There was someone who worked in Washington who made a proposal that the nuclear launch codes should be printed on a little capsule that was surgically implanted inside a man who would travel around with the president, in kind of the same way that the briefcase or whatever-it-is travels around with him under the current system.
The deal was, if the president wanted to launch a nuclear strike, he had to take a big knife and kill the man to cut him open to get to the capsule. Kind of come to grips on an individual level with what he was dealing with, and what it meant on at least some level, instead of just pushing some buttons in an air conditioned office.
I don’t think this was ever meant as a serious proposal. The person who invented it was just trying to make a point. But it did get relayed to at least one person who worked in the Pentagon who got very upset at the idea and started arguing against it. What if, he said, the president looks at what’s in front of him and can’t do it. That would be terrible.
I get the idea, but what if the kill-guy fights back and at the last minute decides he doesn’t want to be a sacrificial lamb? I can imagine that as some sort of 70s tv series about a guy on the run from the government and a president who wants all-out war.
That’s fine. But also the guy could be handcuffed to a secret service agent or something. It’s not like there aren’t a bunch of buff dudes around the president at all times. The purpose of the exercise would probably be enhanced if the guy didn’t want to die.
I dunno I mean it’s a pretty different proposal to logically come to the idea of like. oh something that’s an existential threat needs to be nuked, whether that be like, godzilla, which is NOT a good idea, or like, just ensuring MAD because fuck it, I guess, or like, north korea or something, right, there’s a difference between that, which should probably be a pretty cold and calculated decision, and like, killing someone, presumably that you know quite well after travelling with them for you know, at most, eight years, and then rooting through their corpse to find a little code with what’s probably a time critical objective. I think probably, as another commenter pointed out, you would want to elect the president that can’t kill a person. That’s a better president, than the one that can, probably.
Bigger hole than all that, though: the president would probably just ask the secret service to do it, and the secret service would probably comply.
There was someone who worked in Washington who made a proposal that the nuclear launch codes should be printed on a little capsule that was surgically implanted inside a man who would travel around with the president, in kind of the same way that the briefcase or whatever-it-is travels around with him under the current system.
The deal was, if the president wanted to launch a nuclear strike, he had to take a big knife and kill the man to cut him open to get to the capsule. Kind of come to grips on an individual level with what he was dealing with, and what it meant on at least some level, instead of just pushing some buttons in an air conditioned office.
I don’t think this was ever meant as a serious proposal. The person who invented it was just trying to make a point. But it did get relayed to at least one person who worked in the Pentagon who got very upset at the idea and started arguing against it. What if, he said, the president looks at what’s in front of him and can’t do it. That would be terrible.
If the president can’t kill one single man without a guilty conscience, he/she probably shouldn’t be obliterating the entirety of our species.
Putin could do both.
Putin would gut a fellow comrade for something to do while the launch codes were being retrieved from the briefcase.
So would lots of Republicans, what’s your point?
How many nuclear bombs has Putin dropped since this war started?
I get the idea, but what if the kill-guy fights back and at the last minute decides he doesn’t want to be a sacrificial lamb? I can imagine that as some sort of 70s tv series about a guy on the run from the government and a president who wants all-out war.
I would unironically watch this show
And they’re running out of time!
PLEASE LET THIS BECOME A REAL SHOW
I need to watch this.
That’s fine. But also the guy could be handcuffed to a secret service agent or something. It’s not like there aren’t a bunch of buff dudes around the president at all times. The purpose of the exercise would probably be enhanced if the guy didn’t want to die.
There are too many Presidents in history who would have done that gleefully for me to believe it would function as a deterrent.
I’m less worried about the President who hesitates than I am the President who doesn’t.
This requirement is also the plot of the 2020 Hugo Award for Best Short Story, As the Last I May Know
The full story is available here definitely worth a read.
I didn’t read the story but that’s a cool mag. I’m digging the vibe and articles.
I dunno I mean it’s a pretty different proposal to logically come to the idea of like. oh something that’s an existential threat needs to be nuked, whether that be like, godzilla, which is NOT a good idea, or like, just ensuring MAD because fuck it, I guess, or like, north korea or something, right, there’s a difference between that, which should probably be a pretty cold and calculated decision, and like, killing someone, presumably that you know quite well after travelling with them for you know, at most, eight years, and then rooting through their corpse to find a little code with what’s probably a time critical objective. I think probably, as another commenter pointed out, you would want to elect the president that can’t kill a person. That’s a better president, than the one that can, probably.
Bigger hole than all that, though: the president would probably just ask the secret service to do it, and the secret service would probably comply.
Sounds like a plot element from Metal Gear Solid.
However: I think this would weaken nuclear deterrence, wouldn’t it?
MAD is a bad thing
Play Peace Walker
How about a nice game of chess?
Chess sucks. You don’t even get to kill the king.
Thank you Joshua, I’d like that very much
Lol, that’s were I learned about it.
Yes, it might be bad from a moral standpoint. But foreign policy relies on it too much.