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.
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.
When Operation Dropshot was created, no SU neither China had anything to retaliate with. So someone in "Defense" (pun intended) decided it would be a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Ever notice how we have not used our 1st strike capability?
OK, Japan doesn't count, I get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Why do you think that is?
Because it wouldn't generate any money at that moment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
Because the Russians and Chinese are deterring us from doing so. They would destroy us in retaliation.
That deterrent ability was achieved by SU and China after the plan was developed.
When Operation Dropshot was created, no SU neither China had anything to retaliate with. So someone in "Defense" (pun intended) decided it would be a good idea.
OK, Japan doesn't count, I get it.
Because it wouldn't generate any money at that moment?
That deterrent ability was achieved by SU and China after the plan was developed.
Yes I'm sure if Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren was president back then.....she would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives in a land invasion of Japan in order to save some foreign civilians......OR she probably would have sued for peace with the Japanese Empire. And probably stayed out of the war in Europe and leave fighting Hitler to the Soviets entirely and been okay with the Communists dominating all of Europe after the war.
Many folks here seem quite ignorant of our history. We have already, in theory, promised something close:
"The 2010 Nuclear Posture review reduces the role of U.S. nuclear weapons, stating that, "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." The U.S. doctrine also includes the following assurance to other states: "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations"
Yes I'm sure if Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren was president back then.....she would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives in a land invasion of Japan in order to save some foreign civilians......OR she probably would have sued for peace with the Japanese Empire. And probably stayed out of the war in Europe and leave fighting Hitler to the Soviets entirely and been okay with the Communists dominating all of Europe after the war.
Except virtually no lives would have been lost since it was common knowledge that Japan was going to surrender in September (bombs were dropped in Aug)....
But that really wasn't the issue. No one doubts that continued firebombing of Japanese cities would have killed as many Japanese as the Nukes did....and we definitely wanted to send a message to Stalin and the world that there was a New World Order.
Of course, Liberals/Democrats POTUS and leadership won WWI....I noticed you didn't mention that!
Even Oppenheimer was a liberal and a socialist. Most all of the scientists were.....as was the POTUS (FDR) etc.
You should thank FDR first thing when you wake up every morning. But you'd rather pretend that didn't happen.
For those who say it doesn't matter because of MAD (mutually assured destruction), with that logic why are we spending so much on the military to the point where our budget equals the next 10-15 countries COMBINED... I mean if we are going to be destroyed anyways by a country who spends 10% of us, than what's the point?
Disclaimer, I don't agree with the above, but I see a lot of "smart arses" that like to use the above argument as to why this pledge doesn't matter because we would die whether we use it first or they use it first.
I get the gesture -- it is a gesture. She's not saying she would get rid of nukes -- just that the USA would not initiate nuclear war.
It's a gesture ------ as the USA is asking everyone else to not make nukes -- it's the little things.
No it isn't a deal breaker -- it's a gesture.
Why would we nuke first?
No have nuclear weapons is not like having a gun at all.
And I assume law abiding citizens would only use a gun first if they were under attack or threatened.
See how that works.
That's how it's been since the end of WWII. It's called a "deterrent". Warren obviously thinks she's bringing new ideas to the table. Those ideas have always been there. So either she's that stupid or, she thinks she can fool stupid people to vote for her because they think she's bringing in new ideas. I think it's the later of the two.
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.
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.
