Echo opinion about nuclear codes oversight

"..the only way to win a nuclear war is to not have one" ~Ted Diadiun
A discussion about the dangerous and potential misuse of the USA's nuclear codes is essential. This access by one man, meaning the US president, regardless of the authority that's attributed to the responsibility, must periodically be evaluated. 

Senator Bob Corker called an important Senate hearing on this subject. His inquiry was a "not so subtle" warning to Donald Trump. Summary of this editorial echo (meaning, a re-blog of newspaper opinions as selected by MaineWriter) is this:

"Listen up Donald Trump, we are worried about you."
Given Donald Trump serial propensity for "making stuff up" (or outright lies), the nuclear codes subject raises our level of diligence about his irrational judgement.

This round table opinion echo is a re-blog from Cleveland.com

President Donald Trump and the nuclear launch codes: editorial board roundtable

CLEVELAND OHIO- Ever since President Harry Truman ordered the devastating atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during (MaineWriter- ie "ending") World War II, U.S. presidents have been in charge of the nuclear launch codes. (In other words, US Presidents can launch a nuclear war.)

Should that change?

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on this issue -- the first in more than four decades. 

Convened by committee Chairman Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee and a frequent critic of President Donald Trump, the committee raised questions about Trump's authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

The hearing came after months of Trump trading insults with North Korea dictator Kim Jong Un, who has been trying to weaponize his military's missiles. Fearful that North Korea might attack the U.S., Trump has vowed to rain "fire and fury" on North Korea. He called Jong Un "Rocket Man," and more recently, "short and fat" after Jong Un called Trump old. 

The verbal sparring by Trump and Jong Un has unnerved U.S. allies and nuclear experts who fear that Trump's taunting of the notoriously thin-skinned dictator might spark a nuclear war.

Corker, who has called the Trump White House "an adult daycare," pushed for the hearing because he said Congress should explore "the realities of this system." He said he wasn't just pointing the finger at Trump, but at any president in charge of the launch codes.

Democrats at the hearing were far more blunt about their lack of confidence in the bellicose president's ability to make such a decision. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut, said the president is "so unstable" that he might order a nuclear strike. Some Republicans have been just as worried about Trump's temperament.

But Corker didn't have any answers when he emerged from the Senate hearing, saying that he didn't see a legislative solution.

So what do you think? Should the U.S. change its policy and make the president seek the approval of Congress before ordering a nuclear attack? Or should the U.S. allow Trump and other presidents to make that fateful decision?

Sharon Broussard, chief editorial writer, cleveland.com:

We ought to have the conversation but Congress does not appear to have the authority to change the rules. A Washington Post story pointed out that the White House decided decades ago that the nuclear football should be in the hands of the president instead of a squabbling Congress or war-crazy generals. But put all of that aside -- killing millions of people is a decision that no man or woman has the right to make.

Ted Diadiun, editorial board member, cleveland.com:

Most details on how a nuclear strike would be authorized are classified, for obvious reasons so we really don't even know what we're talking about. The president must retain the authority for any nuclear strike (can anyone really imagine a Congressional debate about such a thing?), but the only way to win a nuclear war is to not have one. And the best way to restrain a president we can't trust with nuclear authority is to not elect one.