John Noonan knows nukes. He has spent his entire life in the defense community, first as the son of a career Naval officer, then as a student in military institutions, then as a United States Air Force launch officer within the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICMB) system. He's spent countless 24-hour shifts 100 feet below ground, surrounded by ten nuclear missiles to which he has the launch codes. After leaving the Air Force, he became a spokesperson for the House Armed Services Committee and served as a national security advisor to both Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush.

Before this election, Noonan was mostly behind the scenes, a powerful man who worked in the shadow of even more powerful politicians. That is, until Donald Trump came along and started running his mouth about using nuclear weapons with the flippancy with which most of us deploy angry-face emojis.

Noonan is a low-key guy, but such a fundamental misunderstanding by a presidential nominee of our most powerful war deterrent was too much. So he took to Twitter. In a twenty-tweet rant, Noonan rained scunnion down upon poor Donald with a series of logical points that led to one conclusion: Trump should not be given the ability to launch a nuclear weapon.

Since the tweet storm, Noonan has been in constant demand for television and radio appearances, and his op-ed cup overfloweth. By his reckoning, he is at minute fourteen of his fifteen minutes of fame. We figure we'd snag the last one.

ESQ: One of your most damning condemnations of Trump was the observation that he did not seem to know in concrete terms, about the "Nuclear Triad." Why does it matter that he knows submarine-launched missiles, ground-based missiles, and air-launched/dropped nuclear weapons?

JOHN NOONAN: It's evidence that Trump doesn't have any damn respect for this country. When you run for president, you need to know certain things: You need to know how much a gallon of milk costs. You need to know the names and the proper pronunciations of major world leaders. And you sure as hell need to know some basic facts about nuclear weapons. When Mitt and Jeb ran for office, they studied. They asked questions. They had a hunger and desire to learn, because they knew that the demands of leadership are unforgiving. Ignorance is a choice. And Trump's choice—to not do the work—is essentially saying "I don't care about you or the demands of this office."

Getty Images

You were a nuclear-weapons officer, trusted with the launch codes and keys that could end the world. What was it like to have the fate of the world in your hands. literally?

Well let's not get too hyperbolic. The era of tens of thousands of missiles and bombs on alert went out with parachute pants and the Sugar Hill Gang. Nuclear forces are much smaller these days.

That said, a nuclear exchange between two major powers would reshape the world in a drastic and nightmarish way, take the lives of millions, and have catastrophic environmental effects that would last generations. So we're not playing with Lincoln Logs here either.

And yes, it's a hell of a responsibility. Consider this: The president gives an order. But a missileer, or a submarine or bomber crew, all have to choose whether or not to follow that order. In a sense, the decision to release nuclear weapons isn't the president's alone. It's shared by everyone in that chain of command. Don't get me wrong, I would have done my duty and I can damn near guarantee everyone on alert right now wouldn't blink either. But think of that as an added responsibility of the presidency: You aren't just ordering nuclear release—you are asking everyone in that chain of command to own it, too, and to live with it for the rest of their lives.

"It's how he's run his businesses for decades: 'I can do whatever I want.' In the business world, it was shady and unethical. In the national-security world, it's downright dangerous."

Explain the concept of "deterrence," how that relates to our "first strike" capability, and Trump's understanding thereof.

Think of the world as a playground. Does the bully—the five-foot-tall third grader with a pituitary disorder—pick on the star athlete or the 60-pound weakling? They're not going to punch the athlete in the nose because they'll get socked right back, so they go for the weakling every time. In America's case, we don't just stand up to the nuclear-armed bullies—we also stick up for the weaker kids. Russia, to wit, could impose its will on the small Baltic democracies because Russia is big and they are small. It's American resolve, backed by nuclear weapons, that keeps Russia in check. That's what you call deterrence.

This is what I hear from Trump: that he wants to flip that equation and make the United States the bully. That is, We're big and we have nukes and we can use them to kill terrorists in Raqqa and Mosul. Stop us if you dare. It's how he's run his businesses for decades: I can do whatever I want. In the business world, it was shady and unethical. In the national-security world, it's downright dangerous.

I don't think it's empty talk either. His spokesperson said a few months ago, "what good is a nuclear triad if you can't use it?" That could the stupidest thing ever said in the history of presidential campaigns, which puts it in the running for stupid thing ever said in the history of humanity. Nuclear weapons are like an understanding between the athlete and the bully: You don't screw with me and I won't screw with you. It's a way for the two biggest kids on the block to communicate with each other in no uncertain terms. That Trump allegedly believes that nukes are solutions to low-intensity problems like ISIS and Al-Qaeda is raw, unfiltered insanity.

Getty Images

Why speak out now? Or, why are you now being listened to?

I've been consistent in my opposition to handing over nuclear authenticators to a petty thug like Trump. Here's a guy who consistently ties up our judicial system with stupid lawsuits designed to punish or bully his enemies. He sued everyone from small businesses in Georgia to Native American tribes out West.

Imagine handing over the U.S. Armed Forces to a man who uses the legal system as a giant club to whack his enemies? Think of the damage he could do. And think of the young men and women who would have to decide which of his orders are legal and which are illegal. Trump doesn't just flunk the Commander-in-Chief test. He gets held back a year.

"Trump wants to make the United States the bully."

Trump has infamously denigrated combat veterans like Marine Corps General John Allen, Navy veteran John McCain. His statements about international- and defense-related statements have been inconsistent at best. What do you consider to be his most egregious gaffes?

The McCain gaffe, and the way Trump's supporters responded, was incredible. Republicans are the party of national security, of a strong military, and of profound respect for service and sacrifice. One dumb comment by Trump and all of a sudden I'm hearing lifelong Republicans resurrect bat-shit conspiracy theories from 2008 about how McCain started the USS Forrestal fire. Why not blame the guy for the bubonic plague, too?

The stories from the Hanoi Hilton, the suffering those pilots like McCain endured, is beyond what any of us could bear. And here's Trump, a guy who wouldn't last 30 seconds in a military chow hall, saying that people who got shot down aren't heroes. Does he know that during the war, North Vietnam had the most heavily defended airspace in the world outside of the Soviet Union? That you could practically play hop scotch from one blazing surface-to-air missile to another? Does Trump know guys like McCain woke up every morning and flew into that shit storm for no other reason that they loved their country and had cast-iron in their jockstrap? Does he know they endured unspeakable torture because they refused to badmouth America in front of international camera crews? Or that McCain refused special parole because his father was an admiral, so he rode out six years of his life there?

Of course Trump doesn't know any of that. But his supporters, his Republican supporters at least, should know better.

How has the Republican defense community has reacted to your statements?

Getty Images

I've fielded some disappointed emails from smart, knowledgeable foreign-policy wonks who were upset about how I used the term "first use." I criticized Trump for wanting a "first use" policy. That is, "We've got nukes—so let's use nukes!" There's more to first use than that. But it's hard for me to say, "Guys, I was firing this off on my phone's Twitter app and I needed to make people understand deterrence in less than 140 characters a pop." These are serious people and nuance counts in their business.

The most valid complaint I heard is that we've always held first use as an option. It's not because we want to just attack someone out of the blue. Strategic ambiguity has always been a vital part of deterrence strategy. Adversaries already know that using nuclear weapons against the U.S. or its allies means a nuclear response. Saying "we will not use nuclear weapons first" gives an adversary an advantage. They can escalate conventional crises without the threat of nuclear response. The bottom line is that a No First Use policy sounds nice on paper, but could be dangerously escalatory in the real world. Egg headed stuff, sure. But important.

That aside, most of the response was positive. It was nice to hear from colleagues I respect who said, "Hell yes, this needed to be said." I'm a staffer by trade, and sometimes it's hard to tell if you're flying too close to the sun. I'd be lying if I said I didn't appreciate the affirmation from longtime pros.

Follow John Noonan on Twitter at @noonanjo.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io