Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Nuclear button

The nuclear button is a metaphorical term for the executive authority and command procedures by which a , particularly the , can order the launch of nuclear weapons, dispelling the popular of a literal single "red button" that instantly triggers . In reality, this authority is exercised through a structured process involving secure and communication systems rather than a direct physical device. Central to the U.S. system is the "nuclear football," a hardened carried by a rotating aide that contains the "" of pre-approved strike options, the "biscuit" card with personal authentication codes known as , and tools for establishing encrypted communication links to the Pentagon's . Upon deciding to authorize a launch, the verifies identity using the codes, selects a response plan from the book, and transmits the order via secure channels, after which crews—requiring multiple personnel to turn keys or execute protocols—implement the strike, ensuring no single individual beyond the can unilaterally act. This sole presidential authority, rooted in the U.S. Constitution's vesting of executive power as commander-in-chief, allows for rapid decision-making in crises but has sparked debates over the absence of mandatory consultation with Congress or advisors, heightening concerns about potential misuse or errors in high-stress scenarios. The system's design prioritizes positive control to prevent unauthorized launches while enabling execution within minutes for intercontinental ballistic missiles, underscoring the delicate balance between deterrence and the risks of escalation.

Historical and Conceptual Background

Origins in Nuclear Strategy

The notion of a "nuclear button," symbolizing streamlined executive authority to initiate nuclear retaliation, emerged from the strategic imperatives of deterrence in the early Cold War era, where compressed decision timelines due to advancing delivery systems like intercontinental ballistic missiles demanded centralized command to preserve second-strike credibility. Nuclear strategy evolved from World War II's deliberate atomic bombings—authorized by President Harry S. Truman for Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945—to a posture emphasizing assured destruction of aggressors, as articulated in Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1954 "New Look" policy of massive retaliation. This doctrine positioned nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of U.S. defense against Soviet conventional superiority, requiring the president to hold unilateral launch power to signal resolve and prevent preemptive strikes, though early implementations included limited military delegations that risked escalation without oversight. By the late , as the U.S. arsenal grew to hundreds of warheads, strategic planners recognized that bureaucratic delays could undermine deterrence; had already reinforced presidential exclusivity in 1950 amid pressures, prohibiting military-initiated use without his approval to avert unauthorized actions. Eisenhower's administration grappled with delegation protocols for scenarios where communication might fail, but these highlighted vulnerabilities, prompting a shift toward inviolable control to align with causal realities of exchange: any hesitation could invite first-strike annihilation. Empirical assessments, including post-event analyses, underscored that rapid authorization preserved (MAD) equilibria, where each side's knowledge of the opponent's quick-response capability deterred initiation. The metaphor crystallized under , whose 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis experience intensified focus on instantaneous decision-making; he instituted the "nuclear football"—a portable with authentication codes and pre-planned options—ensuring the could verify identity and select targets within minutes, effectively embodying the "" as a proxy for strategic agility in doctrines. This setup, formalized via Action Memorandums, prioritized empirical speed over deliberation to counter Soviet missile threats, with no recorded deviations since, though it embedded risks of solo judgment in high-stakes ambiguity. Public allusions to a literal appeared by 1965, reflecting the doctrinal simplification of command chains into a singular, high-stakes act.

Evolution of the Metaphor

The concept of a "nuclear button" evolved from mid-20th-century idioms depicting automated, effortless mass destruction, initially detached from atomic weaponry. As early as November 1945, physicist testified before on the advent of " war," referring to remote-control technologies that could enable destruction without direct involvement in combat, a notion rooted in advancements like guided missiles and . This phrasing symbolized fears of technology outpacing oversight, predating nuclear-specific applications but setting the stage for metaphors of instantaneous annihilation. Pre-nuclear precedents, such as a 1929 reference by Robert Millikan to a "" destroying cities or a 1932 play envisioning aerial bombings via buttons, underscored a broader cultural anxiety over mechanized lethality. The explicit "nuclear button" metaphor crystallized in the late 1950s amid escalating tensions and the deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which promised rapid nuclear response times. One of the earliest documented uses appears in a 1957 speech by Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson during his acceptance, where he invoked the "nuclear button" to highlight the perils of unchecked escalation in international crises. By the , the term permeated political discourse and media, often as a shorthand for presidential launch authority under doctrines like , despite the absence of any literal button—actual procedures involved codes, consultations, and multi-step authentications via the "nuclear football" briefcase. This period saw its integration into deterrence rhetoric, where leaders like U.S. presidents referenced it to project resolve, though critics argued it oversimplified command complexities and risked normalizing hasty decisions. Over subsequent decades, the persisted and amplified through cultural artifacts, electoral debates, and diplomatic exchanges, evolving into a symbol of existential stakes in policy. In the , it featured in popular media like Genesis's "" video depicting at a button, reinforcing public imagery of solitary executive power. By the , it recurred in discussions of sole authority, as in U.K. leader Jeremy Corbyn's refusal to "press the button," and peaked in 2017–2018 rhetoric between and Kim Jong-un, who each claimed superior "buttons" in public statements, highlighting its role in signaling. Despite technical inaccuracies— launches require deliberate, multi-person processes—the endures for its rhetorical potency, encapsulating causal chains from decision to global while occasionally prompting scrutiny of systemic safeguards.

Technical Mechanisms of Nuclear Launch

United States Launch Procedures

The President of the United States holds sole authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons, derived from the constitutional role as Commander in Chief, without requiring consultation from Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or other advisors. This authority enables rapid decision-making under the U.S. doctrine of launch-on-warning, designed to respond to detected incoming attacks within minutes. To initiate a launch, the uses the "," a briefcase carried by a aide containing materials for , including procedures and pre-planned strike options. The authenticates identity by providing unique alphanumeric codes from a laminated card known as the "," carried at all times, which verifies the order's legitimacy to recipients. Once authenticated, the President transmits the order via secure channels to the in or directly to U.S. Strategic Command, issuing an (EAM) specifying targets and weapons from a menu of options in the . , including launch crews for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine commanders, and bomber pilots, execute the order if it matches authentication codes, with ICBM launches possible in under five minutes from receipt. Officers are trained to refuse illegal orders, but the system presumes obedience to a verified . This procedure ensures and deterrence but has drawn scrutiny for concentrating power in one individual, with no formal checks beyond .

Procedures in Other Nuclear States

In , President holds sole authority to order a launch, with the General Staff responsible for executing the order by transmitting codes via the system—a briefcase-based communication device akin to the U.S. —to silo commanders, submarine captains, or bomber crews. The process requires mutual between the president and military leadership, including , before codes are disseminated, ensuring no unilateral military action without civilian oversight. The vests launch authority exclusively in the as head of the National Command Authority, who can issue orders to commanders via encrypted communications or pre-written "" stored aboard vessels for scenarios where contact with London is lost. These letters, updated after each election or , outline response protocols but do not delegate firing authority; the plays no role in authorization. France's , as , possesses unilateral authority to initiate strikes through the Forces Aériennes Stratégiques and Forces de Frappe de la Mer, authenticated via secure codes from the to delivery platforms including Rafale aircraft and Triomphant-class submarines. This centralized process emphasizes rapid response under France's doctrine of strict sufficiency, with no parliamentary or consultation required for execution. China's nuclear command resides with the , chaired by the General Secretary of the (currently ), which issues formal launch orders authenticated through multi-step protocols including encrypted directives to the . Public details remain limited, but procedures prioritize peacetime low-alert status and no-first-use pledges, with orders requiring CMC consensus to prevent unauthorized escalation. India's Nuclear Command Authority (NCA), established in January 2003, comprises a Political Council chaired by the —who alone can authorize use—and an Council for implementation, ensuring civilian control over the . Launch codes for systems like missiles or Arihant submarines demand two-step civilian-military authentication, aligning with India's no-first-use policy of post-strike. Pakistan employs a National Command Authority (NCA) requiring consensus among civilian and military leaders, including the and service chiefs, to authorize launches, supplemented by a two-man rule for arming warheads on systems like Shaheen missiles. This collegial structure, designed to mimic , integrates the Strategic Plans Division for custody and contrasts with more centralized models by mandating joint approval to mitigate risks from internal instability. North Korea's Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, retains centralized under a 2022 law codifying preemptive use without delegation unless explicitly approved, with launch orders transmitted via secure channels to the . Procedures emphasize positive to avoid unauthorized firing, though potential in scenarios could involve pre-designated codes for continuity. Israel maintains opacity regarding procedures, but authority is believed to rest with the , potentially requiring security cabinet consultation for orders to deliver systems like missiles or submarines, under an undeclared policy focused on deterrence without formal doctrine. This structure prioritizes existential threats, with no public confirmation of delegation mechanisms.

Key Incidents Involving the Metaphor

Kim Jong-un's 2018 New Year's Address

In his New Year's address delivered on January 1, 2018, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un declared that his country's nuclear forces had reached a stage of completion, enabling mass production of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles for deployment. He emphasized that the entire U.S. mainland lay within range of North Korea's nuclear strikes, stating explicitly: "The whole of its mainland is within the range of our nuclear strike and the nuclear button is on my office desk all the time." This invocation portrayed the "nuclear button" as a personal, always-accessible mechanism symbolizing instantaneous retaliatory capability, intended to deter aggression by underscoring the futility of any preemptive U.S. action. Kim framed the statement as a factual deterrent rather than a , asserting that the U.S. "must make proper judgement and should not make miscalculation," while linking it to North Korea's self-reliant defense posture amid ongoing and tests of intercontinental ballistic missiles like the in November 2017, which demonstrated potential reach to the continental U.S. The address balanced this escalation with an toward , proposing dialogue and potential participation in the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics, but the nuclear button reference dominated global coverage, amplifying perceptions of Kim's centralized command authority over strategic weapons. Analyses of the speech, such as those from specialists, noted its defensive strategic orientation despite the provocative rhetoric, with the reinforcing claims of invulnerability to attack without implying offensive intent unless provoked. The statement echoed historical deterrence language but personalized it to Kim's desk, contrasting with more distributed command structures in other states and heightening tensions in the ongoing Korean Peninsula standoff. No evidence emerged of an actual physical "" device akin to popularized depictions; rather, it served as rhetorical shorthand for 's operationalized command-and-control systems, verified through prior tests and assertions of readiness.

Donald Trump's Response

On January 3, 2018, President Donald Trump issued a public response to Kim Jong-un's New Year's address via a post on Twitter (now X), directly referencing the North Korean leader's claim about possessing a nuclear button on his desk. In the post, Trump wrote: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" The statement employed hyperbolic language to underscore the superior scale and reliability of the United States' nuclear arsenal compared to North Korea's, with approximately 4,000 warheads versus North Korea's estimated dozens at the time. Trump's remark was framed as a deterrent signal amid heightened tensions following North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missile tests, which demonstrated potential reach to the U.S. mainland. The response drew immediate criticism from some U.S. allies and domestic figures for its provocative tone, with South Korean President expressing concern over escalation risks, though maintained it reinforced American resolve without altering military posture. Despite the rhetoric, no changes were reported in U.S. nuclear readiness protocols, such as the deployment of the "nuclear football" briefcase carried by aides. The exchange exemplified Trump's preference for direct, personal communication on for messaging, bypassing traditional diplomatic channels, and was later cited by administration officials as contributing to eventual leading to the June 2018 Singapore summit. Analysts noted the "button" metaphor's inaccuracy—neither leader possesses a literal desk button, as U.S. procedures involve codes and consultation—yet Trump's phrasing aimed to project unyielding strength against perceived North Korean bluster.

The Diet Coke Button Anecdote

In January 2017, shortly after his inauguration, President installed a wooden box containing a red button on the in the Oval Office, which, when pressed, signaled butlers to deliver a can of to the president. The device, approximately the size of a tissue box and affixed with a presidential , provided immediate access to Trump's preferred beverage, reflecting his reported daily consumption of up to 12 cans. The button drew public attention in the context of nuclear deterrence rhetoric following Trump's January 2, , tweet asserting that his "Nuclear Button" was larger and more functional than North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's, a response to Kim's New Year's address claiming constant desk access to a launch device. Media reports and juxtaposed the Oval Office's actual button—trivial and non-military—with the metaphorical "nuclear button," amplifying perceptions of in presidential signaling; critics, including online discussions, speculated on the risks of conflating personal conveniences with strategic weaponry, though no evidence indicated any procedural overlap. Trump addressed the misconception directly in a March 2017 Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, demonstrating the button and stating that observers often mistook it for a nuclear launch mechanism, quipping, "Everyone thinks that's the nuclear weapon," before clarifying its sole purpose for summoning soda. The anecdote underscored the absence of a literal presidential "nuclear button," as U.S. launch authority involves authenticated codes and multi-step verification via the "football" briefcase rather than a desk switch, contrasting with the Diet Coke device's simplicity. The button was removed after Trump's 2021 departure but reinstated upon his , 2025, , symbolizing continuity in personal habits amid renewed geopolitical tensions. In June 2025, Vice President recounted a related incident from an meeting involving and , where he initially feared had initiated a by pressing the button, only to witness a staffer deliver moments later; Vance described 's subsequent grin and explanation as a lighthearted test of vigilance, highlighting the anecdote's enduring role in illustrating the gap between and mundane reality.

Controversies and Debates

Sole Authority and Decision-Making Risks

In the United States, the President holds sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, a policy rooted in the need for rapid retaliation during the Cold War era when incoming missiles could reach targets in minutes. This authority allows the President to direct a launch without requiring consultation from Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or other officials, enabling decisions within approximately 15 minutes of detecting an attack. The system relies on the "nuclear football," a briefcase carried by military aides containing authentication codes and communication tools to execute orders. This concentration of power introduces significant risks, including the potential for impaired judgment due to stress, health issues, or substance influence. For instance, during the in 1974, reports indicated President was drinking heavily, raising concerns among aides about his capacity to make rational nuclear decisions. Similarly, fears have been expressed about erratic styles amplifying the dangers of sole authority, as the process offers limited checks once an order is issued, with trained to comply promptly. Historical near-misses underscore these vulnerabilities, often stemming from false alarms misinterpreted under time pressure. On November 9, 1979, a simulation error led to alerts of a massive Soviet missile attack, prompting U.S. forces to ready bombers and missiles before it was identified as a fault; a similar incident occurred on , , due to a faulty computer chip, again escalating to high alert levels. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, President faced intense pressure amid submarine incidents and U-2 shootdowns, where unauthorized actions nearly triggered despite sole constraints. Debates over reforming sole authority center on balancing deterrence speed with safeguards against rash or unauthorized use, with proposals including requirements for concurrence from senior officials or for non-retaliatory strikes. Legislation like the Nuclear First Strike Security Act of 2025 seeks to limit first-use without congressional input, while experts argue for mandatory consultation protocols to mitigate individual errors. Critics of reform contend it could delay responses in genuine crises, potentially undermining deterrence, though proponents highlight that other nuclear powers, such as and , incorporate collective decision-making elements.

Deterrence Value vs. Escalation Dangers

The concept of nuclear deterrence relies on the doctrine of (MAD), wherein the certainty of devastating retaliation discourages a first strike by any rational actor possessing comparable capabilities. This framework has arguably contributed to the absence of direct great-power nuclear conflict since 1945, despite intense rivalries such as the , by imposing unacceptable costs on potential aggressors and stabilizing crises through predictable escalation threats. For instance, maintains that the credibility of its nuclear posture, including approximately 100 U.S. B61 gravity bombs deployed in Europe under allied control, underpins alliance security by deterring conventional or hybrid aggression that could threaten vital interests. Proponents, drawing on historical patterns, contend that nuclear arsenals have prevented major interstate wars among possessors, as evidenced by the restraint shown in proxy conflicts like the and Wars, where escalation to nuclear levels was avoided. However, the deterrence value is contested due to the absence of definitive empirical proof that threats alone averted , rather than diplomatic, economic, or conventional factors; scholarly analyses suggest benefits are limited and via nukes remains unproven in practice. Critics highlight that assumes perfect rationality and communication, conditions undermined by incomplete information or irrational leadership, potentially rendering deterrence fragile against non-state actors or revisionist states like , whose arsenal—estimated at 50 warheads as of 2024—complicates traditional dynamics without ensuring stability. Counterbalancing this are inherent escalation dangers, where the perceived accessibility symbolized by the "nuclear button" metaphor could precipitate rapid, irreversible decisions amid misperception or technical failure. Historical near-misses illustrate this peril: during the 1962 , U.S. forces raised nuclear readiness to DEFCON 2—the highest ever—while Soviet submarines nearly launched torpedoes armed with nuclear warheads, averted only by individual restraint rather than systemic safeguards. Similarly, on September 26, 1983, Soviet officer dismissed a indicating five U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, preventing potential retaliation based on a malfunctioning early-warning system. Such incidents, numbering over a dozen documented close calls from faulty sensors to misinterpreted exercises like NATO's 1983 Able Archer, underscore how deterrence's psychological edge can blur into inadvertent escalation, exacerbated by compressed decision timelines—U.S. procedures allow launch within 5-15 minutes under sole presidential authority. In contemporary contexts, escalation risks have intensified with multi-polar nuclear competition; Russia's 2022 invasion of prompted explicit nuclear threats from , testing deterrence thresholds and raising the specter of tactical nuclear use to coerce concessions, as analyzed in frameworks warning of inadvertent ladders from conventional to strategic exchanges. Scholarly assessments emphasize that while deterrence may suppress outright war, it fosters a "stability-instability ," permitting sub-threshold (e.g., intrusions or skirmishes) that incrementally heightens overall nuclear jeopardy without triggering . like hypersonic missiles and AI-driven command systems further compress reaction times, potentially eroding the deliberate calculus requires and amplifying dangers from miscalculation over deterrence gains. Thus, while the nuclear posture deters existential threats, its reliance on invites catastrophic errors, with no historical precedent for controlled in a live multi-domain .

Reforms and Safeguard Proposals

Proposals to U.S. presidential launch have primarily focused on constraining first-use scenarios, where the president could initiate nuclear employment without an incoming attack, while preserving rapid retaliatory capabilities to maintain deterrence. These efforts argue that sole , rooted in the president's role as , risks impulsive decisions amid compressed timelines or potential instability, though critics contend such changes could introduce delays exploitable by adversaries. The Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, reintroduced by Senator Edward Markey and Representative on January 22, 2025, prohibits the president from authorizing a nuclear first strike absent a congressional under Article I, Section 8 of the . The bill exempts retaliatory launches in response to an attack on the U.S., its territories, or armed forces, aiming to equate nuclear initiation with war declaration requirements. It has been introduced multiple times since 2017 without passage, reflecting bipartisan concerns over unchecked executive power but facing opposition from those prioritizing command agility. In May 2025, Representative Scott Peters introduced legislation to bar launches unless the U.S. is under imminent attack, requiring confirmation of hostile action via intelligence assessments before execution. This measure seeks to prevent unauthorized or erroneous orders by mandating evidence of retaliation necessity, building on existing protocols where officers may decline unlawful directives. Expert recommendations from organizations like the advocate requiring concurrence from senior officials, such as the Secretary of Defense, for any launch order, effectively creating a "second grip" on authority without formal legislation. A 2017 proposal outlined procedural enhancements, including mandatory deliberation pauses for non-emergency scenarios and reinforced insubordination rights against dubious commands, to balance speed with oversight. To mitigate accidental launches, the has proposed de-alerting intercontinental ballistic missiles by removing them from hair-trigger status, which would extend warning times from minutes to hours or days while retaining second-strike options via and bombers. This technical safeguard addresses risks from false alarms, as seen in past incidents like the 1979 glitch, without altering command structures. Existing U.S. systems already incorporate permissive action links and two-person rules, but reformers argue for further redundancies given evolving cyber threats.

References

  1. [1]
    The myth of the big red button: How the ICBM force maintains ...
    May 6, 2014 · The reality is the procedure to launch an ICBM takes quite a bit more than the push of a button.
  2. [2]
    The button that isn't | Restricted Data - The Nuclear Secrecy Blog
    Dec 15, 2014 · In principle, the United States President has complete control over whether nuclear war starts. But the President doesn't work in a missile silo ...
  3. [3]
    What Is the Nuclear 'Button' and Where Did It Come From?
    Jan 3, 2018 · The idea that the president had to approve nuclear attacks, says Wellerstein, was never actually put into law.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Nuclear Briefcases - Supreme Court
    Jun 12, 2018 · Contrary to popular belief, the football does not contain a nuclear button nor can the president launch a strike directly from the briefcase.
  5. [5]
    Launching Missiles - Air Force Museum
    Only the President of the United States can authorize a strategic missile launch. In the Minuteman II system, the launch sequence took less than five minutes.
  6. [6]
    Going it alone? The president and the risks of a hair-trigger nuclear ...
    Mar 1, 2016 · In short: A president could push the button all by himself or herself, legally- and constitutionally-speaking. Physically, military personnel ...
  7. [7]
    How the Presidency Took Control of America's Nuclear Arsenal
    Jan 5, 2018 · Reporters questioned the idea of giving nuclear authority to the military, in particular the infamously hotheaded General Douglas MacArthur.Missing: concept | Show results with:concept<|separator|>
  8. [8]
    Why Do People Refer to a Nonexistent 'Nuclear Button'? - The Atlantic
    Jan 3, 2018 · But the term “nuclear button” has been in use for decades. The earliest mention that I could find was from Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize ...
  9. [9]
    Does the president of the USA really have a nuke button under his ...
    Feb 23, 2022 · The “nuclear button” is a well known phrase. The first use that most sources seem to have found is in 1957, in a speech by the Canadian Prime ...
  10. [10]
    Who, What, Why: Is there such a thing as a nuclear button? - BBC ...
    Sep 30, 2015 · Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said he wouldn't press a nuclear button. But does one actually exist, asks Justin Parkinson.Missing: strategy | Show results with:strategy
  11. [11]
    Authority to Launch Nuclear Forces | Congress.gov
    Aug 7, 2025 · The US President has sole authority to authorize the use of US nuclear weapons. This authority is inherent in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief.
  12. [12]
    All the King's Weapons: Nuclear Launch Authority in the U.S.
    with new ...
  13. [13]
    How to Launch a Nuclear Weapon - Outrider Foundation
    Oct 5, 2020 · Only the President can order the launch of nuclear weapons. The President is not required to consult with anyone, and, if the President orders a ...
  14. [14]
    Presidential Control of Nuclear Weapons: The "Football"
    Jul 9, 2018 · The “Football,” the nominally secret command-and-control system used to assure presidential control of nuclear use decisions.
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Reference Sheet on Nuclear Command and Control Page 1 of 2
    As part of those procedures, the President would identify himself or herself using unique codes stored on a “biscuit” that he or she keeps with him at all times ...
  16. [16]
    Presidents and the 'Nuclear Football' | Arms Control Association
    Mar 2, 2025 · “Policy Roundtable: Nuclear First-Use and Presidential Authority ... Nuclear Button,” Foreign Policy, March 18, 2024. William Burr is a ...
  17. [17]
    Trump and the Nuclear Codes: How To Launch a Nuclear Weapon
    Jan 17, 2017 · The US nuclear launch system is built for speed: it is designed to allow the president to be notified of warning of an incoming attack.Missing: procedure | Show results with:procedure
  18. [18]
    Strengthening Checks on Presidential Nuclear Launch Authority
    Major changes are needed to constrain a president who would seek to initiate the first use of nuclear weapons without apparent cause.
  19. [19]
    How to Limit Presidential Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear ...
    The United States should modify its decision-making procedures to require that one or more officials concur with a presidential order to use nuclear weapons.<|separator|>
  20. [20]
    What is the chain of command for a potential Russian nuclear strike?
    Apr 21, 2022 · The Russian General Staff has access to the launch codes and has two methods of launching nuclear warheads. It can send authorisation codes to ...
  21. [21]
    The chain of command for potential Russian nuclear strikes | Reuters
    Mar 2, 2022 · The Russian General Staff has access to the launch codes and has two methods of launching nuclear warheads. It can send authorisation codes to ...
  22. [22]
    How Russia Decides to Go Nuclear | Foreign Affairs
    Feb 6, 2023 · Gerasimov's sign-off is especially important, and perhaps even essential. Any nuclear order must be authenticated through a central nuclear ...<|separator|>
  23. [23]
    UNITED KINGDOM: NUCLEAR WEAPON COMMAND, CONTROL ...
    Sep 12, 2019 · Launch Authority and Last Resort. Authority to launch the UK's nuclear weapons rests solely with the Prime Minister, as the National Command ...Missing: authorization | Show results with:authorization
  24. [24]
    On Royal Succession and Command and Control
    Sep 14, 2022 · Only the Prime Minister can authorize Britain's nuclear deterrent to be used, subject to a specific set of procedures. The Queen or King has no ...
  25. [25]
    “Nuclear spring is coming”: examining French nuclear deterrence in ...
    Mar 11, 2024 · Within the French system, the head of state holds the ultimate authority to decide on the use of nuclear weapons. Each new president ...Missing: launch authorization procedures
  26. [26]
    NUCLEAR COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATIONS
    Jun 13, 2019 · This paper engages with French nuclear command, control and communications, or NC3. It first lays out the situation of knowledge about French nuclear history.
  27. [27]
    Chinese nuclear weapons, 2025 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Mar 12, 2025 · Formal order: official launch order from the Central Military Commission authorizing the use of nuclear weapons.
  28. [28]
    Whose Finger Is on the Button? | Union of Concerned Scientists
    France: As in the United States, the president alone can order a nuclear launch, though the chief of the presidential military staff and the chief of defence ...
  29. [29]
    Is China Changing Its Nuclear Launch Strategy? - Foreign Policy
    Aug 5, 2025 · It kept nuclear weapons on low alert in peacetime and remains the only country to pledge never to use nuclear weapons first under any conditions ...Missing: procedures | Show results with:procedures
  30. [30]
    India Establishes Formal Nuclear Command Structure
    According to the Ministry of External Affairs, India has established a Nuclear Command Authority that includes a Political Council and an Executive Council.
  31. [31]
    India's nuclear doctrine - PIB Press Releases
    The Political Council is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is the sole body which can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
  32. [32]
    COMMAND AND CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN INDIA
    Aug 1, 2019 · Nuclear weapons are said to be controlled by the Nuclear Command Authority, a two layered structure, one of which is headed by the Prime Minister.
  33. [33]
    Controls on Pakistan's Nuclear Technology
    Pakistan reportedly requires the “standard two-man rule,” that two separate operators enter codes or turn keys to arm and launch nuclear weapons. The ...Introduction · Nuclear Program · Control Over the NukesMissing: authorization | Show results with:authorization
  34. [34]
    North Korea Passes Nuclear Law | Arms Control Association
    North Korea passed a new law in September that updated its nuclear doctrine and provided greater clarity about command and control of the country's nuclear ...Missing: authorization procedures
  35. [35]
    [PDF] NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR COMMAND AND CONTROL
    There are four basic command models North Korea might adopt to convey launch authority beyond Kim: “automaticity,” devolution, delegation and pre-delegation ...
  36. [36]
    Command and Control in North Korea: What a Nuclear Launch ...
    Sep 15, 2017 · Positive control is the set of features and procedures that enable nuclear forces to be released when the proper authority orders it ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Nuclear Launch Authority in the United States and Other Nations
    In the United States, the president has the sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, for any reason and at any time. This system has been in place.
  38. [38]
    Kim Jong Un's 2018 New Year's Address | NCNK
    Jan 1, 2018 · Full English-language text of Kim Jong Un's 2018 New Year's Address, as published by KCNA ... Nuclear Button. NCNK. 1111 19TH STREET NW. SUITE 650.Missing: transcript | Show results with:transcript
  39. [39]
    North Korea's Kim Jong-un issues threats and olive branch - BBC
    Jan 1, 2018 · North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un has said a nuclear launch button is "always on my table" and warned the US it will never be able to start a ...
  40. [40]
    Kim Jong Un warns "button for nuclear weapons is on my table"
    Jan 1, 2018 · "The U.S. should know that the button for nuclear weapons is on my table," he said during the speech, as provisionally translated by the AP. The ...<|separator|>
  41. [41]
    Kim Jong Un highlights his 'nuclear button,' offers Olympic talks
    Jan 2, 2018 · "The entire United States is within range of our nuclear weapons, a nuclear button is always on my desk. This is reality, not a threat," Kim ...
  42. [42]
    Kim Jong-un's 2018 New Year's Address | PIIE
    Jan 2, 2018 · Despite the press focus on the nuclear button on Kim Jong-un's desk, the speech's strategic orientation was almost entirely defensive.Missing: transcript | Show results with:transcript
  43. [43]
    https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/948355557022420992
  44. [44]
    Trump Says His 'Nuclear Button' Is 'Much Bigger' Than North Korea's
    Jan 2, 2018 · “North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times,'” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “Will someone ...
  45. [45]
    Trump to Kim: My nuclear button is 'bigger and more powerful' - BBC
    Jan 3, 2018 · US President Donald Trump has boasted that his nuclear button is "much bigger" and "more powerful" than North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's.
  46. [46]
    Trump Taunts Kim: My 'Nuclear Button' Is 'Much Bigger' Than Yours
    Jan 3, 2018 · Mocking Kim, the president wrote: "Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, ...
  47. [47]
    Trump tweets about nuclear war with North Korea | CNN Politics
    Jan 2, 2018 · Trump taunts North Korea: My nuclear button is 'much bigger,' 'more powerful' · Kim's address came amid growing tension · South Korea initially ...
  48. [48]
    Donald Trump boasts that his nuclear button is bigger than Kim Jong ...
    Jan 2, 2018 · President intervenes with provocative tweet after North Korea leader said his own launch button was always 'on my desk'
  49. [49]
    Trump to North Korean leader Kim: My nuclear button 'is bigger ...
    Jan 3, 2018 · Trump to North Korean leader Kim: My nuclear button 'is bigger & more powerful'. While Donald Trump boasted about his "nuclear button," the ...
  50. [50]
    The Diet Coke button returns to the Oval Office after Trump ...
    Jan 20, 2025 · When pressed, the button notifies White House butlers that a Diet Coke – Trump's drink of choice – is needed in the Oval Office.<|control11|><|separator|>
  51. [51]
    There's a New Secret Button in the Oval Office—Here's Why
    Jan 22, 2025 · The Diet Coke button sits within a small wooden box on Trump's desk in the Oval Office. He had this very same button added in 2017, during his ...
  52. [52]
    From his big appetite to his big button: a year in Trump | AP News
    Jan 16, 2018 · Trump ... In reality, there's no such thing as a nuclear button for the president to launch a nuclear attack. But his Diet Coke button indeed ...
  53. [53]
    Trending: Internet laughs at Oregonians gas troubles; Twitter worries ...
    Jan 3, 2018 · People are worried about Trump's Diet Coke button causing a nuclear crisis. What if Donald Trump gets confused with the nuclear war button ...
  54. [54]
    Here's What Donald Trump's Diet Coke Button In The Oval Office ...
    Mar 20, 2025 · They think it's a nuclear weapon. They say if I press this, it's the end of the world." Thankfully, that nuclear button isn't a thing. It's ...Missing: anecdote | Show results with:anecdote
  55. [55]
    Trump reinstalls Oval Office Diet Coke button upon White House return
    Jan 21, 2025 · A report by The Wall Street Journal revealed that the button, used to summon White House staff to deliver cans of Diet Coke, has been reinstated ...
  56. [56]
    Trump's red button moment: JD Vance says he feared 'nuclear strike'
    Jun 25, 2025 · US Vice President JD Vance shares a moment when Trump pressed a red button mid-call-only to summon a Diet Coke.
  57. [57]
    Nuclear Launch Authority: Too Big a Decision for Just the President
    Jun 1, 2021 · As it has been since the dawn of the atomic age, the president possesses the sole authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons by the United States.
  58. [58]
    Opinion | The President's Sole Authority Over Nuclear Weapons Is ...
    Mar 7, 2024 · It is, however, unacceptable for an American president to have the sole authority to launch a nuclear first strike without a requirement for ...
  59. [59]
    Should the president retain the sole authority to order the use of ...
    Sep 19, 2024 · Some experts posit that US nuclear launch authority should be changed, as it relies on the constant and utmost rationality of one individual and ...
  60. [60]
    Accidental Nuclear War: a Timeline of Close Calls
    Feb 23, 2016 · Flick through our historical timeline to see all the miscalculations, accidents, near-misses and close-calls that nearly caused nuclear war.
  61. [61]
    Rep. Peters Introduces Bill to Limit the President's Authority to ...
    May 23, 2025 · The “Nuclear First Strike Security Act of 2025” provides Congress the means to check the President's ability to conduct a nuclear first strike without ...Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
  62. [62]
    Memo to Trump: Modify the US policy of sole authority to launch ...
    Jan 17, 2025 · Any nuclear attack plan would require a presidential order and agreement by the next two people in the presidential chain of succession. Under ...
  63. [63]
    A New Paradigm: Mutually Assured Security - War on the Rocks
    Jul 20, 2021 · Mutually assured destruction aims to deter nuclear attack by convincing a potential attacker that it will receive punishment out of proportion ...
  64. [64]
    How effective is nuclear deterrence today? - Polytechnique Insights
    Mar 5, 2025 · Deterrence is there to prevent major wars between powers, not just nuclear wars. And in this sense, it works, including in the context of the war in Ukraine.
  65. [65]
    NATO's nuclear deterrence policy and forces
    Oct 13, 2025 · The credibility of NATO's nuclear forces is central to maintaining deterrence, which is why the safety, security and effectiveness of these ...
  66. [66]
    Nuclear Wars Cannot Be Won: An Argument for Strategic Deterrence
    Aug 28, 2024 · The historical evidence demonstrates that nuclear deterrence has facilitated peace and stability. As China and Russia strive to challenge ...
  67. [67]
    Full article: How Useful Are Nuclear Weapons in Practice? Case-Study
    The analysis suggests nuclear weapons have limited benefits, are difficult to use for coercion, and their deterrence effectiveness is unclear. Nuclear-armed ...
  68. [68]
    https://www.unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Paper-3-Nuclear-Deterrence.pdf
  69. [69]
    Nuclear Threats and Alerts: Looking at the Cold War Background
    The October 1962 Cuban missile crisis involved the most well-known and dangerous Cold War nuclear alerts and threats.
  70. [70]
    Nuclear Risk | XLab - The University of Chicago
    For instance, in 1983, Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer, received early warning signals suggesting five incoming U.S. ICBMs.Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  71. [71]
    The nuclear mistakes that nearly caused World War Three - BBC
    Aug 9, 2020 · From invading animals to a faulty computer chip worth less than a dollar, the alarmingly long list of close calls shows just how easily ...
  72. [72]
    Returning to an Era of Competition and Nuclear Risk - CSIS
    Sep 16, 2025 · Moscow's use of nuclear threats to seize territory and redraw borders in Europe represents a dangerous escalation that challenges fundamental ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] A Framework for Evaluating the Escalatory Risks of Policy Actions
    May 12, 2025 · The risk of nuclear escalation is the problem that originally drove the development of escalation scholarship and theory, and that risk ...
  74. [74]
    How to avoid nuclear war in an era of AI and misinformation - Nature
    Jul 17, 2025 · Nuclear deterrence is no longer a two-player game, and emerging technologies further threaten the status quo. The result is a risky new nuclear age.
  75. [75]
    Forecasting Nuclear Escalation Risks: Cloudy With a Chance of ...
    Apr 17, 2025 · For example, in a deeply researched history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, James Blight and David Welch describe how “hawks” and “doves” focused ...<|separator|>
  76. [76]
    Sen. Markey, Rep. Lieu Statement on President Trump Assuming ...
    Jan 22, 2025 · Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Congressman Ted Lieu (CA-36) will reintroduce The Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act.Missing: reform | Show results with:reform<|control11|><|separator|>
  77. [77]
    Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2025 | Congress.gov
    (7) The President has the sole authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons, an order which military officers of the United States must carry out in ...
  78. [78]
    Rep. Peters introduces bill to limit President's ability to launch a ...
    May 27, 2025 · Rep. Scott Peters introduced a bill on Friday to limit a president's ability to launch a nuclear strike unless the US was under attack.
  79. [79]
    A Second Grip on the Nuclear Football: Rethinking Sole Authority in ...
    Jan 15, 2025 · The president has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. This means the president can order a nuclear strike without the approval of or consultation with ...
  80. [80]
    Safeguarding Nuclear Launch Procedures: A Proposal - Lawfare
    Nov 19, 2017 · For the United States to use nuclear weapons first, there are two opposite procedural problems: insufficient deliberation and insubordination.
  81. [81]
    Nuclear Weapons Solutions | Union of Concerned Scientists
    Taking these missiles off hair-trigger alert (or “de-alerting”) would immediately remove the risk of a mistaken or accidental launch, while preserving our ...