> So the President would never have to bloody his or her hands

You missed the point. The whole argument is that if POTUS had to kill someone, they wouldn’t make the decision to kill many others. “The winning move is not to play,” as Joshua said in War Games (1983). They wouldn’t actually put the president in the situation, it’s just a sanity check thought experiment. Nukes are expensive posturing- the big stick to hold as you speak softly.

I understand that. But if the POTUS could order someone to do the dirty job for them, then they wouldn't actually have to think about it, so they'd remain removed from the reality of killing someone (or a few million people). So the POTUS doesn't have to play or not play- they are immune to this kind of morality experiment. It's like trying to second-guess god (a non-existent entity). What have we learned from the exercise?

The difference is that the volunteer would be someone walking around with them all the time, so if POTUS wants it or not, they would eventually get to know each other at least a bit, which makes a killing decision more personal (even if not executed by POTUS themselves).

Assuming god isn’t real is an assumption. Metaphysical assumptions aside, I’ve learned that you argue, and that you’ve not learned much from this.

I guess they weren't thinking of the current president.

Excellent reference.

> can anyone be said to hold such power legitimately, when they have only been given this power by a small minority of the entire population that is potentially affected by the decision

Can anyone be said to hold the power to murder millions if not billions legitimately, even if they were selected by a democratic vote?