U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support Warren's proposal that we first have to be attacked with nukes before we can use them
Yes, we should announce to the world we won't use a nuke until one is first used on us 31 27.93%
No, we shouldn't handcuff ourselves saying a city first has to be destroyed before we can use our most powerful weapons 80 72.07%
Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2019, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,135 posts, read 10,738,409 times
Reputation: 34320

Advertisements

So we have to get nuked first.

Gee, thanks a lot, lady.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2019, 03:31 PM
 
15,832 posts, read 13,724,731 times
Reputation: 21843
Our nuclear strategy is based upon deterrence, as in if you strike us, we will strike back.

Japan is a on time event, the US will never nor ever has intended, to conduct a strike first. Our nuclear triad is based upon retaliatory strike ability.

Anyway, Warren is an idiot, for reasons aside from this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 03:31 PM
 
11,754 posts, read 8,559,409 times
Reputation: 7217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
So we have to get nuked first.

Gee, thanks a lot, lady.
There are probably a few folks left in Japan from when we struck first the last time. Bet we could learn something from them.

If we are still in any treaties, there are probably some rules about nukes and first strikes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:05 PM
 
255 posts, read 45,446 times
Reputation: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Our nuclear strategy is based upon deterrence, as in if you strike us, we will strike back.

Japan is a on time event, the US will never nor ever has intended, to conduct a strike first. Our nuclear triad is based upon retaliatory strike ability.

Anyway, Warren is an idiot, for reasons aside from this.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:18 PM
 
1,239 posts, read 425,297 times
Reputation: 1699
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
.

During the recent debate, Warren said she would sign a pledge to not use a nuclear weapon unless one is used on us first.

This to me is a deal breaker... it's like having a gun and pledging you will never shoot unless you get shot first. Why do we need to see NYC blown up before we can protect ourselves?

.
She has been protected all her life and has never known a very angry adversery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:19 PM
 
9,639 posts, read 6,387,678 times
Reputation: 18196
She is crazy, let's sacrifice a city first??? Hell no
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,135 posts, read 10,738,409 times
Reputation: 34320
Why am I not surprised that Bernie Sanders is jumping to Warren's defense? When it comes to defense, the left don't even want individuals protecting themselves, so a pre-emptive strike is verboten.

Let's not forget Reagan's proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, which the left dubbed "Star Wars" (with the help of a compliant media) and fed to an ignorant populace. That system would simply have allowed the U.S to deflect incoming missiles.

Defense and the left...incompatible. And where's Warren, or can't she fight her own battles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:23 PM
 
52,367 posts, read 42,133,031 times
Reputation: 32687
Meaningless garbage pandering by Warren.

I mean seriously someone facing a nuclear crisis with billions of lives at stake and they say "Well, I did sign a pledge".
Really? "No take backs" applies when facing such a crisis?

Frankly, I was luke-warm to her before but dang...that's just silly idealistic pandering.
I hope that was just desperation talking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,177 posts, read 256,055 times
Reputation: 1253
Presumably by "us", you mean the U.S. and the allies we're bound to defend through treaty obligations?

It's an easy promise to make... and just as easy to break. Is somebody going to test her on it? ... Nope. It certainly doesn't mean we'll be getting rid of our nukes any time soon. But it might provide some small comfort to our allies.

Last edited by rjshae; 08-03-2019 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,467 posts, read 2,685,491 times
Reputation: 6557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
Has no one explained to her she’ll be target #1 and won’t have a chance to send one back.
The whole MAD system is designed to launch a counter attack that is impossible to wipe out by the initial attack. Yes Russia or whoever will wipe out several American cities but because we have 1000's of nukes on submarines which will all be launched, most of Russia would be destroyed also. Hence the name "Mutually Assured Destruction".

This means the "no first strike" promise is meaningless when it comes to the countries we are in a deadly embrace with, which I believe are only Russia and China. They won't believe it, they will keep their deterrent strike capabilities fully ready just as we will.

But the "no first strike" is more meaningful to small nuke powers like North Korea. We are not in a MAD embrace with them and if they launched an attack it would be sure suicide and they would likely only do it if they felt like we were about to attack them with nukes. I can see some value in trying to defuse that situation by saying we will never launch a nuke at them first, but realistically Kim is not going to believe it any more than Putin would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top