The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Military Genius Liz Warren introduces bill to ban U.S. from nuclear first strike
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:24 AM Author: opaque know-it-all selfie She is nothing short of a Massachusetts MacAruthur:
"BOSTON — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to make sure the United States never uses nuclear weapons first.
The Massachusetts Democrat has introduced a bill with Democratic U.S. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington that would make it the official policy of the United States not to use nuclear weapons first.
The lawmakers say the United States currently retains the option to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, even in response to a non-nuclear attack.
They said banning the use of nuclear weapons for first-strike purposes would “reduce the chances of a nuclear miscalculation.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/3/elizabeth-warren-introduces-bill-ban-us-first-stri/ |
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:25 AM Author: offensive native international law enforcement agency 1/1024 chance of passing (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37721910) |
 |
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:55 AM Author: Aquamarine stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727470) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:26 AM Author: supple slate den pocket flask This should disqualify her for president. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37721916) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:56 AM Author: Irradiated deep mental disorder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722089) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:06 AM Author: brindle idea he suggested (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722140) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 12:12 PM Author: contagious disturbing macaca (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722475) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 2:30 PM Author: heady mad-dog skullcap business firm (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723381) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:11 AM Author: navy field internal respiration what’s particularly disturbing is that she’s trumps most qualified opponent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727321) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 10:12 AM Author: Tan wagecucks institution Yes truly "disturbing" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37728464) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:55 AM Author: Aquamarine stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727471) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:31 AM Author: opaque know-it-all selfie "We will only nuke you if you nuke us, hehe" - Liz Warren (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37721941) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:31 AM Author: Outnumbered Big-titted Spot http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4187244&forum_id=2#37666918
this woman is an *actual stupid person*
not flame anybody who is dumb enough to vote for elizabeth warren should just be put down like a dog. i can forgive a human being voting for hillary clinton or bernie sanders. elizabeth warren is a genuine moron |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:46 AM Author: opaque know-it-all selfie I thought Russia designed dead hand to dissuade itself from nuclear launches because with that system they knew that even if Russia were annihilated, an automated launch system would take over to release the full capacity of their nukes even after they've been destroyed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722020) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:03 AM Author: appetizing office Thats not what they have. The Russian system is designed to operate only if the US shoots down the communication satellites and relay aircraft. The system fires an ICBM that has no warhead in it. Instead it has a radio transmitter that relays to all remaining forces that all relay aircraft and satellites are gone and that means Moscow is gone and its time to vaporize NATO. It only works if all other comms are gone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722127) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:08 AM Author: cheese-eating mother garrison Interesting (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722152) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:49 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin I thought the original Soviet dead hand system consisted of a cargo ship transformed into a giant nuclear bomb that would vaporize the earth's atmosphere. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722352) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 2:37 PM Author: Sadistic hyperactive antidepressant drug If we’ve knocked out all your communications, how does this radio icbm relay that info back to the rest of your weapons (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723434) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 3:18 PM Author: appetizing office Loss of relays triggers Perimeter. If no receivers exist thats a much bigger problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723748) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 3:07 PM Author: heady mad-dog skullcap business firm Perimeter also has over-pressure sensors built in that would launch the transmitter rocket if no signal received within X amount of time (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723673) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:01 AM Author: Irradiated deep mental disorder (Thomavich Clanski) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727494) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:07 AM Author: brindle idea he suggested (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722145) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 10:09 AM Author: Titillating Lodge uh, didn't you vote for Trump?... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37728453) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:35 AM Author: appetizing office For the entire Cold War it was Russian policy with white papers and all to never engage in a nuclear first srike. It was only in 1997 that Russia renounced no nuclear first strike. The party that enjoys conventional force superiority should enact a no nuclear first strike policy to balance the MAD equation. As the US enjoys conventional superiority it should reassure an inferior Russia that any attack will not be nuclear from the onset. This will lower the threshold of use on the Russian side. Failing to do so gives you what we have now -- a Russia that believes even the smallest conventional tactical attack is a NATO first strike and all nukes must be used or lost. Everything right now is on a much tighter trigger than at anytime since 1982. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37721957) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:43 AM Author: Cerise Excitant Gay Wizard Legal Warrant But we don’t want to say we won’t strike first because that is stupid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722002) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:54 AM Author: appetizing office No. Its not stupid. It the smart move for the power with the stronger conventional force unless you are conceding the superiority of Russian conventional power in Europe. A superiority that does not exist. While pound for pound Russia is stronger NATO has a 4 to 1 numerical advantage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722072) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:01 AM Author: Outnumbered Big-titted Spot what benefit is there for the stronger conventional force to renounce its first strike capability? why would the stronger military ever renounce any military capacity whatsoever?
this seems like some 103 IQ reddit tier "game theory" dude |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:09 AM Author: appetizing office To raise the threshold of use on the other side and to actually potentially free up your conventional forces so the other side doesnt automatically think a small conventional attack is WW3. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722155) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:19 AM Author: Outnumbered Big-titted Spot not seeing the logic here, honestly. if you're attacking someone with a small number of conventional forces, they will either respond in kind with conventional forces, or nuke you in retaliation if they're desperate. in neither scenario does renouncing your nuclear first strike capability make any difference
link to some sort of scholarship explaining this game theory? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:03 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell Russia believes it can now be conquered by conventional invasion. This makes use of nuclear weapons more tempting in a crisis. It is smart to commit to no first use to ease the perception of threat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727068) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:58 AM Author: Adventurous potus sex offender Able Archer was ‘83 faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722101) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:10 AM Author: appetizing office Zapad 82. Russia had the larger army, bro. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722161) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 3:07 PM Author: heady mad-dog skullcap business firm (Fulda Gap masterman) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723679) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 10:36 AM Author: slippery theatre voyeur the only winning move is to vote libertarian (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37721960) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:07 AM Author: brindle idea he suggested lol @ some literal pigeon-brained woman like Elizabeth Warren in charge of anything. God she is clueless and retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722142) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:20 AM Author: arousing private investor i think a lot of people misunderstand what our nukes are aimed at.
they are aimed at military targets and there are not enough of them to destroy all military installations of our enemies. we are not wasting nukes by aiming for skyscrapers in tier 2 cities.
and personally i don't think any power in today's world would ever consider just unloading all of its nukes as a dead hand final act.
first, our military will survive. In all kinds of various outposts around the world and probably in various mainland bases or reserve facilities that are missed. NATO in europe, well, not so much.
second, we'd need to keep more nukes in our back pocket so others not party to the exchange don't take advantage. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:33 AM Author: slippery theatre voyeur JOSHUA doesn't know it's a game (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722257) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 1:01 PM Author: Insane heaven How about a game of chess? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722788) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:43 AM Author: appetizing office This is not true of every nuke. The Russian Satan missiles have huge extra dirty warheads for obliterating population centers. 1 missile will end all life in an area the size of NY state. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722308) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 11:45 AM Author: odious fat ankles Wow, did Hillary Clinton tell her to say that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722322) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 1:05 PM Author: bright forum legend This is an old Indian tactic used to trick the white man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722820) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 1:16 PM Author: Curious gas station (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37722891) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:45 AM Author: onyx stirring newt temple (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727251) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 2:30 PM Author: heady mad-dog skullcap business firm (It's 1984) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723380) |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 2:33 PM Author: magenta marketing idea warren is horrible in almost every way
but this is actually smart.
even china has a no-nuke first policy.
the point is to let the enemy think this is our policy but obviously anything goes if shit hits the fan. |
|
Date: February 4th, 2019 3:08 PM Author: bright forum legend I'm sure that's her reasoning... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37723682) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:59 AM Author: Aquamarine stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727483) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:08 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin Ehh, if we ever find ourselves in a fight with an opponent that has millions upon millions of regular soldiers to throw into the fight, I want tactical nukes to be on the table. If we are not willing to use tactical nukes to win a war of that nature, we shouldn't be fighting it in the first instance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727096) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:15 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell Tactical nukes lead to capitals being nuked, it's an unbelievably stupid idea (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727128) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:30 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin Intriguing take, Zhang.
I'm dying to know how you can be absutlely certain about the consequences of a hypothetical, novel event. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:34 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell The use of tactical nukes will increase the chance of all out nuclear war.
Simple enough for you to understand douche? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 12:43 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin Sure, that's simple enough. The problem is your observation is so vague it is worthless.
To what extent does the use of tactical nukes increase the likelihood of a massive nuclear exchange? Are all uses of tactical nukes equal when it comes to such risks?
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:06 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell A major city being nuked is so terrifying, the mere increase in chance should rule out taking the risk, the probability doesn't need to be quantified.
In any case a tactical nuke would be used in the middle of a war and would be followed by at tactical nuke retaliation. Panic, destruction, minute by minute thinking, fog, what's the point of quantifying the probability of an out of control reaction? It's high. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:19 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin Approaching this question with such BS platitudes is a BS cop-out. As the poster below noted, if we face an existential threat and the only way out is the use of tactical nukes, we will use them. There is no question about it. Given this reality, the government can ensure it continues to reassess this question in a pragmatic and honest manner, or it can ignore the issue by passing silly laws and being completely unprepared for this eventuality should the situation arise, which will only compound the problem.
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:53 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell What is the existential threat that you have in mind requiring using a tactical nuke?
What have I said is a platitude? |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:58 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin the mere increase in chance should rule out taking the risk, the probability doesn't need to be quantified. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727482) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:09 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell Why is this a platitude? If the chance is 10% or 50% a major city is nuked, the possibility is too high to contemplate using tactical nukes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727514) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:17 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin It was a platitude because you didn't say "If the chance is 10% or 50%..." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727535) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:23 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell That's essentially what I said. It doesn't matter what the exact probability is, it's too high. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727554) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:04 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin Admittedly, we are not likely to see this situation, but I think the most likely place we would use tactical nukes is on our own or an ally's soil (i.e., Alaska, SK, a Jap island) as a defensive measure. In that situation, a full nuclear exchange is very unlikely, generally speaking. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727504) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:11 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell Using a tactical nuke to defend a Japanese island would be a horrible idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727521) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:15 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin Depends on the Island. A small rock with longstanding contested claims? Yeah, bad idea. An strategically important, uncontested Japanese island? That could make sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727531) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:25 AM Author: Dull exhilarant hell Using tactical nukes to defend any Japanese island is a horrible idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727564) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:15 AM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727336) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:26 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin The PRC is also the most likely to be on the receiving end of a US tactical nuke. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727373) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:04 AM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727295) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:08 AM Author: Marvelous Judgmental Liquid Oxygen so it’s a good rule (so long as we don’t mean it) and harmless too (so long as everyone else understands we don’t mean it)? and this stance is supposed to improve our moral positioning on the issue? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727311) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:10 AM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727317) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:24 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin I think one potential problem with such law is the possibility of it increasing political instability at the worst possible time.
Further, such law would have a chilling effect on the government's ongoing analysis and development of strategic thought with respect to this issue. This would have the effect of people like Dick Cheney gaining more influence over this issue. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:45 AM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727442) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 1:57 AM Author: insanely creepy fragrant blood rage foreskin I meant internal political instability, such as during the civil war. Having a law on the books like what is being discussed ITT would cause an already difficult situation to be worse. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727476) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:18 AM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727539) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 2:48 AM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37727616) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2019 5:01 PM Author: motley site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4194074&forum_id=2#37730787) |