Elizabeth Warren said she will pledge to never use a nuke unless one is first used on us FIRST, do you agree with her?

[kanonka]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

For those who say it doesn't matter because of MAD (mutually assured destruction), with that logic why are we spending so much on the military to the point where our budget equals the next 10-15 countries COMBINED... I mean if we are going to be destroyed anyways by a country who spends 10% of us, than what's the point?

Disclaimer, I don't agree with the above, but I see a lot of "smart arses" that like to use the above argument as to why this pledge doesn't matter because we would die whether we use it first or they use it first.

Well, companies that produce weapons want to live well... very well...extraordinary well
That's what lobbying is for.

[kell490]

I would not worry much because she has little chance of ever being elected to the presidency.

[kanonka]

Originally Posted by FC76-81

That's how it's been since the end of WWII. It's called a "deterrent". Warren obviously thinks she's bringing new ideas to the table. Those ideas have always been there. So either she's that stupid or, she thinks she can fool stupid people to vote for her because they think she's bringing in new ideas. I think it's the later of the two.

As for the "promise", here is the scenario: US attacks, say, Iran. Let's pretend Iran can effectively defend itself. It does not have nukes, so it simply cannot fire nuclear first strike (or second, or any at all). Does this "promise" still apply?

Everyone for some reason thinks big countries that can produce MAD. But there are >200 countries on this planet. What about them?