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, 08:53 PM
 
Location: the Sticks
9,105 posts, read 2,586,311 times
Reputation: 4800

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
A deterrent of building a mass amount of nukes is that we might use our nukes before you finish building them or exporting them. It's stupid to tie your hands together.
You miss the point of MAD. Mutually assured destruction.

Its not that we might use them before you can. It's that no matter what, we will use them and effectively no matter what, if you use yours. You have no power to stop it.

Ok to use your analogy of head shot.

The deterrent is We have a sniper hidden that you can't possibly defend against. If you shoot me in the head, my sniper will kill you and you can't do anything about it. That is a deterrent.

The deterrent can be, I have a sniper. I will use my sniper first, if you annoy me. Yes that can be a deterrent.

In the case of our nukes the deterrent is and has been for decades, we can and will retaliate and destroy you and all your allies, because we have enough assets that you can't possible eliminate them all. That is what MAD is all about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:00 PM
 
Location: US
18,325 posts, read 18,094,191 times
Reputation: 14247
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962 View Post

The deterrent is We have a sniper hidden that you can't possibly defend against. If you shoot me in the head, my sniper will kill you and you can't do anything about it. That is a deterrent.

The deterrent can be, I have a sniper. I will use my sniper first, if you annoy me. Yes that can be a deterrent.

In the case of our nukes the deterrent is and has been for decades, we can and will retaliate and destroy you and all your allies, because we have enough assets that you can't possible eliminate them all. That is what MAD is all about.

That's my point, Warren says okay well if you shoot my friend, then I will shoot you back. You know Warren will be protected in a secret facility somewhere. We used two nukes on Japan without them launching any at us. I'm not saying we should be using nukes preemptively, but I am saying it does our country a disservice for her to publicly announce to the world my hands are tied no matter the situation or scenario that comes up in the future.

It's not just about retaliation, it's that if we wanted to we could destroy you before you even have the chance to launch nukes or develop nukes or export nukes or for any reason we deem necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:15 PM
 
52,367 posts, read 42,133,031 times
Reputation: 32687
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
Hear that China?

Don't worry about our nuclear weapons.

They're just for display.
If you don't know what SSBN means nor how many are out in the sea at any one time, you probably shouldn't be making such uninformed opinions in public.

So many uninformed posters.

I mean dear god, why not do a little research before coming to an opinion?

I mean I know R vs. D is easy but dang...have a little pride.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,257 posts, read 2,828,777 times
Reputation: 7064
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?

.
In this day and age, when we have satellites and whatnot that can detect when a nuclear missile has been fired in our direction minutes (or less) after it has been launched, I don't think that's a dangerous pledge to make. Yes, if I were president I would have no problem saying that, because I know that if someone fired a nuclear missile in our direction, we would know well in advance of it hitting us, and could react by retaliating or whatever before the nuke ever hit us.

And the corollary to that is, I cannot ever think of a situation where I would want to first fire a nuclear weapon at another country without having been provoked with another nuclear weapon first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:27 PM
 
Location: US
18,325 posts, read 18,094,191 times
Reputation: 14247
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
In this day and age, when we have satellites and whatnot that can detect when a nuclear missile has been fired in our direction minutes (or less) after it has been launched, I don't think that's a dangerous pledge to make. Yes, if I were president I would have no problem saying that, because I know that if someone fired a nuclear missile in our direction, we would know well in advance of it hitting us, and could react by retaliating or whatever before the nuke ever hit us.

And the corollary to that is, I cannot ever think of a situation where I would want to first fire a nuclear weapon at another country without having been provoked with another nuclear weapon first.

You never know what scenario could come up in the future, it is foolish to tie your hands and announce it to the world. I feel like there could be scenarios in the future where we could use our nukes as a threat to stop it from happening. It's also gambling with potentially millions of lives that our defense systems would be successful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:30 PM
 
23,758 posts, read 12,532,211 times
Reputation: 7581
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
You never know what scenario could come up in the future, it is foolish to tie your hands and announce it to the world. I feel like there could be scenarios in the future where we could use our nukes as a threat to stop it from happening. It's also gambling with potentially millions of lives that our defense systems would be successful.
Relax..the declaration isn't a legally binding contract that would end up with the USA being put in jail if there was a situation in the future where they decided they needed to use a nuclear weapon without provocation.
I don't think that would ever happen..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:32 PM
 
Location: US
18,325 posts, read 18,094,191 times
Reputation: 14247
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
Relax..the declaration isn't a legally binding contract that would end up with the USA being put in jail if there was a situation in the future where they decided they needed to use a nuclear weapon without provocation.
I don't think that would ever happen..

So in other words you admit it's stupidity on her part to make such a pledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Dublin, OH
2,558 posts, read 3,463,511 times
Reputation: 1606
Elizabeth Warren has a lot of great policy positions that I completely 100% agree with...but this is not one of them. While I obviously I never what to see us have to use a nuke, nor should we make any decision about using one lightly, if we are truly under direct threat, then we need to have the option to use it as a last resort to protect the country. Now I would not use one to "protect another nation" or to "protect our corporate interests abroad".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:45 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,882 posts, read 8,725,143 times
Reputation: 20198
Quote:
Elizabeth Warren said she will pledge to never use a nuke unless one is first used on us FIRST, do you agree with her?
Doesn't matter. She won't ever be President.
I wonder what Beto's position is. Not that it matters, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2019, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
9,257 posts, read 2,828,777 times
Reputation: 7064
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi View Post
You never know what scenario could come up in the future, it is foolish to tie your hands and announce it to the world. I feel like there could be scenarios in the future where we could use our nukes as a threat to stop it from happening. It's also gambling with potentially millions of lives that our defense systems would be successful.
Meh, I can't ever imagine a scenario where the ONLY option to make some sort of threat would be with nuclear weapons. If somebody is posing a grave danger to us, there are many other options other than to launch nukes at them.
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