Talk:Harold Hering

National Command Authority

Isn't Maj. Hering's argument negated by the existence of the NCA, which requires that the President and Secretary of Defense issue orders together? --Alx xlA (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The NCA does not require that: it states that "The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense". In other words, the President has the right to unilaterally say "Nuke Iran", and the Secretary is supposed to say "Aye aye sir" and kick off the sequence. That's the theory, anyway; in practice, the Secretary could say "Nope" and stop the process, but then he'd be disobeying a legal order. Jpatokal (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I came to the same "in practice" conclusion after reading the article on the NCA. The President says "launch." The SecDef says "You're crazy!" The president says "SecDef, you're fired! Where's the person who used to be your deputy?" This continues until the (crazy) President finds someone just as crazy as he is or someone who executes the legal order notwithstanding a question of sanity, or until the Vice-President and the Cabinet mange to successfully execute Section 4 of Amendement 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.125.47 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Key concepts to consider. The president's cabinet swear an oath to uphold and protect the constitution, not blindly obey unlawful orders of the president. As such, they have the discretion that juniors lack, to refuse to obey said order. Once that two man rule order is blocked by refusal, the president cannot simply replace the SecDef with his/her deputy. The SecDef isn't an employee, but an appointee that must be confirmed by the senate before taking on the official duties of the SecDef. While that might be attempted, amendment 25, section 4 proceedings would also be initiated. That is a matter of constitutional law. The US also recognized "natural law", wherein a man under those conditions may well be expected to act in extraordinary ways. Such as directing that the deranged president be restrained until he is relieved by cabinet and the VP to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house. In the modern world, that could even be performed electronically and digitally signed.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not. His Oath is to the Constitution, not the President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.44.161 (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So which is it?

The article states that the SoD can stop a launch. The talk page says the opposite. So which is correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Cost him his career"?

He had been in for 21 years and was still only a major (O-4). His career was already over. He was merely waiting for his separationfor failure to be promoted, like any other O-4 who didn't make the cut for Lieutenant Colonel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.207.106 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only that but you can retire from the service with 20 years, so something doesn't make sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.1.183 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Its been three years...

Since the last discussion on the question of whether the SoD's affirmation is required for the President to order a nuclear strike. I checked the citation, and while there's a sentence that says that, its a hanging aside in a piece that otherwise appears to say the opposite, and the whole cite is in an unpublished drafts of a report by a political advocacy group.

I'm taking the parenthetical out.

Djcheburashka (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually let me add one more thing -- if there was a law that actually subjected a Presidential order to approval by a member of the executive branch, it would be plainly unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcheburashka (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)