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, 05:44 PM
 
15,858 posts, read 13,750,425 times
Reputation: 21886

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kanonka View Post
I guess I should have specified in the triad era.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2019, 05:59 PM
 
5,160 posts, read 1,018,041 times
Reputation: 2047
I am not in favor of using a nuke unless it was dozens of miles away from all local human settlements. Otherwise, too many innocent bystanders would be harmed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Blue Ridge Mntns., NC
10,950 posts, read 15,325,580 times
Reputation: 9829
If I am repeating the importance of the following, please forgive me, but this bears repeating for the terminally naive among us:

Elizabeth Warren is a pathetic airhead who suffers from terminal mendacity !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,702 posts, read 20,273,917 times
Reputation: 8488
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?

.
Hear that China?

Don't worry about our nuclear weapons.

They're just for display.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 06:55 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,372 posts, read 3,008,269 times
Reputation: 2115
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Hear that China?

Don't worry about our nuclear weapons.

They're just for display.
China has no intention of starting a nuclear war, either. (You do realize that they have several hundred strategic nuclear warheads as well, right? and they also have the equivalent of SSBN submarines, as we do?) The primary purpose of nuclear arms is to prevent war through deterrence.

I know this because I was a submariner (although nothing I've said is classified). If you think the purpose of having nuclear weapons is start a nuclear war, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we have a first strike capability. The ability to retaliate implies a first strike capability. But no, we have no intention of using it. That would be stupid, because our country would be destroyed in retaliation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 06:59 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,372 posts, read 3,008,269 times
Reputation: 2115
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanonka View Post

You're the one who's wrong. USN submariner here. The Navy has a contingency plan for pretty much everything. But again....a first strike would be stupid, because that would kill us too. Ever notice how we have not used our 1st strike capability? Why do you think that is? Because the Russians and Chinese are deterring us from doing so. They would destroy us in retaliation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 07:10 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,372 posts, read 3,008,269 times
Reputation: 2115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
When it comes to defense, the left don't even want individuals protecting themselves, so a pre-emptive strike is verboten.
We defend ourselves through deterrence. A pre-emptive strike would mean they would destroy us in retaliation.

Quote:

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.
You have no idea what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with MAD. Yes, there was a program to create a capability to shoot down some of the incoming missiles,but not a significant number of them. That would work against a rogue state like North Korea, but China and Russia have far too many warheads and missiles. If we ever did make a system that could stop a significant number of them, Russia and China would have to start making NEW warheads, which none of us have done in decades. It would be a very, very bad situation. We are already on a hair trigger. And no, the hair trigger was never removed after the "end" of the Cold War. I'm going to run into limitations on what I'm allowed to say so I'll just say that they do indeed still have SSBN submarines and still send them out to sea.

The main defense against North Korea right now (other than MAD) is US Navy destroyers off their coast that could theoretically shoot down one or two missiles from North Korea. And of course, if any of them got through, we would retaliate and destroy North Korea.

Quote:
Defense and the left...incompatible.
Many of us are veterans, dude. Ever heard of John F Kennedy? He was a Navy officer. There is very much still a conservative wing of the Democratic Party. In fact, 80% of the party belongs to the more conservative wing. The one that favors Biden instead of Warren or Sanders. We Democratic Party Centrists serve in the military in many cases because of what JFK said: "ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 07:14 PM
 
Location: Eastern NC
19,735 posts, read 17,935,444 times
Reputation: 17586
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
China has no intention of starting a nuclear war, either. (You do realize that they have several hundred strategic nuclear warheads as well, right? and they also have the equivalent of SSBN submarines, as we do?) The primary purpose of nuclear arms is to prevent war through deterrence.

I know this because I was a submariner (although nothing I've said is classified). If you think the purpose of having nuclear weapons is start a nuclear war, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, we have a first strike capability. The ability to retaliate implies a first strike capability. But no, we have no intention of using it. That would be stupid, because our country would be destroyed in retaliation.
This is worth repeating over and over again. To those idiots on here who think this gives other nations the green light to attacks us, stop letting your hatred of Warren make you like stupid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 07:18 PM
 
1,528 posts, read 639,265 times
Reputation: 1410
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker View Post
This is worth repeating over and over again. To those idiots on here who think this gives other nations the green light to attacks us, stop letting your hatred of Warren make you like stupid.
I'm conservative and think Warren is too extreme, but I agree with your assessment of the OP. Not everyone gets nuclear policy (as represented by the OP), but it's also important to note that a lot of these people have no military experience at all and are armchair generals, at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Alaska
6,361 posts, read 4,403,756 times
Reputation: 3783
She’s an idiot
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