The United States has created a system so that if we were suddenly under attack, the Commander-in-Chief, the President, would not have to waste time...

The
development of the National Command Authority was a long process where the authority of the
president was slowly cemented. Currently, there is no way that anyone could stop an authorized
nuclear strike from the president, even if they were insane. So far as sanity or insanity goes,
it would be hard to confirm the president's sanity in the event of a nuclear emergency: the idea
of sanity is something that can't be judged except by a trained medical professional. Therefore
it would be difficult to judge the sanity of a personespecially if congress hasn't seen fit to
remove them from office because of insanity or other issues. If a sanity requirement were added,
it would add significant time to the system for a strike because it would require a
diagnosis.

Other systems exist around the world which might provide security
but also ensure speed. Around ten nuclear-armed countries exist in the world. Of those ten,
there are five countries with serious nuclear capability. Great Britain has a system of appeals
that comes into play if the leaders of the armed forces do not think the Prime Minister is
launching an attack with good reason. Their appeal goes to the queen, who is ultimately the real
leader of the armed forces. The US could establish a similar system, wherein the military could
appeal to the speaker of the house or congress for veto power over a nuclear strike order,
especially in the case of a first strike. Other countries like China, Russia, and India have a
system where a group or council decides together if there is a need for a nuclear strike. The
only other country that has a system where the power for a nuclear strike is in the hands of a
single person is France.

The question needs to be asked, though: what is the
point of a retaliatory strike? Why does the president need the ability to destroy other
countries quickly? If an easily identifiable country attacks the US, a large portion of our
country would likely be wiped off the planet. There is almost nothing to gain (no real
advantage) from attacking another country in retaliation for a nuclear strike. Even if there
was, why would it need to be "quick"? It is likely that the president would be safely
away in a bunker at first sign of a missile, and retaliation, if it were deemed necessary, could
be carried out afterward. The idea that the president needs quick and sole discretion over
nuclear strikes seems outdated and dangerous.

href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/whose-finger-button">https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/whose-finger-button