Sure the simplest reason is that you don’t need to have civil matters centralized just to maintain that rapid military response. Ideally the commander in chief and executive branch would both be elected but separate positions for example. You don’t need a strong executive branch you just need a well working system, sure it’s technically easier to have it under an executive but easy doesn’t mean good.
Also it seems like more traditional bomber dropped nukes will take over once more, this means that the point is just to get them in the air before worst comes to worst. Most of the needed resources will already be assembled where needed meaning it doesn’t much matter if the executive even exists still since everything should’ve been set up long before then.
My point is that the reasoning is flawed since it assumes that the most effective action is to have a strong centralized power. When ideally you’d want a well maintained decentralized network of response facilities.
I think I see. To your knowledge, does any nuclear power operate in this way? I’m only slightly familiar with the US system, and I just checked the UK and from what I’m reading, both countries pretty much have the president/PM as having ultimate authority.
While checking, I also read that the UK’s submarine deterrents don’t need launch codes from the PM at all, and rely solely on military discipline to prevent an illicit launch. Not entirely germane to this talk, but it’s an interesting difference - and it’s certainly less bound up with executive power.
The Soviet Union was the closest to getting to this ideal. The problem they had with achieving was technological in nature, were they capable of more modern forms of communication they could have possibly achieved it. Don’t know if Russia is still trying to do it or not.
Sure the simplest reason is that you don’t need to have civil matters centralized just to maintain that rapid military response. Ideally the commander in chief and executive branch would both be elected but separate positions for example. You don’t need a strong executive branch you just need a well working system, sure it’s technically easier to have it under an executive but easy doesn’t mean good.
Also it seems like more traditional bomber dropped nukes will take over once more, this means that the point is just to get them in the air before worst comes to worst. Most of the needed resources will already be assembled where needed meaning it doesn’t much matter if the executive even exists still since everything should’ve been set up long before then.
My point is that the reasoning is flawed since it assumes that the most effective action is to have a strong centralized power. When ideally you’d want a well maintained decentralized network of response facilities.
I think I see. To your knowledge, does any nuclear power operate in this way? I’m only slightly familiar with the US system, and I just checked the UK and from what I’m reading, both countries pretty much have the president/PM as having ultimate authority.
While checking, I also read that the UK’s submarine deterrents don’t need launch codes from the PM at all, and rely solely on military discipline to prevent an illicit launch. Not entirely germane to this talk, but it’s an interesting difference - and it’s certainly less bound up with executive power.
The Soviet Union was the closest to getting to this ideal. The problem they had with achieving was technological in nature, were they capable of more modern forms of communication they could have possibly achieved it. Don’t know if Russia is still trying to do it or not.