Neither of the articles you linked to argue that. The NRO article puts faith in the military to ignore an order, which is a pretty big assumption.
The second link explicitly says:
"""The president holds the constitutional position of commander in chief and is obligated to protect the United States from foreign threats. The Constitution does grant to Congress the power to declare war, but it is unclear whether a law that significantly constrained the president’s nuclear command authority — particularly when the United States or it allies are under attack or in imminent danger of attack — would be constitutional. """
The second link explicitly says:
"""The president holds the constitutional position of commander in chief and is obligated to protect the United States from foreign threats. The Constitution does grant to Congress the power to declare war, but it is unclear whether a law that significantly constrained the president’s nuclear command authority — particularly when the United States or it allies are under attack or in imminent danger of attack — would be constitutional. """
Instead, I'll point you to this: https://www.npr.org/2017/10/03/555266383/why-president-trump...