The president should absolutely not be able to unilaterally initiate a first strike (read "unprovoked") nuclear attack. Any president should not, in fact, be authorized to unilaterally initiate ANY first strike military action. Some people have commented:. "But what if an enemy is preparing to attack us and we have a small window for a preemptive strike?!" First of all, if an enemy has motive, means, and opportunity, and is preparing to act on those, then it's no longer unprovoked and therefore this legislation wouldn't apply. But further, I want you to describe for me what kind of attack an enemy needs to be preparing that authorizes a preemptive NUCLEAR WEAPON ATTACK. If a situation calls for a preemptive strike, so be it, but what scenario could possibly justify a NUCLEAR WEAPON ATTACK? NO, one person should not make such a decision. Although we have exceptional military leaders, just the military leaders and commander in chief should not be allowed to make this decision. Before war there is diplomacy. We need a consensus of opinion in our state department with leaders in UN (our representative) and leaders in appropriate areas of congress (pertinent committees in addition to the armed services committees) is needed to determine that all peaceful avenues have been exhausted. This may include the entire congress - to start the war of Armageddon AS A FIRST STRIKE, WITHOUT PROVOCATION. Don't you agree that one person should not have this decision alone? If you do, that eliminates a possible WW3, because we will all go up in the cloud.