Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:08 PM Jul 2019

Warren 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

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren saying 'first use' is off the table is madness, I can't think of a more destabilising stance (Original Post) Celerity Jul 2019 OP
Warren doesn't have the qualifications BootinUp Jul 2019 #1
Get a hold of yourself, please BeyondGeography Jul 2019 #2
apples and oranges Celerity Jul 2019 #7
How is no first strike ceding deterrence? BeyondGeography Jul 2019 #9
take first strike deterrence off the table and watch NATO shatter into a million shards quicker Celerity Jul 2019 #15
They'll be screaming bring back Trump over a hypothetical, huh BeyondGeography Jul 2019 #18
they might not be around to scream, the Baltics will be the first to feel the results Celerity Jul 2019 #20
No first strike was US doctrine for decades jberryhill Jul 2019 #3
Correct. n/t Dennis Donovan Jul 2019 #4
no, not correct, see my post below, they are factually dead wrong Celerity Jul 2019 #16
wrong, you are the one who does not know what they are talking about Celerity Jul 2019 #12
Once it's explained to him customerserviceguy Jul 2019 #5
Rofl. Nt BootinUp Jul 2019 #6
You are absolutely correct. That was a big mistake for Warren, someone who I really like. mtnsnake Jul 2019 #8
Not a Warren fan, but she's essentially saying she'd to have a compelling reason Hoyt Jul 2019 #10
big mistake evertonfc Jul 2019 #11
Warren was 100% right. The dwindling number of Dem war hawks can go fuck themselves Tarc Jul 2019 #13
I guess you will include Obama in that group? Celerity Jul 2019 #14
As your link illustrates, this is not a straightforward issue. crazytown Jul 2019 #17
it will be used to crush her in the general and will cause NATO to disintegrate, that seems pretty Celerity Jul 2019 #19
The traditional argument for a first strike was a Soviet invasion of Western Europe crazytown Jul 2019 #22
Yep Tarc Jul 2019 #32
+1 and thank you for your unequivocal response Ponietz Jul 2019 #26
First Strike or First Use? blogslut Jul 2019 #21
they are the same, call it first use if you are more comfortable with that term Celerity Jul 2019 #23
Okay blogslut Jul 2019 #24
and thanks for pointing that out, I always strive to be precise in my verbiage Celerity Jul 2019 #25
Why would somebody choose to believe that? Doodley Jul 2019 #28
choose to believe what? Celerity Jul 2019 #30
Thanks for this. NT emmaverybo Jul 2019 #31
yw! Celerity Jul 2019 #33
What is the bigger risk? Donald Trump having his finger on the nuclear button? And at some point he Doodley Jul 2019 #27
"Take Action"? crazytown Jul 2019 #29
I am terrified that tRump could start a nuclear war over some perceived slight, or delusion Bayard Jul 2019 #34
 

BootinUp

(46,924 posts)
1. Warren doesn't have the qualifications
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:09 PM
Jul 2019

In my view for the job.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

BeyondGeography

(39,278 posts)
2. Get a hold of yourself, please
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:10 PM
Jul 2019

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?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
7. apples and oranges
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:17 PM
Jul 2019

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.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

BeyondGeography

(39,278 posts)
9. How is no first strike ceding deterrence?
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:19 PM
Jul 2019

Mutually assured destruction loses all bite now?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
15. take first strike deterrence off the table and watch NATO shatter into a million shards quicker
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:31 PM
Jul 2019

than Trump via his puppet-master Putin could imagine in their most fevered dreams.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

BeyondGeography

(39,278 posts)
18. They'll be screaming bring back Trump over a hypothetical, huh
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:35 PM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
20. they might not be around to scream, the Baltics will be the first to feel the results
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:41 PM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
3. No first strike was US doctrine for decades
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:13 PM
Jul 2019

You have no idea what you are talking about.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
16. no, not correct, see my post below, they are factually dead wrong
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:32 PM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
12. wrong, you are the one who does not know what they are talking about
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:23 PM
Jul 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States

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
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
5. Once it's explained to him
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:15 PM
Jul 2019

Trump will surely go off on her for it.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

mtnsnake

(22,236 posts)
8. You are absolutely correct. That was a big mistake for Warren, someone who I really like.
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:18 PM
Jul 2019

I was just wincing in my seat as she came out with that.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
10. Not a Warren fan, but she's essentially saying she'd to have a compelling reason
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:19 PM
Jul 2019

to do it, and there is a high bar. I’m OK with that. I suspect Gandi would feel same.

I’m against killing another two hundred thousand innocent Iraqis, again.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

evertonfc

(1,713 posts)
11. big mistake
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:21 PM
Jul 2019

Doesn't matter what we think. It will not play well across America.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Tarc

(10,472 posts)
13. Warren was 100% right. The dwindling number of Dem war hawks can go fuck themselves
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:24 PM
Jul 2019

and hasten the day towards their departure from the party.

That is all.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
14. I guess you will include Obama in that group?
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:28 PM
Jul 2019
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287217501#post12

It has nothing to do with hawks vs. doves. It has to do with collective security.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

crazytown

(7,277 posts)
17. As your link illustrates, this is not a straightforward issue.
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:35 PM
Jul 2019

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.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
19. it will be used to crush her in the general and will cause NATO to disintegrate, that seems pretty
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:39 PM
Jul 2019

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.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

crazytown

(7,277 posts)
22. The traditional argument for a first strike was a Soviet invasion of Western Europe
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:51 PM
Jul 2019

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.


If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Tarc

(10,472 posts)
32. Yep
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 08:20 AM
Jul 2019

I liked Obama, but quite frankly, he doesn't shit gold.

Not every decision or position of his was a good one.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Ponietz

(2,904 posts)
26. +1 and thank you for your unequivocal response
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 12:03 AM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

blogslut

(37,955 posts)
21. First Strike or First Use?
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:45 PM
Jul 2019

It's been a while but I think there's a difference.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
23. they are the same, call it first use if you are more comfortable with that term
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:53 PM
Jul 2019

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 Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and, later, near the end of Obama’s 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 Obama’s 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 America’s extended deterrence commitments. The third risk is to the goal of non-proliferation: Such lost confidence among America’s 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

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

blogslut

(37,955 posts)
24. Okay
Tue Jul 30, 2019, 11:59 PM
Jul 2019

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.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
25. and thanks for pointing that out, I always strive to be precise in my verbiage
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 12:01 AM
Jul 2019


It is 6 AM here, so it has been a long night, lolol.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Doodley

(8,976 posts)
28. Why would somebody choose to believe that?
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 01:14 AM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,645 posts)
30. choose to believe what?
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 01:20 AM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

emmaverybo

(8,144 posts)
31. Thanks for this. NT
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 01:36 AM
Jul 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Doodley

(8,976 posts)
27. What is the bigger risk? Donald Trump having his finger on the nuclear button? And at some point he
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 01:09 AM
Jul 2019

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?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

crazytown

(7,277 posts)
29. "Take Action"?
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 01:19 AM
Jul 2019

What would trigger that sort of action?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Bayard

(21,802 posts)
34. I am terrified that tRump could start a nuclear war over some perceived slight, or delusion
Wed Jul 31, 2019, 11:40 AM
Jul 2019

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.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»Warren saying 'first use'...