It's so weird that that phrasing is even accepted as the norm. It would be unacceptable if a grocery store charges you for 'up to' 2 liters of soda, and then tells you to go fuck yourself when they give you only 0.5 liter.
I skimmed the article, I'm not reading anything about witnesses or people already knowing about it before the recent uproar. Its in the article
(Not that it really matters: However the story turns out, she's an awful person either way. It's just I'm not sure what kind of awful person we're dealing with here.)
Somehow I doubt that dog story is even true, she comes across as nothing but performative. It only backfired on her this time (or maybe it didn't, we're probably not the target audience of her performance)
Contents of the agreement are not referenced in the article
If the US has to authorize it, then no the other country doesn't 'get to drop the bomb'. The country gets to push the red button when US says 'fire'.
And as I stated before, the nukes aren't deployed in those countries because the countries want them there, it's because the US want them there, and has the 'persuasiveness' to get them there.
I think 'technically' you didn't die if your heart stops for a couple of minutes and then restarts.