Does the US govt's Launch on Warning policy negate the civilian chain of command?

Question

in a nuclear war scenario?

Answer 1

While the political leaders and military brass publicly state that nuclear forces are controlled by the commander-in-chief or the next in line, the realities are that the hair triggers make that policy meaningless. I read an article by Sen. Sam Nunn regarding the fallacy of the chain of command in face of an imminent or existing attack.

The bias in favor of launch on electronic warning is so powerful that it would take enormously more presidential will to withhold an attack than to authorize it. The option to “ride out” the onslaught and then take stock of the proper course of action exists only on paper. That is what presidents never learn during their tenures. Their real control is illusory. What’s more, the truth has been kept from the presidents intentionally and the public in general.

The reality is that the decision to launch is based in minutes, rather than hours (or even half hours).

Answer 2

No, it doesn't.

"Launch on warning" is more of a movie script term... even if we had a warning of an attack, our military would still need Command Authority to launch.

Since the mid-90's our missiles aren't targeting anything, therefore, we would need a launch order to facilitate targeting.

Answer 3

Not really. Command authority is very real and certain things have to happen to arm one and the things that make that happen come from high places.