Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forumWarren saying 'first use' is off the table is madness, I can't think of a more destabilising stance
Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:54 PM - Edit history (1)
It is not only electoral suicide, it gives Russia and China, etc the keys to the candy shop of military expansion. It was a huge blunder, and would used to CRUSH her in the general. I am, as I stated before, so NOT a hawk, but that policy open up the doors to massive regional military adventurism by our enemies. Half of Taiwan is shuddering (if they listened to that.) Same for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, etc.
Lawrence O'Donnell is a blasted FOOL for saying she was right versus Bullock. She may be the best on multiple plans for domestic economic issues, but unless she walks that back she is utterly off my list unless it is the general. So out of her depth on foreign policy.
on edit, changed to 'first use' to be exact in my phraseology
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)In my view for the job.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
BeyondGeography
(39,278 posts)We spend more on defense than the next nine countries combined and can destroy any enemy many times over without nukes. Not enough for ya?
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Celerity
(42,645 posts)We absolutely can (and should) dramatically cut out the bloated overspending on the war/security/surveillance state, BUT to cede deterrence is the shredding of geo-political strategic collective security. It takes out the ultimate bulwark against non-nuclear expansion via military aggression by other hostile powers within their zones of influence.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
BeyondGeography
(39,278 posts)Mutually assured destruction loses all bite now?
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Celerity
(42,645 posts)than Trump via his puppet-master Putin could imagine in their most fevered dreams.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
BeyondGeography
(39,278 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Celerity
(42,645 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You have no idea what you are talking about.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Dennis Donovan
(18,770 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,645 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,645 posts)NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy, arguing that pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option, in order to have a credible deterrent that could compensate for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in the Eurasian land mass.
snip
The United States has refused to adopt a no-first-use policy, saying that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. The U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons was revised most recently in the Nuclear Posture Review, released April 6, 2010. 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."
For states eligible for this assurance, the United States would not use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack, but states that those responsible for such an attack would be held accountable and would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response. Even for states not eligible for this assurance, the United States would consider the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. The Nuclear Posture Review also notes, "It is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever."
This supersedes the doctrine of the Bush administration set forth in "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The new doctrine envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear weapons to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.
In August 2016, President Obama reportedly considered adopting a 'No First Use' policy. The President was persuaded by several Cabinet officials that 'No First Use' would rattle U.S. allies, and decided not to take up the policy.
In 2017, there were efforts to either require congressional approval for a preemptive nuclear strike or to ban it altogether and impose an NFU policy.
snip
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Trump will surely go off on her for it.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
BootinUp
(46,924 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
mtnsnake
(22,236 posts)I was just wincing in my seat as she came out with that.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to do it, and there is a high bar. Im OK with that. I suspect Gandi would feel same.
Im against killing another two hundred thousand innocent Iraqis, again.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
evertonfc
(1,713 posts)Doesn't matter what we think. It will not play well across America.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Tarc
(10,472 posts)and hasten the day towards their departure from the party.
That is all.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,645 posts)It has nothing to do with hawks vs. doves. It has to do with collective security.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
crazytown
(7,277 posts)If a no first strike policy was insanity, as you have suggested, Obama would not even have considered it. This has been a subject of debate for decades, and there are defensible views on both sides.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Celerity
(42,645 posts)straightforward to me.
We have enough issues to deal with Rump, giving him a massive sledgehammer to flatten our general election candidate is capitulation to four more nation-destroying years of his rule.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
crazytown
(7,277 posts)where the Soviets had an overwhelming conventional force advantage. This was a debate about the use of battlefield nuclear weapons, not, for example, a deterrent along the lines of: if you do this we start WWIII.
The argument against a first strike doctrine, amongst the nuclear powers, is avoiding false alarms.
The closest we came to WWIII was a false alarm on 26 September 1983.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
I liked Obama, but quite frankly, he doesn't shit gold.
Not every decision or position of his was a good one.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Ponietz
(2,904 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
blogslut
(37,955 posts)It's been a while but I think there's a difference.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,645 posts)I will edit to use 'first use'
Assessing the Risks of a Nuclear 'No First Use' Policy
https://warontherocks.com/2019/07/assessing-the-risks-of-a-nuclear-no-first-use-policy/
Over the past few decades, the United States has weighed the risks and benefits to both its nuclear deterrence posture and its non-proliferation policy goals of renouncing first-use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. In President Barack Obamas 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and, later, near the end of Obamas second term as part of a mini-nuclear review, the adoption of a so-called no-first-use pledge was considered. Both times, Obama rejected adopting such a policy. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review carried out by the Trump administration reviewed the policy and reaffirmed Obamas decision.
Recently, Rep. Adam Smith, the new chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have called for a U.S. no-first-use policy. Well-meaning supporters of no-first-use are taken with the simplicity of the idea and its potential for bolstering U.S. moral leadership in the world. After all, they argue, the United States has no intention of starting a nuclear war so why not just say so? Given the recent revival of this topic, it is appropriate to review some of the considerations that caused both Obama and Trump, as well as Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bus, to reject adopting a policy of no-first-use.
There are three major risks in adopting a nuclear declaratory policy of no-first-use. The first risk is to deterrence: Adversaries, absent a fear of reprisal, could be emboldened to act against U.S. interests. The second risk is to U.S. assurances to its allies: If America adopts no-first-use, then allies could lose confidence in Americas extended deterrence commitments. The third risk is to the goal of non-proliferation: Such lost confidence among Americas allies could spur them to develop and field their own nuclear weapons. The purported benefits of adopting a no-first-use policy, which I discuss below, are insufficient to offset these inherent risks.
Deterrence Risks
Every president since Dwight Eisenhower has viewed nuclear weapons not just as another weapon of war augmenting conventional arms, but as a special kind of weapon to be used only in the direst circumstances when vital U.S. security interests are at stake. The main concern in adopting a policy of no-first-use is that it could lead an enemy to believe that it could launch a catastrophic, non-nuclear strike against the United States, its allies, or U.S. overseas forces without fear of nuclear reprisal. Consider, for example, a North Korean biological attack on an American city that kills hundreds of thousands, or an artillery bombardment of Seoul with chemical weapons, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Korean and U.S. forces and citizens. Would North Korea be more willing to contemplate such attacks if it thought it was immune to a U.S. nuclear response? Recent presidents have been unwilling to accept the risk to deterrence that would accompany a pledge of no-first-use.
snip
Conclusion
It has been a precept of U.S. policy for decades that deterrence is strengthened when an adversary is unsure of the precise conditions under which the United States would employ nuclear weapons essentially, that uncertainty breeds caution. America has made exceptions, however, in certain cases to advance concrete security interests for example, in regard to nuclear negative security assurances provided to non-nuclear weapons states that are parties in good standing with the Nonproliferation Treaty. If the United States were to adopt a policy of no-first-use, it would present clear risks for deterrence, for regional security more broadly, and to the non-proliferation regime, while the supposed benefits of such a policy that could offset such risks are largely illusory. It is thus no surprise that since the dawn of the nuclear age presidents across party lines have rejected no-first-use. The United States should continue to do so.
snip
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
As I said it's been a while since we protested against First Strike weapons in the 90s. Back then, it was about how long it took to fire up the warheads.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,645 posts)It is 6 AM here, so it has been a long night, lolol.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Doodley
(8,976 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Celerity
(42,645 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Doodley
(8,976 posts)is going to have a meltdown. Or taking action so a crazed narcissist given the power to trigger WW3 can never make a first strike?
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
crazytown
(7,277 posts)What would trigger that sort of action?
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Bayard
(21,802 posts)And Miller and Bolton whispering in his ear. I really hope "the football" that goes everywhere with him is a fake.
On one hand, I agree with Warren that the U.S. should not make a first strike. Stop rattling sabres. On the other hand, this may be a moot point if the first strike from some other country wipes us out.
At some point, before we destroy ourselves, you have to hope the human race matures enough to destroy ALL nuclear weapons.
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden