-4

The USA requires that the president orders a (lawful) nuclear strike.

The United Kingdom requires that the Prime Minister orders a (lawful) nuclear strike, although the Chief of the Defence Staff could appeal to the monarch, who could rescind the order since the

... armed forces are loyal, and we live in a democracy, but actually their ultimate authority is the king.

So the Prime Minister can launch a nuclear strike without the monarch's consent, but the monarch could (if asked) prevent a strike.

As of March 2023, fifteen Commonwealth realms recognize Charles III as their head of state.

Can the highest ranking military personnel of these countries also ask the monarch to stop a military attack sanctioned by the executive or legislature of their country?

sfxedit
  • 8,898
  • 1
  • 23
  • 50
  • Since they don't have nukes, the question could be more broadly asked if the King could stop any other military action initiated by those countries. I think the answer is mostly no, but you'd have to check each individual constitution etc. – the gods from engineering Mar 03 '23 at 22:12
  • 5
    The question is purely hypothetical until any commonwealth country other than the U.K. has nuclear weapons. It doesn't have a well defined answer. – ohwilleke Mar 03 '23 at 23:37
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because there is no known commonwealth country besides the UK with nuclear weapons which means that this isn't a possibility until that happens. – Joe W Mar 04 '23 at 06:20
  • Can the UK king really effectively overrule a decision by the Prime Minister? I thought he is just there for ceremonial reasons, no real power. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 04 '23 at 08:50
  • 1
    @Trilarion Almost every question about the UK's constitution ends up discussing theory and practice. In theory, the King has considerable powers. In practice, almost all of his powers are either directly delegated to the government, or are exercised by the King only on the "advice" of his ministers. But in an extreme crisis, it is possible (if unlikely) that the King could exercise these powers on his own. – Steve Melnikoff Mar 04 '23 at 15:19
  • @JoeW: Well "The Canadian Forces were equipped with [US] nuclear warheads from 1964 to 1984." https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/canada-and-nuclear-weapons#:~:text=Canada%20also%20operated%20nuclear%20weapons,has%20historically%20advocated%20for%20disarmament. So I guess we could learn something from that, but the King's control over those probably didn't feature prominently in the discussions, if at all. – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '23 at 19:28
  • @Fizz Did they actually have operational control over those weapons? – Joe W Mar 04 '23 at 19:36
  • @JoeW: Rather hard to tell "Canada’s operation of nuclear weapons was controversial throughout the Cold War, and the topic remained a closely guarded national secret. Officials never confirmed nor denied the presence of nuclear weapons on Canadian military bases." – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '23 at 19:39
  • @Fizz If I was to make a guess, I would say that they (and other countries around the world) hosted the weapons for the US but the US was still in control of operations. – Joe W Mar 04 '23 at 19:56
  • @JoeW: maybe with some of those, but it's hard to see how that was possible with AIR-2 Genie (nuclear tipped air-to-air rocket) etc. – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '23 at 20:00
  • "The substantive sections of the records dealing with this discussion have been censored, and appeals for review have been unsuccessful. We do know, however, that the final agreement stated that release would be subject to prior inter-governmental consultation, where practical." (Clearwater's book, p.35) – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '23 at 20:22
  • The same was true for nuclear-tipped SAMs that Canada had "there was no formal mechanism for consultation and authorization at all when Canada first acquired the weapons. Negotiations on the political control mechanism did not begin until late March 1964. Worse yet, the formal arrangement did not come into effect until the spring of 1965, more than a year after the first BOMARC was armed." – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '23 at 20:29
  • Eventually a dual-key arrangement was reached. The US officer would release the weapons for Canadian use, after which the latter could do whatever with them. This bis is more interesting though "The United States was anxious that the West German government not learn the specifics of the bilateral Canada- US agreements which gave Canada some say over the use of nuclear weapons by Canada or over Canada, as this would conflict with US policy in European NATO." – the gods from engineering Mar 04 '23 at 20:42

1 Answers1

2

The UK is generally considered to be a constitutional monarchy despite the absence of a clear-cut constitution. Various laws and rules take the place of a unified document with "constitution" in the title. There is the quip that the monarch has at most one try to defy the elected representatives in a major issue before that changes -- unless he has a majority of the people on his side.

You pointed to the loyalty which His Majesty's Government and the armed forces owe to the king. But UK constitutional theory talks about the king-in-parliament, or the queen-in-parliament, to recognize that for all the traditional loyalty to the individual monarch, in the end the elected representatives have to decide.

o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393