This is probably ignorant of me but let me ask a question
Does first strike nuke use refer to it being the first act of war or the first use of nuke in a war?
Im probably not the only one thats not clear on this
Official 2020 Democratic Primary Debate Thread
- Thread starter mc_brew
- Start date
This is probably ignorant of me but let me ask a question
Does first strike nuke use refer to it being the first act of war or the first use of nuke in a war?
Im probably not the only one thats not clear on this
storyteller
Veteran
Not an ignorant question fam, these aren't typical discussions to be having. Last I remember it was when Sam Harris said we needed that option for the middle east via hypothetical extreme situations. Anyway, this is a fair and unbiased (imo) take on the debate about it. The Obama administration has a set of rules before they would even consider First Strike offensive and I think it's a fairly easy sell. My issue is that with the world's strongest military, we don't actually need a First Strike option for a deterrent. We obviously can't disarm entirely with the rest of the world powers that have nuke or are trying to attain them, but you've got enough of a deterrent just having the nukes available as a response mechanism...and any use of nukes is basically no turning back guaranteed bad results with the precedents created anyway.
Slate’s Use of Your Data
DonKnock
KPJ Gonna Save Us
Ok thank you
I think there is a distinction to be made with nuke usage. Can i see a scenario in which we use a nuke as a first act of war in an offensive. No, most likely not.
But can i see a scenario where a war gets so bad..so ugly...we're losing men left and right..cities are getting bombed etc that we resort to nuking the opposition? I suppose its theoretically possible
When voters hear warren say we wouldnt use a nuke first..they may be confused as to what she really means
At the same time, he [Obama] wanted to make it clear—to his own people and to the rest of the world—that the U.S. would use nukes first under only extremely limited circumstances. He came up with this formula: The United States would not use nuclear weapons first against countries that (a) did not possess nuclear weapons and (b) had signed, and were abiding by, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This preserved the option of going first against what many considered the main threats—Russia, China, North Korea, and (if it ever developed a bomb, as it seemed to be doing at the time) Iran.
That became U.S. policy—and, though few noticed, the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, signed in 2018 by then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis, preserved that language precisely.
Slate’s Use of Your Data
---------
Another recent study by Global Zero confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s maxim that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”: an estimated that 30% of the total population of the top 145 biggest cities in the United States — 21 million Americans — would perish in a Russian nuclear counterattack. To put that in perspective, in the first 24 hours the U.S. death toll would be 50 times greater than all American casualties in World War II.
New ‘No First Use’ Campaign Urges All Nuclear-Armed Nations to End First Strike Policies
When combined with the prompt destruction from nuclear blast, fires, and fallout and the later enhancement of solar ultraviolet radiation due to ozone depletion, long-term exposure to cold, dark, and radioactivity could pose a serious threat to human survivors and to other species … The possibility of the extinction of Homo sapiens cannot be excluded.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-carl-sagan-warned-world-about-nuclear-winter-
@ thinking we're ready to combat climate change when we're still debating the consequences of nuclear warAt the same time, he [Obama] wanted to make it clear—to his own people and to the rest of the world—that the U.S. would use nukes first under only extremely limited circumstances. He came up with this formula: The United States would not use nuclear weapons first against countries that (a) did not possess nuclear weapons and (b) had signed, and were abiding by, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This preserved the option of going first against what many considered the main threats—Russia, China, North Korea, and (if it ever developed a bomb, as it seemed to be doing at the time) Iran.
That became U.S. policy—and, though few noticed, the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, signed in 2018 by then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis, preserved that language precisely.
Slate’s Use of Your Data
---------
Another recent study by Global Zero confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s maxim that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”: an estimated that 30% of the total population of the top 145 biggest cities in the United States — 21 million Americans — would perish in a Russian nuclear counterattack. To put that in perspective, in the first 24 hours the U.S. death toll would be 50 times greater than all American casualties in World War II.
New ‘No First Use’ Campaign Urges All Nuclear-Armed Nations to End First Strike Policies
When combined with the prompt destruction from nuclear blast, fires, and fallout and the later enhancement of solar ultraviolet radiation due to ozone depletion, long-term exposure to cold, dark, and radioactivity could pose a serious threat to human survivors and to other species … The possibility of the extinction of Homo sapiens cannot be excluded.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-carl-sagan-warned-world-about-nuclear-winter-
Ok that gives me better information and context. Im on board with that.
In an ideal world there would be no nukes at all. I am not an advocate for nuke usage or a hawk in any way
Brooke baldwin just framed the debate last night as progressives vs pragmatists 
Dbl
storyteller
Veteran
It's definitely the sort of loaded question where you'd have to drill down to figure out what someone actually means when they speak on a first strike because the damage from a nuclear attack is so devastating.
a) What will the fallout be for the surrounding region and how many civilians will be effected?
b) Is there no other technology that we could use as a deterrent (We dropped something nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs in Afghanistan)?
c) What will the global reaction be? Not just will they be mad (betting they will be in any scenario tbh) but will this make it more likely that say...India or Pakistan uses one during a beef or their own? Do we embolden anyone else with nuclear capability? What is the economic fallout?
d) After justifying use once, how likely is it for a psycho like Trump to come in...point to our previous use in an "extreme circumstance" and try to use that to justify a more arbitrary handling of the weaponry?
There's so much that can go wrong and the damage is irreparable. I don't believe there would be a scenario where the benefits outweigh the negatives of dropping a nuke instead of figure out a different kind of compromise...hell, I think economic warfare can be much more effective long term.
Economic warfare is more effective long term. The worst id probably pull the trigger on is an EMP
I re-watched some of the debate during lunch and listened to that Jake Tapper podcast. It's amazing how much of the conversation last night was about appeasing Republican voters. It doesn't help that Democrats are basically waterboarded by the media to explain how to pay for their policies but no one ever asks Republicans about paying for their massive tax cuts and military budget. There are several articles today framing Warren/Bernie's policies as "fairy tales". 
storyteller
Veteran
I won't front that I haven't done enough reading to separate fact from fiction on EMP's, but I've never really read anything that wasn't horror story level about them.
storyteller
Veteran
I re-watched some of the debate during lunch and listened to that Jake Tapper podcast. It's amazing how much of the conversation last night was about appeasing Republican voters. It doesn't help that Democrats are basically waterboarded by the media to explain how to pay for their policies but no one ever asks Republicans about paying for their massive tax cuts and military budget. There are several articles today framing Warren/Bernie's policies as "fairy tales".
Not directly related to the primary but to Tapper and how he framed questions last night, the citations needed guys absolutely bodied his whole career. The way he handled himself reminded me about it.
Yeah tru-mac posted it above. I listened to it. I always knew he was a zionist but I didn't know he was such a McCain dikkrider.