No First Use Act

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by tafkats, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    47,641
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +20,265
    Actually not entirely true. When the U.S. originally started building nuclear weapons, the Soviets didn't have them and were not predicted to have them for years down the road (when they detonated their first it was quite the shock). Thus U.S. policy makers saw the role of nuclear weapons as "deterring" a Soviet conventional attack into Western Europe. Allowing the U.S. to maintain a relatively small (and cheap) conventional military. President Eisenhower himself was very much in favor of the policy of "massive retaliation" that is "they set one foot into West Germany, we vaporize all their cities".
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Forbin

    Forbin Do you feel fluffy, punk?

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    40,442
    Location:
    All in your head
    Ratings:
    +24,214
    I hear she drives a white Cherokee.
    :bergman:
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. GhostEcho

    GhostEcho Quite Obviously a Boring Dual

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +795
    Hmmm... I didn't think her husband was a Native American either.... :rimshot:
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer Rebel Scum

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    21,568
    Ratings:
    +16,128
    So like I said, not own his own.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +2,321
    I've linked you to the US Nuclear Employment Strategy. It's there in writing. The only significant clause is that use of comparably powerful WMDs might also qualify as justification.

    If you were to nuke a foreign power large enough to threaten you on the basis of a conventional threat that would be the single most selfish and irresponsible act in the history of the human race. It's well documented now that any nuclear exchange with the arsenals in existence would be more than sufficient to essentially depopulate the planet. What on Earth (literally) could possibly justify that action? There are over seven billion of us, not to mention countless trillions of other beings on the planet, why would we all have to die in order to prevent the 300 million Americans having to lose a war?

    Regime changes happen all over the world year after year, what makes the US so special that risking global armageddon is preferable to military defeat? If Iraq had had WMDs would the Coalition invasion have justified the use of them? How about if they'd had nukes?

    Bluntly it would be better for you to lose and face occupation than follow such a course of action.
  6. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +2,321
    But that was long ago, before the effects of a nuclear exchange were understood and before the escalation of available tonnage made the prospect essentially apocalyptic. Such a stance now would be essentially saying "If anyone attacks the US the whole world dies"
  7. GhostEcho

    GhostEcho Quite Obviously a Boring Dual

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    430
    Ratings:
    +795
    The President does have de jure unilateral authority to launch a nuclear sortie. By policy and procedure, any order to launch must also be approved by the Secretary of Defense. However, the President has unilateral authority to fire the Secretary of Defense and order the launch anyway.

    So, yeah, on his own.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Fruitloop

    Fruitloop Butthurt Libtard

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    7,647
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +10,337
    The circumstances under which the president executes nuclear first strike would be pretty extreme. But it should be on the table.

    Granted, this president has poor judgement, but the solution is to change the president, not the law.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. Tuttle

    Tuttle Khaaaaaaaaaaann !!!

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,720
    Location:
    not NY
    Ratings:
    +3,963
    Hey, progress!

    Got past that whole "he's crazy" riff. You've reduced your claims to a much more honest "imo." Now must replicate that for the small army of CNN-viewer types.
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 1
  10. Paladin

    Paladin Overjoyed

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    43,536
    Location:
    Spacetime
    Ratings:
    +44,791
    No first use of nuclear weapons? It's really more of a guideline than a rule...

    [​IMG]
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,593
    Ratings:
    +28,474
    Yeah. And?

    I linked you to what the Obama White House said.

    There is no policy in writing anywhere stating the United States will never use nuclear weapons first.

    Obviously we want deterrence to be the thing that works but the United States has always maintained that if necessary it will use nuclear weapons first.

    It's war.

    What do you think the country that invades us and conquers us is going to do with our nukes? Disarm?

    Get the fuck out here with that naivety.

    :lol:

    You're a perfect example of Europe right now.
  12. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    47,641
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +20,265
    IIRC, according to what is generally believed, both the Israelis and French (to name just two) disagree with that sentiment entirely. though I haven't read much about them lately, I would suggest Pakistan and India both believe it would be better to use their nuclear weapons than be occupied by the other.
  13. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,593
    Ratings:
    +28,474
    Yeah. He can find someone to be a Secretary of Defense and fire the weapons.

    But even with that said I don't worry about it happening. A president who walks into the Oval Office and says, "Fuck it. Let's launch nukes on x" that the cabinet will invoke the 25th Amendment before POTUS can find a Secretary of Defense to go along with him.

    The whole crying over Trump starting a nuclear war was stupid from the start. It's just typical leftist crap that they use going all the way back to the 1960's against Republican candidates and presidents. The things said about Trump and nuclear weapons were the same things said about Reagan when he took office.
  14. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +2,321
    You linked me to a piece in a magazine. I linked you to the actual policy.

    Other than the one I linked you to.


    I'd rather an invading army did get hold of them than you deploy them. Any power able to produce such a conventional threat would doubtless be nuclear capable anyway and respond in kind.

    In the first instance the death toll would be orders of magnitude less than the second, which is precisely the point I'm making. Deploying those nukes to prevent a conventional invasion would essentially be ending the human race in order to protect the sovereignty of a country of people who'd be dead soon anyway. We'd all die so you could save face and avoid an occupation.

    Again, if Iraq had nukes would they have been justified in using them against the US, or would that have made them barbaric and inhumane?
  15. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +2,321
    And they'd be wrong.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    47,641
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +20,265
    Maybe. But for Israel, Pakistan, and India occupation by their hostile neighbor(s) probably means genocide.

    And the last time the French were occupied it was by the Nazis. A national trauma that negatively impacted the French for literally decades so you can't really blame them either.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. spot261

    spot261 Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +2,321
    And firing a nuke in the modern world means extinction. A terrible choice but one where you are choosing between your own death and everyones'.
  18. Quest

    Quest enjoy your life Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,677
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +17,081
    I don't remember hearing anything about Trump starting a nuclear war, other than a general "can't trust him with the launch codes." I do remember a plethora of Russian bots insisting Hillary Clinton wanted war with Russia and Trump was the only hope of stopping her.
  19. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,593
    Ratings:
    +28,474
    I linked you to an archived copy of the Obama White House explaining the policy. A government website.

    Not a magazine. Pay attention to what you're reading.

    You also need to pay attention to what you're reading.

    From your link: "The United States will only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners."

    From your own words: "no first use isn't explicitly stated"

    Exactly. Idiot.

    You don't make decisions based on implied actions. That's a good way to get a nuclear tipped missile shoved up your ass.

    You're damn right. We're taking you fuckers with us. :finger:

    You subscribe to that nonsense that nukes will make humans extinct. It won't. Oh sure things will be fucked up but humanity and the world will go on.

    The whole point was to not let them get the nukes. If they have them it's too late.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  20. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Wonderful, Loving Husband & Father

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    47,641
    Location:
    Norphlet, Arkansas
    Ratings:
    +20,265
    Actually detonating every nuclear weapon on Earth would most certainly not result in the end of the human race. Human culture as we know it but not humans entirely. Even if the whole nuclear winter concept was valid (which it isn't per its originator Carl Sagan before he died).
  21. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,593
    Ratings:
    +28,474
    Wow. There's a surprise. You don't remember.....

    Of course you don't remember. You're a leftist.

    :dayton:
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Marso

    Marso High speed, low drag.

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,208
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +12,656
    You could sort of make that argument. The only difference being that it's a weapon that society turns on itself, like an individual committing suicide.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  23. A Bangkok Atheist

    A Bangkok Atheist Don't believe his lies

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    23,803
    Ratings:
    +22,424
    [​IMG]
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. Marso

    Marso High speed, low drag.

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,208
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +12,656
    There's a great E. Warren meme floating around out there based on that one, but I didn't save it when I saw it. :(
  25. Quest

    Quest enjoy your life Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    17,677
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +17,081
    Argumentum ad hominem. :dayton:

    The prevailing narrative of the 2016 campaign, here at WF and elsewhere, is that Clinton was the warmonger and Trump was the peace candidate. Clinton was going to impose a no-fly zone in Syria as an excuse to start a war with Russia. Trump was going to bring the troops home and get along with Putin. The only "whining" about Trump and nuclear weapons was a very general "he can't be trusted." Not that he was inclined to war or had specific plans of starting a war. @Dayton3 was full of it as usual.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Zombie

    Zombie dead and loving it

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    41,593
    Ratings:
    +28,474
    Yeah I'm sure the left said Trump was a peace monger and wasn't going to start a nuclear war. :dayton:

    Hell even now they are still writing articles about him starting a nuclear war.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    34,148
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Trump's record has been mixed. The approach to North Korea (for whatever narcissistic reasons) has been a positive development, as have the (however abortive) attempts to extricate from Syria. On everything else it's been pretty much imperialist BAU - but I'll allow that things on that front are probably better than they would have been under Clinton.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  28. A Bangkok Atheist

    A Bangkok Atheist Don't believe his lies

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    23,803
    Ratings:
    +22,424
    Using that same logic (or lack thereof), capitalism has been a much deadlier WMD:

    12+ million in the Atlantic slave trade
    1+ million in the US Civil War
    10 million during the European colonial period in Africa (especially in the Congo)
    35 million during the British colonial period in India
    50-80 million dead from WWII and the Great Depression, and the ensuing famines and diseases (soldiers and civilians alike)
    5-10 million from US proxy wars during the Cold War, depending on how you count them

    At a conservative estimate, that's already 113 million dead to capitalism, but I'm sure I'm missing many more examples.

    It's almost as if it's not that the ideology is to blame, but rather the people pulling the strings. :chris:

    In fact, isn't this the trope of "responsible" gunowners? "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

    Similarly, communism and capitalism don't kill people, people kill people...
    • Winner Winner x 4
  29. Marso

    Marso High speed, low drag.

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    28,208
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ratings:
    +12,656
    There are a million of these. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

    warren2.png warren1.jpg warren3.jpg
  30. Tererun

    Tererun Magical Girl

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    13,885
    Location:
    South Florida watching the meandering dead
    Ratings:
    +9,078
    Tuttle is pretty useless in any conversation. He is all talking points, no argument, no explanation. Even Dayton can attempt to put together a coherent argument. Not that he does, but you can see the attempt being made. Tuttle is litterally the rabble.