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.
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.
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.
That's my thought... allowing another country to launch a nuke at us before us is a massive gamble that our missile defense systems hopefully work. I'd rather see us be the ones to launch a nuke IF we believed 100% they are about to launch one.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
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.
Deterrence, in this context, means you're going to retaliate against attack. You're trying to scare the other side from launching because they know you will also launch. It doesn't mean you're going to launch first.
Just to be clear: launching first kills us, too. The Russians and Chinese would retaliate, and everyone would die.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
That's my thought... allowing another country to launch a nuke at us before us is a massive gamble that our missile defense systems hopefully work.
Well, our policy has been deterrence through the capability of retaliatory strikes, not reliance on missile defense systems. Basically if Russia or China launches one missile, it is assumed that others will follow. Basically the people in whatever place that missile is targeting are already dead.
Quote:
I'd rather see us be the ones to launch a nuke IF we believed 100% they are about to launch one.
Yeah...it's hard to know that, though. And if we did, they would retaliate, so we're dead, too.
1. I won't vote for Warren no matter what she pledges.
2. The poll is such that it really won't deliver good data.
3. Who cares what Warren Pledges. She is a demonstrated liar.
I don't know if liberals realize that if Russia, China or Iran, in the near future, would use a nuclear first strike, they would target New York City and/or Los Angeles first.
So if Pocahontas should become POTUS, is she willing to sacrifice these two major US cities, as well as Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Miami and Boston on the immediate follow-up strikes BEFORE we can launch a creditable and murderous counter strike with our Submarine launched nuclear missiles... Since our land based ICBMs and strategic bomber force would most likely be hit at the same time that NYC and LA are vaporized.
Sorry, but that's just another failed liberal ideal based on some phony emotions, instead of cold hard facts. Plus, good old Putin would love that and I bet that he and the Chinese would be happy to deal with her than Trump... Who they know would release Hell on Earth if they ever seriously ever thought of attacking the United States.
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.
Warren has relinquished the responsibility owned by the office of the of the US president.
To protect America and its citizens.
Her claim is stunning!
Next she will pass a law that says a home owner cannot shoot a armed perp who breaks in until the perp kills them first. then the home owner can shoot back, but only with a registered gun. Burial will be delayed until the corpse's trial is adjudicated. If found guilty, the home owners body will be held in the nearest prison reefer until the sentence is served!
The US is the ONLY nation that has EVER used nukes against an enemy during war, and it happened twice!!!
If this were any other country, the rest of the world would be demanding that such a nation not be permitted to have nukes AT ALL!!!
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.
Time to retire and stay off the Indian Reservations....
