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.
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.
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?
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,219 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
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.
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.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,219 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
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."
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.
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.
You would have to be Trump or naive to think that China doesn't know better.....
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.
