Trump: “1000 missiles are locked and loaded” for Iran if he’s killed ⁠15%

By CK Smith⁠42%

7/11/2026, 7:42:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,007 faulty-reasoning hits from 551 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠15% (18,009 of 21,180 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump escalated tensions with Iran on Saturday, claiming he has already given the U.S. military standing orders to unleash a massive retaliatory strike if Tehran carries out or attempts to carry out an assassination against him. 
“1,000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding that the military had already received orders to “completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran” for a one-year period if such an attack were to occur. 
The president’s comments came amid renewed threats from Iran following the recent U.S.-Iran conflict and reports that Tehran continues to view Trump as a target for retaliation over the 2020 U.S. killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in addition to the assassination of its most recent leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 
But while Trump’s language suggested a preauthorized military response, constitutional experts say no president can predetermine how a successor would respond to such an attack. 
Under the Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act , if a president dies in office, the vice president immediately becomes president and commander in chief. 
In this scenario, Vice President JD Vance —not Trump—would determine whether and how the United States responds militarily. 
Any existing contingency plans or standing directives would be subject to the new president’s authority, who is known not to have been a fan of the conflict from the beginning. 
“The U.S. has, for a whole variety of reasons, never utilized a technical ‘dead man’s switch,'” historian Garrett Graff, an expert on continuity of government, told the Associated Press. 
While the U.S. military maintains extensive contingency plans for crises ranging from nuclear attacks to the death of senior leaders, those plans do not automatically trigger military action upon a president’s death. 
The distinction matters because Trump’s post blurs the line between military planning and presidential authority. 
The United States routinely prepares response options for a wide range of national security scenarios, including attacks against American leaders. 
The existence of contingency plans is not unusual. 
What is unusual is a sitting president publicly describing what he characterized as “standing military orders” on social media and suggesting it would remain in force after he is no longer commander in chief. 
Trump’s post also arrives against a complicated diplomatic backdrop . 
Earlier, he said the United States had agreed to continue talks with Iran even as he declared a previous ceasefire effectively over, underscoring the volatile state of relations between Washington and Tehran. 
Start your day with essential news from Salon. 
Sign up for our free morning newsletter , Crash Course. 
The larger question raised by Trump’s remarks is not whether the United States would respond to an attack on a sitting president. 
Few national security experts doubt that it would. 
The constitutional question is who would make that decision. 
The answer, experts say, is not the president who issued the order, but the one who succeeds him. 
Read more 
about the Iran War 
Trump’s weekend war approach to Iran might never end 
Even Fox News is panning JD Vance’s Iran clean-up act 
“Won’t even make it back to your f**king country”: Trump threatens Iranian officials during talks 
The post Trump: “1000 missiles are locked and loaded” for Iran if he’s killed appeared first on Salon.com . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.9%Salon: 5.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%CK Smith: 3.0%Salon: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 3.3%CK Smith: 2.0%Salon: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.7%Salon: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 2.0%Salon: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%CK Smith: 13.0%Salon: 7.3%Framing Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%CK Smith: 0.6%Salon: 0.3%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.3%Salon: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%CK Smith: 1.1%Salon: 2.2%Pessimism Bias1.6%This article: 26.0%CK Smith: 6.8%Salon: 10.8%Negativity Bias26.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.6%Salon: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.1%Salon: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.8%Salon: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.8%Salon: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%CK Smith: 1.8%Salon: 1.3%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 1.8%CK Smith: 0.7%Salon: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 3.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.3%CK Smith: 1.1%Salon: 3.1%Appeal to Authority16.3%This article: 8.9%CK Smith: 2.4%Salon: 2.3%False Dilemma8.9%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%CK Smith: 3.9%Salon: 10.6%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.8%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.6%Bandwagon1.8%This article: 9.8%CK Smith: 2.3%Salon: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 2.7%CK Smith: 0.8%Salon: 1.4%Begging the Question2.7%This article: 9.1%CK Smith: 2.5%Salon: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.4%Salon: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 1.5%CK Smith: 0.2%Salon: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.5%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.4%Salon: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.5%Salon: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.6%CK Smith: 1.9%Salon: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.6%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.2%Salon: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.1%Salon: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.0%Salon: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.6%CK Smith: 2.0%Salon: 2.1%Unattributed Quote11.6%This article: 4.9%CK Smith: 2.4%Salon: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 22.5%CK Smith: 6.3%Salon: 15.1%Biased Writer Voice22.5%This article: 4.0%CK Smith: 1.0%Salon: 2.7%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 1.3%Salon: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CK Smith: 0.3%Salon: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%CK Smith: 3.1%Salon: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.8%

551 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers12%attributed speech483writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageGarrett Graff • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words57% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+94.8 ptsWriter: 5.2%Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.7 ptsWriter: 25.7%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.