Talk:National Command Authority (United States)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Untitled[edit]

Note the correct term is National Command Authorities. See http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O63-NationalCommandAuthoritis.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.238.93 (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect assertion, at least according to the Department of Defense. The DoD's web site states "Directions for military operations emanate from the National Command Authority, a term used to collectively describe the President and the Secretary of Defense." https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/ Paratrooper450 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should clean up the end of the article as there seems to be a disagreement in the article as to whether the President can use an acting Secretary of Defense for the NCA. While the edit at the bottom of the article is correct in saying the President needs the confirmation of the Senate to appoint a new Secretary of Defense, it's also true that the President can appoint an acting Secretary of Defense until a confirmation vote happens. As far as I know an acting Sec. of Def. would have the same authority as a confirmed one but whether this specific authority is automatically transferred, I don't know. Without any research, I would assume it does but then again its such a serious issue maybe Congress excluded this authority. Then again maybe it does transfer since a decision needs to be made extremely quickly. Does anyone have any evidence either way? (It'd also be nice to cite this authority in the article too) --Hammy 13:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, a distinction needs to be made between an "acting" SecDef and an interim appointment, which can be made by the president without the advice and consent of the Senate if the Senate is in recess. This power has been interpreted to include brief recesses as well as the recesses between sessions of Congress. Such appointments are held to continue until the end of the session, even if the Senate returns from recess. The extent of this power is in litigation after President Obama declared he had the power to declare the Senate in recess if it was only holding pro forma sessions, even if the Senate declared that it remained in session through these sessions. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that valid recess appointees have all powers exercised by an appointee made with the advice and consent of the Senate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of "unitary executive" within article[edit]

"It must be noted that as a matter of constitutional law, the President represents the unitary executive power of the United States."

This statement is factually questionable and represents POV.

The idea that the President is a "unitary executive" is very much debated; see the 'pedia page on Unitary executive theory; not only is the "unitary executive" a matter of "theory", but the page itself is in a POV dispute; whether the President is or isn't a unitary executive is an open question and not a settled "matter of constitutional law". In addition, and with more bearing on the subject of this article, even if the President is a "unitary executive", s/he shares control of the military with Congress who has the power to declare war (and implicitly, though disputedly, holds the power to authorize the use of offensive (vs. defensive) military force--see War Powers Resolution). Congress may even possibly be able to issue orders for individual units to attack, though this is disputed (Congress' power to issue letters of marque and reprisal).

Therefore I'm going to make a suitable edit to de-POV the unitary executive statement. Katana0182 18:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President's authority The article says that the President has "unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order nuclear weapons used for any reason at any time", then contradicts itself by saying that the President needs authorization from another authority. If the President can singlehandedly order nukes used for any reason whenever he feels like it, there's no reason he needs secondary authorization. Either the sentence needs to be reworked or it needs deletion. Your choice. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duly Deputized?[edit]

Since when can POTUS duly deputize anyone, including the VP, to exercise NCA in his place? It was my understanding that VP has no authority to give military kill orders until he is sworn in. Where is your reference for this? The chain of command is very specific. Is this some secret part of the continuity of government law Congress has passed or something completely unfounded? Or is it some informal post-9/11 pattern that slipped through? 2605:A000:D300:8B00:517A:F79D:8432:7D01 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since 1967, when the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was approved. The amendment does not require a separate swearing in when the VP becomes acting president. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

The article needs to be reorganized. The main body shows a quoted 1971 directive but the current operational command that supersedes that from 1971, the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act, is in the history section. Otr500 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This article, which deals with a very important and highly notable topic, is severely lacking in citations to reliable sources. Parts of it appear to be speculation on the part of one or more editors. Several CN tags have been applied for years. If RS citations cannot be found within a reasonable period of time, I will reluctantly begin redacting unsourced material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was writing an article today about this topic for my blog and looked up in wikipedia and then checked the sources as I always do. The citations for this section are high quality, but the passage simply does not summarize what the sources say at all. I can't find a reference to any of this in the citations:

"While the President does have unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to order that nuclear weapons be used for any reason at any time, the actual procedures and technical systems in place for authorizing the execution of a launch order requires a secondary confirmation under a two-man rule, as the President's order is subject to secondary confirmation by the Secretary of Defense.[citation needed] If the Secretary of Defense does not concur, then the President may in his sole discretion fire the Secretary. The Secretary of Defense has legal authority to approve the order, but cannot veto it."

The cited directive at the top of the page instead just says:

"The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates orsuccessors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands."

There is nothing there at all about a two man rule, or secondary confirimation, or the President firing the Secretary of Defense. Indeed, it seems implausible that with only minutes to respond, that the President would be expected to stop and fire the Secretary of Defense before continuing with their action. And there is nothing in the citations given about this either as far as I can see. Probably just an editor who isn't very good at summarizing what they read accurately. I'd say go ahead and edit it myself, have a read of the sources and summarize them in your own words. Be bold - whatever you produce is bound to be better than the existing version of this article.

This article seems particularly authoratative as it is by a nuclear security expert, What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button by Bruce Blair Robert Walker (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the questionable material. The article needs expansion but I am satisfied that what is left is reasonably accurate and sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Guard[edit]

Perhaps it should be wise to includes a statement regarding the Coast Guard, such as,

"While the Coast Guard is an armed service and one of the five equal branches of the military it is not under the Department of Defense and instead under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, (See United States Coast Guard) the chain of command for the Coast Guard is as follows President, to the Secretary of Homeland Secretary to the Commandant of the Coast Guard.

or a similar statement.

Simmons123456 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, add as Chain of Command to US Coast Guard with citations is my suggestion. 17387349L8764 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Wikipedia articles as sources for this article![edit]

This should go without saying. An anonymous IP added new content and cited other Wikipedia articles in support in August 2017 and it remained there for nine months. Now maybe he didn't know any better, but other users, including people with usernames, have edited this article since then and left it in. That's incomprehensible. Richard75 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Authority to launch a nuclear strike[edit]

Please don't insert text saying that the NCA can order a nuclear strike, or that the President's authority to order a nuclear strike comes from being a member of the NCA, without citing a solid source. Richard75 (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's defined in DoD Directive 5100.30 "World-Wide Military Command and Control System" from 1971. 17387349L8764 (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. or e.g.[edit]

"... or their duly deputized successors, i.e. the vice president and the deputy secretary of defense..."

Is the vice president and the deputy secretary of defense the ONLY deputized successors or are they examples? If they are examples then this should be e.g. instead of i.e. (Also, if an example then what are the requirements to be a 'duly deputized' successor rather than just a successor?). RJFJR (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing needed[edit]

Why is this article cited by Trump focused See Alsos, and no policy or procedure? 2001:48F8:2D:1DA:DCA1:B18B:EE28:C9E8 (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More specific please. There are four See alsos. All of them should be integrated in text or removed. Kr 17387349L8764 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]