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.
So you're clamouring to be able to drop nukes around the world for less serious reasons?
No, I don't think it is a good idea to announce to the world that we will never use a nuke unless one is first used on us. That would be like owning a gun and having a sign at your door, armed homeowner, but I pledge I will not shoot you unless you shoot me first. The whole point of having a nuclear arsenal and strong military is to deter.
This poll is set up with a bias that makes it useless in gathering anything of value. Might want to rephrase it without the bias.
For example:
Do you support Warren's proposal that we should only use nukes in retaliation of nukes being used against us?
Yes
No
It's unfortunate that such a good question got butchered into something completely useless.
Ding Ding Ding. You're going to see a lot of this. Liberals like the OP bashing democratic candidates they don't like. It's going to become a liberal on liberal war during the debate period. I know you're trying to help, but might be best to just grab your popcorn and sit back as they destroy each other. There's no helping people like this and they will continue to post bias polls to wage anger.
And I assume law abiding citizens would only use a gun first if they were under attack or threatened.
See how that works.
That is the difference right there. Her signed pledge is not whether a country or enemy threatens the US with nukes, it's only if they USE nukes on us.
A law abiding citizen in most states doesn't have to wait for an intruder to shoot them in the head before they can use deadly force.
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?
.
It is not a deal breaker for me as I think she is being a bit naive and if she surrounds herself with good advisers they will tell her it is not a good idea in a poker game to tip your hand. And make no doubt about it, MAD is the ultimate poker game.
Candidates say the dumbest things. Trump promised Mexico would pay for a wall. That was pretty dumb. Warren is also making dumb commitments. What matters to me is what is between the ears - does the person have good character and is smart enough to deal with all sorts of problems when the sh*t really hits the fan? Can he/she sort out good advice from bad advice? Does he/she hire good people as part of her team? That is what really matters. I think Warren has the chops to be POTUS despite some of the screwy things she has said.
It is not a deal breaker for me as I think she is being a bit naive and if she surrounds herself with good advisers they will tell her it is not a good idea in a poker game to tip your hand. And make no doubt about it, MAD is the ultimate poker game.
Candidates say the dumbest things. Trump promised Mexico would pay for a wall. That was pretty dumb. Warren is also making dumb commitments. What matters to me is what is between the ears - does the person have good character and is smart enough to deal with all sorts of problems when the sh*t really hits the fan? Can he/she sort out good advice from bad advice? Does he/she hire good people as part of her team? That is what really matters. I think Warren has the chops to be POTUS despite some of the screwy things she has said.
Thanks for an actual intelligent response.
I personally think Warren would have been the strongest candidate until she made that pledge. It's different from making a trivial promise like Mexico will pay for the wall. The dirt Republicans can now use against her is huge now. "Warren will sign a pledge to never use a nuke unless one is used against us first. That opens the door for any of our enemies. We are talking about millions of Americans need to be murdered before Warren will use our greatest deterrent. ETC" You get my point. I have a feeling she will try hard to walk back that stance in the coming debates.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,067,892 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
.
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?
.
Dude.
This is already the policy of the USA, Britain, France, Russia and China. It has been the policy for over 50 years. These weapons are intended primarily as a deterrent, but one that is credible: we actually can destroy each other. The only time you would do a "first strike" would be if you think an attack from the other side is imminent, or if they have used another type of WMD (say they attacked us with large scale chemical or biological weapons).
I agree with you that she's way too far to the left and i would never vote for her, but if this is what she's saying...she's saying something that is already official policy, and has been for 50 years.
As far as seeing New York City blown up, I believe you're talking about non-state actors. You can't use a nuclear weapon against an enemy that doesn't have a clear base of operations. Preventing NYC from blowing up would be a submarine sinking the ship before it brought a weapon into the harbor, the CIA killing the terrorists before they could do it, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuclear Posture Review 2010
The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners.
(...)
Since the end of the Cold War, the strategic situation has changed in fundamental ways. With the advent of U.S. conventional military preeminence and continued improvements in U.S. missile defenses and capabilities to counter and mitigate the effects of CBW, the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks – conventional, biological, or chemical – has declined significantly. The United States will continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. To that end, the United States is now prepared to strengthen its long-standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that the United States will not use or threaten to usenuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,067,892 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by wit-nit
Her statement is ridiculous, if we wait until a nuke is dropped on us then we may not be alive to retaliate.
It has always been our policy. We won't start a nuclear war, but we will retaliate against any enemy launches. We've always been on a hair trigger; as soon as we detect a launch, we will immediately launch in retaliation. There's no choice, unless we all sit down and agree to completely destroy our stockpiles (which I rigorously support).
Note that our survivable deterrent is the Trident submarine program. I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of a nuclear weapon aboard the USS Florida SSBN-728 at any time. But I can confirm that nuclear deterrence was our primary mission. The Trident missile is a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. An ICBM -- Intercontinental Ballistic Missie -- launched from a submarine. This was 1999 to 2003. Britain uses the submarines exclusively, but the USA has a triad: submarines, land based missiles and bombers.
The enemy can destroy the Air Force's missile silos, but won't know where the submarines are (nor will it know which submarines have nuclear weapons aboard and which do not).
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,067,892 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
People who vote NO is because they don't want to see a city destroyed before being able to use our nukes.
We don't wait for that. We wait for a launch detection. But given the speed of the missiles etc. it's going to hit. Edit: to whoever made the reputation comment...as a former submariner I obviously know that only the President can authorize a nuclear strike. The point was that the military watches for a launch detection, then contacts the President as to their orders. We wouldn't wait until a US city was destroyed. That is not correct.
This is why we don't directly attack Russia or China with conventional arms, because it would quickly escalate to nuclear war, and then we're all dead.
Last edited by neutrino78x; 08-03-2019 at 01:16 AM..
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.
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.
