[Mick]

Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

I wonder how much that doctrine has changed over the past 30 years?

Good question. The US has always utilized "strategic ambiguity" to cause other nations to be unsure where the boundary was and therefore be cautious not to cross it. Similarly we have never signed on to any "No first use" pledge because 1) we have already done it once and 2) no nation will honor such a pledge if they believe first use is in their strategic interest. The President can order their use using whatever advisors (if any) he wishes to consult. POTUS has absolute authority. While there is plenty of scholarly analysis on the subject it comes down to what the President  thinks is prudent. This is one reason it is imperative the President be able to evaluate the situation rationally, dispassionately and logically. The POTUS can't be driven by emotion (like anger or fear). The POTUS also has to understand the consequences of acting or not acting (in so far as it is possible) by taking into account all the available facts and precedents. As far as I know no POTUS has ever come close to actually giving the "go" authorization. Let's hope it can stay that way.

I recall reading that POTUS has 100% authority, which is interesting in a democracy, but I get it, the president needs that authority to act quickly. 

Separately, I also recall reading that Putin doesn't have that 100% authority, that Russian nuclear policy mandates that Putin actually has to jump through some hoops before using nuclear weapons, specifically in consulting with Russian military officers and multiple approvals by fellow higher-ups. Is that true, to your knowledge?

[Mick]

Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

I wonder how much that doctrine has changed over the past 30 years?

Good question. The US has always utilized "strategic ambiguity" to cause other nations to be unsure where the boundary was and therefore be cautious not to cross it. Similarly we have never signed on to any "No first use" pledge because 1) we have already done it once and 2) no nation will honor such a pledge if they believe first use is in their strategic interest. The President can order their use using whatever advisors (if any) he wishes to consult. POTUS has absolute authority. While there is plenty of scholarly analysis on the subject it comes down to what the President  thinks is prudent. This is one reason it is imperative the President be able to evaluate the situation rationally, dispassionately and logically. The POTUS can't be driven by emotion (like anger or fear). The POTUS also has to understand the consequences of acting or not acting (in so far as it is possible) by taking into account all the available facts and precedents. As far as I know no POTUS has ever come close to actually giving the "go" authorization. Let's hope it can stay that way.

I recall reading that POTUS has 100% authority, which is interesting in a democracy, but I get it, the president needs that authority to act quickly. 

Separately, I also recall reading that Putin doesn't have that 100% authority, that Russian nuclear policy mandates that Putin actually has to jump through some hoops before using nuclear weapons, specifically in consulting with Russian military officers and multiple approvals by fellow higher-ups. Is that true, to your knowledge?