Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 6179

Does the President Need to be Blocked From Launching a Nuclear First Strike Unless Congress Declares War?

Argument in favor

A U.S. president shouldn’t conduct a nuclear first strike unless an adversary has already attacked America or its allies with nuclear weapons or Congress has given the president that authority. That power in the wrong hands could lead to nuclear armageddon.

judestone538's Opinion
···
11/05/2016
Having a nuclear weapon at one person's fingertips is too much. We need those checks and balances, and even if the POTUS needs to act in a timely manner, we have other weapons to be used. When Japan was nuked, it slaughtered civilians and is still affecting them today. There's no appropriate reason for a single person to use such a powerful weapon at a moment's notice. Furthermore, so many countries have nuclear weapons, it's very likely the first nuke dropped starts a war the world can't afford..
Like (102)
Follow
Share
Josh's Opinion
···
11/05/2016
Although the president and military falls under the executive branch, congress declares wars. Launching a nuclear weapon is an act of war, therefore it should be passed by congress first.
Like (65)
Follow
Share
Hayden's Opinion
···
11/05/2016
If you read the bill you'd realize that it deals only with first strikes, which means you are the first to launch the nuclear missile. It does not require approval for retaliation against people who have fired first. So this doesn't reduce our deterrent effect but it prevents a single person in the oval office from starting a nuclear war.
Like (61)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

To deny the president even the possibility of launching a unilateral nuclear first strike give our enemies leverage. There could be scenarios where there’s only a brief window to launch a preemptive strike before an adversary can attack America or its allies.

Loraki's Opinion
···
11/05/2016
I don't want the President's hands tied by a gridlocked Congress. That being said, if Hillary wins the election, tying HER hands might be a GOOD thing! Dems don't trust Trump with nukes, but I sure as heck don't trust Hillary with them! I think with her extreme negligence in (mis)handling classified information being a proven fact, she shouldn't even have the security clearance that our POTUS is entitled to, much less have the ability to launch a first strike with nukes! What is it about Democommies?! Isn't it Joe Biden who keeps pointing out the person carrying the "football"?! I totally agree with the Countable member who said we DON'T want the enemy getting wind of our intentions! Loose lips sink ships - or get multiple American cities devastated by nuclear bombs! All we (don't) need is for someone to leak to the press the fact that Congress is considering voting on whether or not to declare war against some country that has nuclear capability!
Like (20)
Follow
Share
Jamison's Opinion
···
11/05/2016
Imagine a situation where an ICBM has been launched at the US. In order to maintain the arrangement of assured mutual destruction, the president must have autonomy to act with our nuclear arsenal. That said, while I wholly agree that the decision to launch nuclear weapons should rest solely with the president in principle, this bill was introduced in reaction to the Republican Party's inclusion and promotion of radical voices for over a decade resulting in the nomination of an unstable and unpredictable candidate. Never has a major political party nominated a person whose judgement is so questioned that a bill like this would be drafted in fear of his rise to power. While it is clearly a bill introduced for the purpose of partisan posturing, I urge my congressmen to listen carefully to the concerns implied by its existence.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
Neilrjack's Opinion
···
11/05/2016
Defense is not something we should slow down or politicize. It's the only thing I feel this way about.
Like (8)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Foreign Affairs
    IntroducedSeptember 27th, 2016
    Having a nuclear weapon at one person's fingertips is too much. We need those checks and balances, and even if the POTUS needs to act in a timely manner, we have other weapons to be used. When Japan was nuked, it slaughtered civilians and is still affecting them today. There's no appropriate reason for a single person to use such a powerful weapon at a moment's notice. Furthermore, so many countries have nuclear weapons, it's very likely the first nuke dropped starts a war the world can't afford..
    Like (102)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't want the President's hands tied by a gridlocked Congress. That being said, if Hillary wins the election, tying HER hands might be a GOOD thing! Dems don't trust Trump with nukes, but I sure as heck don't trust Hillary with them! I think with her extreme negligence in (mis)handling classified information being a proven fact, she shouldn't even have the security clearance that our POTUS is entitled to, much less have the ability to launch a first strike with nukes! What is it about Democommies?! Isn't it Joe Biden who keeps pointing out the person carrying the "football"?! I totally agree with the Countable member who said we DON'T want the enemy getting wind of our intentions! Loose lips sink ships - or get multiple American cities devastated by nuclear bombs! All we (don't) need is for someone to leak to the press the fact that Congress is considering voting on whether or not to declare war against some country that has nuclear capability!
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Although the president and military falls under the executive branch, congress declares wars. Launching a nuclear weapon is an act of war, therefore it should be passed by congress first.
    Like (65)
    Follow
    Share
    If you read the bill you'd realize that it deals only with first strikes, which means you are the first to launch the nuclear missile. It does not require approval for retaliation against people who have fired first. So this doesn't reduce our deterrent effect but it prevents a single person in the oval office from starting a nuclear war.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Imagine a situation where an ICBM has been launched at the US. In order to maintain the arrangement of assured mutual destruction, the president must have autonomy to act with our nuclear arsenal. That said, while I wholly agree that the decision to launch nuclear weapons should rest solely with the president in principle, this bill was introduced in reaction to the Republican Party's inclusion and promotion of radical voices for over a decade resulting in the nomination of an unstable and unpredictable candidate. Never has a major political party nominated a person whose judgement is so questioned that a bill like this would be drafted in fear of his rise to power. While it is clearly a bill introduced for the purpose of partisan posturing, I urge my congressmen to listen carefully to the concerns implied by its existence.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    A number of other nuclear states, including China, have declared a no-first-use policy. The United States should be proud to declare that it will never start a nuclear war.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    The use of nuclear weapons should be restricted as much as possible.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    It's unconstitutional for the president to be allowed to do this. The constitution states "congress is the only body that can declare war". This should not have been allowed in the first place. But first we need a congress who can work with one another.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    No one man should be in sole control of such a weapon. Without an official declaration of war, the president would be acting on his own accord and ignoring the opinion of congress, and by extension of the American people.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    If the target is as dangerous as deeming a strike, Congress should have already declared war and we should have tried to mitigate the situation by other means first (in an active state of war.) No president should have nuclear autonomy outside of the larger governing body's approval.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Most definitely. Especially, if Trump is elected. He is the poster child for driving this legislation home.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Defense is not something we should slow down or politicize. It's the only thing I feel this way about.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    We need more restrictions on nuclear weapons, not less.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    This is terrifying that we even have to have this conversation but considering the possibility that Trump might be President and his track record of being trigger happy, it's a necessary conversation.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    No one personal should have that kind of power
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Keep the power to send the first strike in a potentially world ending war away from the judgement of one man or one woman
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    The use of nuclear weapons should absolutely be prohibited without a congressional declaration of war. And if we're gridlocked over whether or not to use them it's probably safe to say that we shouldn't. The president will maintain many options for use of military force without congress but nuclear should not be one of them.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    He should also be blocked from fighting undeclared proxy wars.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Having one person control the fate of so many is too much. One bad day could result in serious worldwide consequences.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    With this congress & their lack of work ethic, the entire country could be destroyed before they would get anything done.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE