The Donald and The Nuclear 7: Parting Shots

Jeffrey Lewis 0:05

You are listening to the Arms Control Wonk podcast, a podcast on arms control disarmament and nonproliferation. I'm Jeffrey Lewis, the founding publisher of the Arms Control Wonk blog and a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

Aaron Stein 0:22

I'm Aaron Stein, director of research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. And that sound you are all hearing is the revving of engines for an emergency podcast. It's been a while.

Jeffrey 0:31

It's, it's an emergency pod this time, though, because of the pandemic. I'm not in a parking lot, I'm at home with my normal gear. That's right, I'm also at home too. Just got back from a jog but we have news that we, I mean, I could talk like this to replicate the quality that we used to get.

Aaron 0:52

That was still – in my opinion, that's still our best podcast. But it was spontaneous for the moment. But there is news with the nuclear and the Donald and hopefully the last news of nuclear and the Donald.

Jeffrey 1:11

You know, thinking back on those episodes we did at the beginning of this show – It's all come full circle.

Aaron 1:22

Yeah. You know, we have a whole series. I mean, maybe we'll have to put them in the show notes. We've certainly gone on a journey, a journey of life, journey of democracy, authoritarianism, putsch, all the fun stuff. And now we have Nancy Pelosi talking about command authority.

Jeffrey 1:45

Yeah. So for listeners, what this podcast is going to fundamentally be about is the statement that Speaker Pelosi released today, which talked about putting safeguards in place to deal with the fact that the very stable genius still seems to have sole unfettered control over U.S. nuclear weapons. Because people don't seem to have very realistic views about how nuclear command authority works.

Aaron 2:12

My Twitter feed is representative of the American public, which it is not, but there are certainly enough people who are still confused that all it takes is one. Just one old white guy in the Oval Office for at least a couple more days to go boom.

Jeffrey 2:30

Yeah, sorry. I've got all of that. That's okay. It's an emergency pod. Just let it roll. All of that happening right now. Background noises. I got the screaming six-year-old, the barking dog. I got the panoply of things. That's right. Yeah, I've got – I was actually going to look it up, although I realize I probably shouldn't actually waste the time.

But I've got a bunch of fake experts in my timeline, including some hockey guy from Saskatoon who has strong opinions.

Aaron 2:59

A lot of people have strong opinions. That's why we wanted to do the emergency podcast, because let's set those opinions straight.

Jeffrey 3:06

So let's go ahead and put on the table what it is that Pelosi has said. And we'll just talk about at least why I think that's not very realistic. So she released a statement today on January 8th that has a series of bullet points all talking about how messed up everything is. And one of those bullet points says, preventing an unhinged president from using the nuclear codes.

Yeah, that's going to make Marty Pfeiffer crazy, but we'll talk about that. Preventing an unhinged president from using the nuclear codes. This morning, I spoke to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, to discuss available precautions for preventing... For preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike.

The situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything we can to protect the American people from this unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy. And to follow up, Milley's spokesperson did confirm that they had a call. And the statement was he answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority.

And she reportedly on a caucus call said that Milley assured her that there are safeguards in place. Bullshit. I have something stuck in my throat.

Aaron 4:37

Well, look, look. I think there's a political reason she did this, right? I think Nancy Pelosi's a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. Nope, she is not stupid. Little Nancy D'Alessandro knows what she's doing. She knows exactly what she's doing. And I think we can talk about why we think she's doing that. But I think we should start with the, I mean, you and Bruno wrote the piece on this.

I've seen you give YouTube lectures on this. We've discussed this in private. Why don't you just tell everybody how it actually works?

Jeffrey 5:11

Right. So it's pretty straightforward. There aren't nuclear codes, per se. I know this makes Marty Pfeiffer crazy. There is a card with... A code on it, and that code exists to authenticate the president's voice. So as best I can tell, the process goes something like the president takes the little cell phone issued by the National Security Agency, calls the National Military Command Center, reads the code to convince them that it is truly he, Donald Trump, and then simply tells them which option to execute.

And when that happens, the National Military Command Center formats the appropriate emergency action messages and sends those out directly to the launch units and it happens. And the reason that it is so quick and the reason that there is no additional chain of command and there are no additional votes is this entire system is structured For the very demanding scenario of launch under attack, the idea that we will see large numbers of Russian missiles coming at us and the President will have to quickly decide to retaliate to make sure that our ICBMs are out of the ground and on their way before the Russian ones get here, and that's how it works, and there is nothing.

That would stop the president from doing that. And so when I see them confirming that General Milley confirmed or explained national command authority to her, I don't find that reassuring because I have seen those explanations and it ain't great.

Aaron 6:54

No, I mean we should say that the entire – I think we've talked about this on previous podcasts. The entire system presupposes that the president isn't unhinged, right? That's assumption number one. And assumption number two – The election is the safeguard. Right, is that we, the people – I hate using that phrase now all of a sudden.

Choose somebody who's of sound mind and body and of good ethic and moral has a strong. Yes.

Jeffrey 7:18

So when. Please jump in because you're going to take it. Yeah. So when General Milley says there are safeguards in place.

Other voice 7:27

That was the safeguard.

Aaron 7:28

It was in place. That is correct. And the other thing is that, like, what is the time? I mean, it's like, what, 30 minutes more or less is the time it takes a Russian ICBM to fly over the pole? Yep.

Jeffrey 7:41

And everything has to be packed in there from detecting it to getting that detection down to confirming that's happening to telling the president to making the decision to turning the keys and giving the missiles enough time to fly away. And that's...

Aaron 7:56

There is not a committee. There's no debate. I mean, maybe there's a debate in the sort of like, if we're going to go first and nobody knows it's coming, but there's not a debate if that order comes.

Jeffrey 8:09

That's right. So one thing I do want to say is that we are talking about the president choosing to execute a preplanned option, something that you should talk about that. So, you know, the football, as best I can tell, is not a communications device. It is it is an element of performative masculinity. It's a giant briefing book.

Which I've always found absurd because, of course, the briefing book is far too big to be read in the actual crisis. And you could put that briefing book on a tablet. And in fact, if you were worried about batteries, you could put two tablets in like a little man purse and have that person carry it around. That's a verse.

But in fact, I think there's an element of performative masculinity. We need like the big strong man carrying the big heavy football. Yeah. But if it is a pre-planned option, it goes right away. Now, yes, if the president said something really, truly insane... If the president said something really truly insane, like I wanna nuke Nebraska and it's not on the list, then I think there's the opportunity for people to push back, to talk, to sabotage, that kind of thing.

But to a first approximation, I think if the president picks up the phone and calls the National Military Command Center and says, you don't know what I know, it's time to hit Iran, pick plan X, They're meat puppets. They're going to do it.

Aaron 9:39

Right. The way I think about it, and I know it's not exactly right, but I think it's a good way for people who have never seen the football, who have never really understood this stuff, is to think about it as like... It's like... It's like a menu, right? And then there's different scenarios that are on this separate operational plan.

Jeffrey 9:57

A menu at the worst Chinese restaurant on Earth.

Aaron 10:01

I was thinking like those plays, like if you watch NFL football, you know, like they have the huge play sheet. Do you know what I mean? It's the NFL play sheet. Or it's like the diner menu. When you go to a New Jersey diner and the menu is that large, maybe the Cheesecake Factory, and there's so many different scenarios in there that you can choose them.

I do think what the safeguard is that if he says, You know, put a nuke into Georgia. Raffsenberger pissed me off, right? That goes off script. And maybe somebody says, well, we don't have an op plan for that, sir. But I'm being facetious, but I think we need to start being creative in our scenario planning. But I'm trying to describe it sort of like as that type of menu and the operational plan.

It's not just everything flies at once. It's that there's certain Scenarios or assumptions about how many are used at once. I'm trying to be really simplistic here.

Jeffrey 10:58

Yeah. Well, I mean, and I, I think the, you know, they're just the simple, there are just these important things to put on the table. So there is the fact that the president doesn't require a second vote which, you know, every, every movie about this, first of all, has a second vote. And second of all, the movie scene drags on longer than the time the president actually has to make the decision.

But just understanding that like, no, there is no second vote. He just picks up the phone, authenticates his voice and picks the plan and out it goes. And I think second understanding that everyone in that chain of command is trained to do their duty. And the idea that they are going to exercise agency is a nice thought, but But first, they're not trained to do that.

And they're not necessarily going to know what the president knows. They don't know if it's a real attack or not. They don't know why the president's doing this. But also, people have this idea that the people in the chain of command are all going to be like they are. Appalled at this idea. And, you know, like... Military officers, like every other walk of human being, come in all stripes.

Right? You have people who desperately want to have a war with Iran. You have people who desperately want to avoid a war with Iran. The idea that they would all or all the critical people would break down the chain of command to me is just very unrealistic given what I know about the selection process and the training.

Although it would make for an awesome movie.

Aaron 12:42

Yeah, I mean, I do think a lot of people's imagery of this comes from movies. It's all we've ever seen, really. And the movies are performative. Performance art.

Jeffrey 12:52

It's extremely unlikely to me that there are any additional assurances in place. I mean, I suppose Milley could, and I want to talk about this for a second. Milley could have talked to everyone who is on watch at the National Military Command Center and is likely to be on watch and told them just don't. That would be illegal, right?

A lot of things are illegal and we just kind of let them walk away. Well, I mean, I would argue that we should if he did it. But, you know, I'm very skeptical. Jim Schlesinger claims he did this when he was secretary of defense.

Aaron 13:30

This is the Nixon one.

Jeffrey 13:32

Yeah. And and I'll just be frank. I don't believe it. You know, I think that after Schlesinger got out, he had a vested interest in presenting himself as something other than a crony of the at the time most corrupt U.S. president in history. And and I think a nice way of distancing himself and making the argument that, you know, oh, well, I only stayed in the job because I wanted to protect the republic.

Like that line of bullshit is more credible if you claim that you went around sabotaging the president's ability to get drunk and start a nuclear war.

Aaron 14:12

He had Medicare, so he didn't need the insurance, right?

Jeffrey 14:14

So don't get me wrong. Do I think Milley is going to like, Have that line of bullshit after he leaves office? Yeah, probably. You know, all of these people are going to seek to rehabilitate their reputations and present themselves as, you know, heroic saviors of the republic in the face of Trump because, you know, otherwise they're going to lose their book deal and they're not going to get invited to lunch at the Brookings Institution.

But fundamentally, that's not how the process works. That's antithetical to everything that they say and do when we're not in the middle of a crisis. And I just am not one of these people who thinks that planning and training and selecting can all be overcome at the crucial moment. Because we all know this is, we've all known this was all along, that's not how that works.

Aaron 15:05

Yeah. And the other thing, and maybe we'll pivot to the end here. I mean, the other thing is that the risk that Nancy was hinting at or overtly said, and I think we'll say why we think she actually said it.

Jeffrey 15:18

There is no hinting there. No, I shouldn't say hint.

Aaron 15:22

It was the same three months ago. It was the same three years ago. And it was the same two years ago. Do you know what I mean? Nothing has fundamentally changed other than the president probably ordering a mob attack on the Capitol. You know, The point is, is that the procedures are the same. The man is the same.

And so if you're worried about it now, you should have been worried about it a year ago.

Jeffrey 15:44

And we have their answer to how they feel about Trump, not from General Milley, but Steve Clemens asked General Hyten. This very question, and I think it is worth reading what General Hyten said, because it is not encouraging. It's a slightly long question, so I'll kind of try to tighten it up a bit. But it goes something like this.

Steve Clemens asks whether General Hyten, and I'm shortening it here, has thought about the sort of scenario in which the president does something irresponsible with nuclear weapons. And Hyten gives a really long answer that says, I have, and we talk about it. Some people think we're stupid. We're not stupid. We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?

And what people forget, he says, is that this is a military mission and a military function. And he goes on to talk about laws of armed conflict. And illegal orders and ends here. He says, the way the process works is simple. I provide advice to the president. He'll tell me what to do. And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen?

And Steve Clemons says, you say no. And that is not what Hyten says. He says, I'm going to say, Mr. President, it's illegal. And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, well, what would be legal? And we'll come up with options of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is. And so just the whole tenor of that is...

The civilians are in control and a legal order has to be followed. If there is something illegal about the structure of the order, he is going to find a way to make it legal, right? If the president is like, let's nuke a kindergarten in Tehran, what he is saying is he's going to say, sir, you cannot target a kindergarten.

However, there are three military targets that are legitimate that are within, you know, 200 yards of that kindergarten. Go for it.

Aaron 18:05

That is what he is saying he will do. That's been the story of the Trump administration, whether you apply it to child separation policies at the border, whether you apply it to, you know, how you try to overturn an election is that you make prognostications about what you want.

Jeffrey 18:21

Where were all these heroic people when they did all of the shitty things that led us to this point?

Aaron 18:27

Right. That led us to this point. So why do we think Nancy said it?

Jeffrey 18:32

She is.

Aaron 18:33

So first of all,

Jeffrey 18:35

They are not going to be able to use the 25th Amendment on President Trump, nor are they going to be able to impeach him, because each of those, in fact, would require a two-thirds vote from Congress. Because if they use the 25th Amendment, Trump's going to dispute it, and that's the standard in... Well, the two-thirds in the Senate is the standard in an impeachment trial.

So I think she is... damaging the president politically... And I think she is alerting people to the danger. I think partly because she's worried about now and I think wants to constrain his freedom of action. And highlighting this danger is a good way to do that. And I would like to think that there's maybe a long-term investment here in a slightly different approach to nuclear weapons.

Although, you know, hard to say.

Aaron 19:26

Yeah, I think it's just basic impellence. Don't f*** with us anymore because, you know, if you do, you actually may run up against that two-third in the Senate for impeachment. I just think it's basically that. And so we're going to constrain your actions. Go golfing for the next 12 days. You know, I really think that go to your property, go golfing, you know.

I think that's right. Go do donuts in your limo in your New Jersey properties. We don't care. Just stay off our lawn, literally.

Jeffrey 19:58

Honestly, that is the context in which this has always been raised. It's never truly been about fixing... The way the U.S. approaches nuclear weapons. It's about using the way the U.S. approaches nuclear weapons to demonstrate the risk of having an unstable and unfit person in the office.

Aaron 20:25

But then again, that's really our job. We select the person who sits in the office.

Jeffrey 20:29

At least we did. We still do. The election's a safeguard. Well, yeah, we'll see. It looks like it.

Aaron 20:34

It was, right? You know, like that assumption.

Jeffrey 20:38

You know, I mean, the safeguard is the election and or the ability to keep the QAnon shaman out of the Capitol.

Aaron 20:50

And we weren't able to keep the QAnon shaman out of the Capitol. We were able to expel them. How long we can expel them is anybody's guess, right? Yeah. Yeah.

Jeffrey 20:59

It's an emergency. That's a pod. This is an emergency pod.

Aaron 21:06

It's a bad pod. Anyways, I'm in a bad circumstances pod. Anything else before I close?

Jeffrey 21:14

I don't think he's going to just go ahead and nuke someone.

Aaron 21:17

No, I think, look, that's what I was trying to say earlier. Like, I don't think anything has substantially changed.

Jeffrey 21:23

He's insane, but he is ultimately a coward.

Aaron 21:26

As I like to say, he's afraid of stairs.

Jeffrey 21:29

Yeah.

Aaron 21:30

You know, he's afraid of germs, he's afraid of stairs.

Jeffrey 21:33

Can't get into the Fuhrer bunker if you can't walk down stairs, chief. That's right.

Aaron 21:39

I think we're okay, because he'd have to go down into the bunker. Although he went into the bunker when Black Lives Matter got about 55 feet from the gate to get into the house.

Jeffrey 21:48

His tiny little hands clutching onto the railing.

Aaron 21:53

His hair messed up. I mean, this is a man who won't even walk in the rain. So I'm not exactly concerned about this, other than my general concern, which has been around for a while. But it's not necessarily about him... I'm not really pressing the button, but issuing the launch order. Yeah.

Jeffrey 22:11

I mean, the one thing I would say, which I forgot to say in the pod, but it's the thing I say all the time. Periodically, things happen that cause people to confront the fact that the United States has... Several hundred or even a thousand nuclear weapons on various states, call it day-to-day alert, and a President with the sole unfettered ability to use those weapons. And when people think about that, they panic and say, oh my god, this is insane. And, and my answer is always, calm down. It's like that all the time. But yes, also, it's insane, and we can change that.

Aaron 22:54

We can. We can always change. Okay. I don't know. I don't know. It's been a rough week. We will return to our regular scheduled podcasting next week. We actually have one in the can. What did we even talk about?

Jeffrey 23:10

I can't even remember. We talked about the new U.S. Oh, yeah, the new IRBM. IRBM.

Aaron 23:16

Yeah, which is a good pod. So stay tuned for that next week. And then, yes, we have more podcasts coming up. But this was an emergency. So, Jeffrey, it's time for me to go pick up my kid from school. And this will be out later tonight.

Jeffrey 23:30

Pleasure as always, Aaron.

Aaron 23:31

It's a pleasure. And head on over to patreon.com slash ACW podcast if you like this podcast. $3 if you're a student, $5 if you're not a student to join our Slack channel where I can promise you we talk about a lot of things other than sedition and treason. More things to do with nuclear weapons arms control, which hopefully we can get back to on a full scale basis starting next week.

Other voice 23:53

So with that, thank you everybody.