Elizabeth Warren said she will pledge to never use a nuke unless one is first used on us FIRST, do you agree with her? (weapons, Kennedy)
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.
Our nuclear strategy is based upon deterrence, as in if you strike us, we will strike back.
Japan is a on time event, the US will never nor ever has intended, to conduct a strike first. Our nuclear triad is based upon retaliatory strike ability.
Anyway, Warren is an idiot, for reasons aside from this.
Our nuclear strategy is based upon deterrence, as in if you strike us, we will strike back.
Japan is a on time event, the US will never nor ever has intended, to conduct a strike first. Our nuclear triad is based upon retaliatory strike ability.
Anyway, Warren is an idiot, for reasons aside from this.
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?
.
She has been protected all her life and has never known a very angry adversery.
Why am I not surprised that Bernie Sanders is jumping to Warren's defense? When it comes to defense, the left don't even want individuals protecting themselves, so a pre-emptive strike is verboten.
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.
Defense and the left...incompatible. And where's Warren, or can't she fight her own battles?
I mean seriously someone facing a nuclear crisis with billions of lives at stake and they say "Well, I did sign a pledge".
Really? "No take backs" applies when facing such a crisis?
Frankly, I was luke-warm to her before but dang...that's just silly idealistic pandering.
I hope that was just desperation talking.
Presumably by "us", you mean the U.S. and the allies we're bound to defend through treaty obligations?
It's an easy promise to make... and just as easy to break. Is somebody going to test her on it? ... Nope. It certainly doesn't mean we'll be getting rid of our nukes any time soon. But it might provide some small comfort to our allies.
Has no one explained to her she’ll be target #1 and won’t have a chance to send one back.
The whole MAD system is designed to launch a counter attack that is impossible to wipe out by the initial attack. Yes Russia or whoever will wipe out several American cities but because we have 1000's of nukes on submarines which will all be launched, most of Russia would be destroyed also. Hence the name "Mutually Assured Destruction".
This means the "no first strike" promise is meaningless when it comes to the countries we are in a deadly embrace with, which I believe are only Russia and China. They won't believe it, they will keep their deterrent strike capabilities fully ready just as we will.
But the "no first strike" is more meaningful to small nuke powers like North Korea. We are not in a MAD embrace with them and if they launched an attack it would be sure suicide and they would likely only do it if they felt like we were about to attack them with nukes. I can see some value in trying to defuse that situation by saying we will never launch a nuke at them first, but realistically Kim is not going to believe it any more than Putin would.
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.