Following the president at all times, a military aide carries a black briefcase, commonly known as the Nuclear Football, which acts as a mobile hub allowing the president to authorize a nuclear strike from any location. When discussing the potential launch of a nuclear weapon, as has happened numerous times over the last 70 years, there is a real and measurable distance between a staff meeting and the millions or even billions of lives that would be affected by a decision made among an aloof assembly. With the elimination of nuclear weapons unlikely to happen anytime soon, the United States must strike a balance between having sufficient constraints and being able to swiftly respond to attack.
In 1981, Harvard Law Prof. Roger Fisher came up with an idea to reconcile this dissociation between launching a nuclear weapon from an isolated location and the ultimate decision maker — in this case the president — comprehending the true cost of firing such a device. He proposed putting the ICBM nuclear launch codes inside a small capsule and then implanting that capsule next to the military aide’s heart. As he follows the president, the volunteer would carry with him a large butcher knife. Thus, if the president ever wanted to truly launch a nuclear weapon, he would have to kill, or sanction the killing of, an innocent person’s life right before his eyes. In Fischer’s words, “He has to look at someone and realize what death is — what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.” In effect, it would force the personal killing of one man to start the impersonal killing of millions. However, when this idea was proposed to military personnel in the Pentagon, their reaction was decidedly unsupportive: “My God, that’s terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.”
While this proposal is certainly extreme and would probably never be enacted, it raises interesting points about a device that could end civilization as we know it and the disconnect between the launcher, the target and those caught in the collateral. How can anyone truly comprehend the loss of a billion lives or even a million for that matter? It’s also interesting that the Pentagon’s reaction concerned the effect that the proposal would have on the president’s ability to push the button. While there are certainly situations that can arise where a nuclear strike is necessary and a leader with a sound mind must have the mental and physical capacity to launch a nuclear weapon, virtually everyone hopes he never has to push it.
In order to ensure safety and security in a nuclear age, there needs to be a balance between having a streamlined process to launch a retaliatory strike and imposing constraints on the firing of a nuclear weapon. Striving toward each of these two competing objectives yields their own benefits. Whereas the former allows a leader to have greater credibility on the international stage and in their threats against aggressors, the latter ensures that human error or mechanical failure does not lead to the needless deaths of millions. Yet, dangers arise in the lopsided allegiance to one over the other. For instance, the costs of war become substantially lowered when humans are increasingly distanced from the war process. The expanded use of drones which are controlled from thousands of miles away or the development of fully autonomous military weapon systems would both lead to this outcome. One of the principal constraints placed on a president’s war-making authority entails the possible loss of American lives and its rippling effects on families throughout the country. If human lives lost are instead replaced by number of metal drones lost, this constraint becomes substantially less effective. However, overly favoring checks and balances on the firing of a nuclear weapon has its own drawbacks as well. If a militant group or rogue nation launches an attack, too many controls and required procedures can undermine the safety and credibility of the nation. Thus, a balance allows for a maximization of their benefits without the perils associated with their costs.
As the number of battle-related deaths since World War II has plunged, some would argue the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the primary reason, while others would counter that a better explanation is American power, Democratic Peace Theory or economic interdependence among nations. No one truly knows yet whether nuclear weapons have made us safer, and 70 years is a small dataset. However, a weapon that can destroy all plant and animal life and which can be deployed in a matter of minutes necessitates at the very least adequate constraints that favor disuse over ones that overly lean toward use. With great power comes great responsibility.
Ben Yahnian is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.yahnian@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 5 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
