This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41977120

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Senate committee questions Trump nuclear authority Senate committee questions Trump nuclear authority
(about 2 hours later)
For the first time in over 40 years, Congress is examining a US president's authority to launch a nuclear attack. For the first time in over 40 years, Congress has examined a US president's authority to launch a nuclear attack.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing is titled Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was titled Authority to Order the Use of Nuclear Weapons.
The panel's Republican chairman accused President Trump last month of setting the US "on a path to World War III". Some senators expressed concern that the president might irresponsibly order a nuclear strike; others said he must have the authority to act without meddling from lawyers.
The last time Congress debated this issue was in March 1976.
In August, Mr Trump vowed to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea if it continued to expand its atomic weapons programme.In August, Mr Trump vowed to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea if it continued to expand its atomic weapons programme.
The last time Congress debated this issue was over a four-day hearing in March 1976. Last month, the Senate committee's Republican chairman, Senator Bob Corker, accused the president of setting the US "on a path to World War III".
A nervous laughA nervous laugh
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, explained the reason for Tuesday's public hearing. Senator Ben Cardin set the tone at Tuesday morning's public hearing on Capitol Hill.
"We are concerned that the president is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear-weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national-security interests." "This is not a hypothetical discussion," the Maryland Democrat said.
Senators also wanted to know what would happen if the president ordered a nuclear strike. Some senators present said they were troubled about the president's latitude to launch a nuclear strike.
Robert Kehler, an ex-commander of US Strategic Command, said that in his former role he would have followed the president's order to carry out the strike - if it were legal. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said: "We are concerned that the president is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear-weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national-security interests."
Mr Kehler said if he were uncertain about its legality, he would consult with his own advisers. One of the experts, C Robert Kehler, who was commander of the US Strategic Command from 2011-13, said that in his former role he would have followed the president's order to carry out the strike - if it were legal.
He said if he were uncertain about its legality, he would have consulted with his own advisers.
Under certain circumstances, he explained: "I would have said, 'I'm not ready to proceed.'"Under certain circumstances, he explained: "I would have said, 'I'm not ready to proceed.'"
One senator, Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, asked: "Then what happens?" One senator, Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, asked: "Then what happens?"
Mr Kehler admitted: "I don't know."Mr Kehler admitted: "I don't know."
People in the room laughed. People in the room laughed. But it was a nervous laugh.
But the BBC's Tara McKelvey, who attended the hearing, said it was a nervous laugh. Another expert, Duke University's Peter Feaver, a political science professor, explained that a presidential order "requires personnel at all levels" to sign off on it.
What else can we expect from the hearing? It would be vetted by lawyers, as well as by the secretary of defence and individuals serving in the military.
No Trump administration officials are testifying before the hearing, which is examining the nuclear command and control structure that has served all US presidents. "The president cannot by himself push a button and cause missiles to fly," said Prof Feaver.
Discussion about the highly classified process of actually launching an attack is unlikely in such a public forum. 'Bunker lawyers'
The hearing is being closely watched, not only due to the grave nature of the topic, but also because of Mr Trump's vocal critics on the panel - some of whom come from the Republican president's own party. Another expert, Brian McKeon, a former under-secretary of defence for policy, said military officials would stop the president if they felt he was acting in a rash manner.
Bob Corker, the Tennessee senator who chairs the committee, last month engaged in a Twitter spat with Mr Trump, likening the White House to "an adult day care center". "Four-star generals are not shrinking violets," said Mr McKeon.
Another senator on the panel has drafted legislation proposing to curb the president's power to launch a nuclear attack. Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, sounded sceptical.
The bill by Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, would require Mr Trump to obtain a declaration of war from Congress before launching a nuclear first-strike. "I don't think we should be trusting the generals to be a check on the president," he said.
Despite rallying 13 co-sponsors in the Senate, the measure has no Republican support and has gained little traction. One of the key questions at the hearing was whether the senators - and Americans in general - had confidence in the president to make such a decision within minutes, or even seconds.
Can Trump launch a nuclear attack? At that moment, the defence secretary, military officials and lawyers would have little time to review the president's decision.
As commander-in-chief, the president has the sole authority to order a nuclear attack, which can be delivered either by submarine, airplane, or intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) - which make up the so-called "nuclear triad". Some of the senators said the president needed to have the freedom to act fast and forcefully under those circumstances.
Under current rules, the US president could set a strike in motion by entering the codes into a device called "the football", which travels everywhere with the president. Senator Marco Rubio explained that the US president "has to have the capacity to respond if we are under attack" - and not be circumvented by "a bunch of bunker lawyers".
Mr Trump is not required to consult anyone or gain consensus from any other members of government. Senator James Risch, an Idaho Republican, reinforced Mr Rubio's message, explaining that officials in Pyongyang should not misinterpret their discussion.
His top advisers, such as Defence Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson or national security adviser Lt Gen HR McMaster play no role in the chain of command. "He will do what is necessary to defend this country," said Mr Risch.
Congressional approval is required for the use of conventional military force, but nuclear powers have remained within the president's authority since the dawn of the nuclear age. At the end of the hearing, the lawmakers and experts agreed that the nuclear arsenal should be modernised - just in case.
This is because an enemy ballistic missile launched from the other side of the world could hit the US in barely 30 minutes.