Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I know, and that nearly lead to the apocalypse on several occasions, even past the Cold War, due to the ambiguity.
Warren's plan was a good one, that someone would stand up and advocate for nuclear strikes ("How many American's would have to die before you used them" even though that using them worrying candidate in that sense.
The most dangerous thing we did after the Cold War is grow complacent about what nuclear weapons are capable of.
(This is not aimed at you)
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 1st 2019 at 3:24:22 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerNuclear game theory is an interesting if morbid subject matter. But in the grand scheme of foreign policy, it's just not a priority by virtue of having so many crises needing to be handled more urgently. Bullock backing the status quo is an easy stance to take for that reason, as opposed to Warren's in which the consequences are unknowable at this juncture, and that's not something either the defense or foreign policy field is comfortable with experimenting with.
It is kind of sad that foreign policy is the redheaded stepchild of American domestic politics, because they never delve particularly deeply into it.
As for Bullock, I think his attempt to ALWAYS be folksy even on questions that he shouldn't smile about gave the bad impression more than anything else. I took his anecdote about his son as requiring a public option as good as the coverage he had to take care of it.
I suspect that the Pentagon would explain to her that while the US doesn’t have a “no first use” policy in writing it has a de-facto “no first use unless we’re in a Third World War or some crazy fight for our basic survival as a nation state”, which for all practical purposes is the exact same thing.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranPersonally, I would argue a No First Strike policy would be pointless, because the only time anyone would want to use nukes at all is extreme emergencies and weird edge cases.
Leviticus 19:34That’d be the only time anyone sane would, one of my big worries with the possibility of an invasion of Iran is that Trump is lazy and stupid enough to decide to try and shortcut a conventional war/invasion by ordering a nuclear strike on Tehran.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWell, the other thing to keep in mind is also that the President can't unilaterally launch nuclear weapons at someone. It actually requires quite a few people, and all of them being crazy is improbable.
Leviticus 19:34A No First Use policy is, in any rational world, the only sensible policy for nukes.
Not because it's really the only ethically justifiable policy (though it kinda is), but because the moment you actually engage in first use, that's the moment you've pretty much put your own neck in the noose.
Once you've shown a willingness to actually use your nukes as anything other than a response to someone else using them first, that pretty much fucks everything.
Best case scenario you've just given free reign to every other nuclear power to use their arsenal in conventional conflict and it's only a matter of time before WW3 happens. Worst case scenario, you've just started WW3 as the entire goddamn world either bands together to stop you before you launch another unprovoked strike or sides with you because they don't want to be the next target.
Refusing to have an official No First Use policy on principle despite circumstances requiring an unwritten No First Use policy as your defacto is, like, the one of the worst cases of fragile masculinity/pride.
Edited by Robrecht on Aug 1st 2019 at 11:49:28 AM
Angry gets shit done.North Korea? Iran, Lebanon, any number of states in Africa? It’s not necessarily states outside the umbrella going to war with states inside it either. If there’s a threat that conventional aggression could invite a nuclear response, then the umbrella works.
Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 1st 2019 at 3:00:01 AM
They should have sent a poet.North Korea is nuclear armed, Iran will be shortly thanks to Trump. The only target allied to the US that Lebanon could hit is Israel (who has their own arsenal), and I'm not aware of any countries in Africa who are under the USA's nuclear umbrella.
And its an unsustainable status quo if the only thing holding peace together is the threat of Armageddon. Sooner or later, someone is going to miscalculate. The best way to reduce that risk? Nuclear disarmament Saying you will not launch your weapons first.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Aug 1st 2019 at 6:12:28 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerYou’re assuming that ones neck isn’t already in the noose, which in the event of a total-nation-destruction scenario it very much is.
Let’s use the obvious Israel example, what is the point of Israel (probably)having nuclear weapons if not to deter its neighbours from destroying it via conventional means?
You don’t get nukes to stop someone else nuking you, you get nukes so that nobody can ever drives tanks down the streets of your capital and demand an unconditional surrender.
Why are we ruling out nuclear powers? They and their large conventional forces are the biggest threat of all, their large conventional forces are who nukes exist to protect you from and scare away.
We have no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, don’t buy Trump’s lies.
Oh and a first use policy is key for smaller nuclear powers, because the risk of national destruction is much more real for them.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 1st 2019 at 10:28:31 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The only thought I can give to that first point is that if your neck is in the noose, to use the terminology, launching a nuclear strike is the equivalent of taking the rest of the world with you.
As for the third point, I'd be really surprised if Iran doesn't develop some kind of deterrence against American attack. If not nuclear, I wouldn't be surprised to see some other way of hurting the United States.
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
We don’t, there is no general nuclear weapons thread that I can find.
X3 Oh it is, nuclear weapons are the geopolitical version of a deadman’s switch attached to an explosive vest, the threat however can provide very real protection to very real people. There’s an entirely separate discussion about if one should ever push the button if it comes to it, because the threat is the defence, it’s arguable that the threat should be made (it provides real protection) but never follow though on (because that’s just spite murder).
Edited by Silasw on Aug 1st 2019 at 10:39:09 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
x5 Iran already has a deterrent in the form of the Strait of Hormuz. That’s why they like to keep messing around there, to remind everyone what they could do. But I’ll point out there’s a big difference between a deterrent and a credible deterrent.
Either way, the game only works if everyone thinks there’s a chance someone will shoot first. In the western bloc, that someone is the US by simple virtue of having the largest and most effective arsenal.
Edited by archonspeaks on Aug 1st 2019 at 3:39:21 AM
They should have sent a poet.We have one on Iran’s nuclear program, we have one on nuclear energy and there is even one from 2014 on the spreading of nuclear weapons, but I’m not aware of one on nuclear weapons generally.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Agreed on Bullock - the piss-poor "My kid needed mercy flight and because I had good insurance, he got the help he needed!" line was Right for the Wrong Reasons - he ignored the I had good health insurance part of it, which is where most of those in the US are lagging behind.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"