, knowing the war would be ‘won’ before a counter strike was possible.

Non-nuclear nations are also at risk. Those same two men control their fate as well, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Nuclear winter does not recognize lines on a map. Is it morally acceptable to kill innocent bystanders in countries that do not possess nuclear weapons and want nothing to do with a nuclear war? Yet military planners never think of it that way.

The Path Forward

At Our Planet Project Foundation, we believe that citizens of the world can put an end to this nonsense through their votes. The fact that two men hold the keys to global annihilation is astonishing. That situation must end, but traditional proposals for addressing the threat ignore the reason we are in this predicament in the first place.

Instead, the only solution that makes any sense is to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. Three out of four people on Earth already support that goal, but they must be given the opportunity to vote. Given their numbers, they would be the most politically powerful force ever assembled in history.