As President, would you use a nuclear weapon?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by TOG 6, Sep 23, 2016.

?

Do use order the use of a nuclear weapon?

  1. Yes

    20 vote(s)
    71.4%
  2. No

    8 vote(s)
    28.6%
  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assume for the moment...

    You are PotUS. You have just been made aware of a situation where it is necessary to use a nuclear weapon to stop a nuclear attack on the mainland United States; the use of this weapon will inflict significant damage upon, if not destroy, a major city.. Because of the nature of the attack, the only options are to use stop the attack with a nuclear weapon or allow the attack to proceed.

    Time if of the essence; if you do not decide in 5 minutes, a nuclear weapon will detonate somewhere in the US in 30 minutes.

    Do you:
    1: Order the use of a nuclear weapon to stop the attack
    2: Allow the attack upon the United States

    Please explain your answer.
     
  2. Guyzilla

    Guyzilla Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    13,230
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OF COURSE, in a New York Minute. OR, I wouldn't sign up. BUT, justification for use of that force varies DRASTICALLY. AND, the history, both past, and recent, along with Present attitude, should have been considered a LONG TIME AGO. We need a CABINET LEVEL Peace Dept.


    IF, the attack is NUCLEAR.
     
  3. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course I would. Without hesitation. The nation who is a threat to us brought it upon themselves. I'd nuke em twice just so they don't think I'm F-in around.
     
  4. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you need to paint me in a box more, because the scenario just doesn't seem that urgent... you tell me I have to assume a nuclear bomb will go off in america if I don't bomb someone else first... how and why... is the bomb already in america? in which case bombing the foreign country won't make any difference right... is it a missile being launched and will take 30min to arrive? in which case why can't we first try shooting it down or allowing a brave pilot to fly into it and down it that way, or how about we just shoot the site the missile will be coming from? there are so many things PRIOR to this ultimate decision you want me to make...

    now lets say you go with the scenario, they will launch it and it will take 30min to arrive, so I have to set off a nuclear bomb on them in the next 5min... well if they see me launch a nuclear bomb, won't they just launch theirs immediately once they find out we launched ours? last I checked, it doesn't take long for a country to determine a missile was launched, we often know within seconds after a missile has been launched by north korea, so why wouldn't we assume this other super power has the ability to detect us launching a nuclear weapon at them? is it because we already have a plane over them that will drop a bomb? in which case would that missile still reach its target in time to prevent the other nuclear missile from being launched?

    I don't know... I think you want a scenario we have to pretend we have no options, and I just can't picture a moment where we can prevent a nuclear attack, we can only respond to a nuclear attack... in which case, if someone launches nuclear weapons at me, then maybe I could have the moral question of, is it worth destroying the world for revenge, or do I hope to prevent that country from taking over the world for others? then I likely would respond in kind to their launch... but this notion I have to assume we can't do anything in that 30min period, or that somehow we could attack them and they would be incapable of launching during that attack, doesn't sound plausible...

    maybe add some more context to the scenario to drive me down the rabbit hole, because if you tell me the windows are 5min and 30min... thats a lot of time to do something... I mean most nuclear weapon countries, have more than just one nuclear weapon, so how would I cover all their nuclear sites in under 5min or in a way that would prevent one of dozens or hundreds in some cases, from launching? surely they would detect us trying to take out dozens or hundreds of sites... it just sounds like a made up scenario that would never work out in the real world...
     
  5. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    4 paragraphs of avoidance.
    No surprise.
     
  6. Darkbane

    Darkbane Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,852
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think I gave a fair amount of details under what I was thinking and why I would make a decision, I even included a scenario where I WOULD have used them... or let me guess, you never bothered to read that, you just assumed I was "avoiding" the question... asking you to provide a more REALISTIC scenario is not avoidance, I think its quite responsible to demand more information to make a decision other than, sure why not, lets press a button without a realistic life scenario presented... don't blame me for demanding more information, perhaps learn to refine your scenarios to more than just, "would you", because the black and white answers of the world have been answered, and we're now attempting to answer the fuzzy gray middle... clearly I presented a scenario where I would, and I challenged you to present a realistic scenario by expanding upon details, because the scenario you suggest, doesn't sound plausible, so how could I press the button on something that doesn't sound plausible...

    P.S. I mean your scenario said, I had 5min to decide if I would nuke them, well what country specifically are you discussing, how many nuclear missiles do they have at the ready, will I be sending one nuclear weapon to take out a single location, or will I be launching 100 nuclear weapons to take out 100 sites, and if I send 100 nuclear missiles, will they not spot that launch, and instantly launch their 100 nuclear weapons? you see why I am challenging your UNREALISTIC scenario... I mean you didn't even answer if the nuclear bomb was already within the american borders, in which case, it wouldn't matter who I bombed, it wouldn't stop that nuclear weapon from going off within america... seriously, expand the information available or claiming people are avoiding anything, just because you presented a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty example, isn't my fault, its yours...
     
  7. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    `

    What would have been more interesting is; "Do you order a first strike?"
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sigh.

    We'reinsaneistan has a missile on a launch pad. Launches in ~10 minutes, giving you 5 minutes to decide what to do.
    Your only asset within range is the USS Ohio, a SSGN a few miles off the coast, armed with Tomahawk TLAM-A missiles 150kt fixed warhead.
    The launch site is somewhere in a medium sized city of 300,000; at 10x the size of Little Boy, the city will be effectively destroyed by the 150kt detonation.
    If the missile launch is not stopped by the nuclear strike on the city, a 2MT warhead will detonate over a American city somewhere in southern California ~30 minutes after launch.

    Do you order the strike?
     
  9. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obama came out and officially said the USA wouldn't launch a first strike which is a stupid thing to reveal. Obama is an idiot big time. Obama has been the biggest national security risk to America.

    When Clinton was POTUS he wanted to remove all nuclear warheads from all of our ICBM silos and store them 100 miles from the silos. It took a couple of generals to convince Clinton he's not really to smart. Also didn't help when Clinton left the launch codes in a jacket and sent it to the cleaners. There's a reason why the Clinton White House was referred to as the National Lampoon's "Animal House" by the FBI, Secret Service and the military.

    During the Cold War the Soviets would first target our ICBM silos and SAC bases before sending in bombers to nuke our cities. That was also America's policy until Reagan told the Soviets that we have retargeted our ICBM's to target your cities first so don't even think about launching a first launch.

    It was believed in the military community that President Carter would have never launched nukes and was easily able to be nuclear blackmailed.

    As soon as a nation launches a ballistic missile it's quickly detected and from the trajectory it can be determined what the re-entry warheads are targeting, ICBM silos in Wyoming or L.A. or Chicago, or the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert. etc.

    And there are fail safe mechanism in place to prevent a President going loony and launching a nuclear attack. There's also a military chain of command. But Obama has ignored the military chain of command and purged the military of it's warriors and independent thinkers and replaced flag and field grade officers with incompetent yes men. So the first thing incoming President Trump has to do is purge the military of PC yes men.

    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The absence of your answer is well noted, as is your failure to recognize that the question involves a "first strike".
     
  11. HailVictory

    HailVictory Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,202
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well it all depends on the nature of the attack. I know you explained it, but there is always something or some way that you could avert the attack. But I would definitely use nuclear weapons if I had to.
     
  12. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would under certain circumstances.
     
  13. Johnny Brady

    Johnny Brady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,377
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The first duty of politicians is to protect their homeland, so I say go for that nuke button..:)

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No I will call the other side first,
    but kept my ICBM's red hot ready.
     
  15. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    Unfortunately, so would I.....depending on the circumstances.
     
  16. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    MAD. Since Obama is a liar, he may be just be covering his true intention.
     
  17. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unless I'm missing something here, to deploy option 1 you'd need to know the source or origin of the attack? [​IMG]
     
  18. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Urban Legend
    Orders and Authentication codes are stored in a special safe.

     
  19. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I get suspicious of some of the Clinton stories. And I did not vote for him.
     
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I voted to attack.

    When it is a certain attack to be sent, I send a certain defense.
     
  21. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not convinced the scenario is in anyway realistic, with a situation where use of a strategic nuclear weapon is a reliable or only way to prevent an imminent strategic launch targeted at you, especially with the certainty established for the question. I also think that nobody can really say what they would do in such an extreme and emotive situation if we found ourselves in that situation, especially given most of us have never been anywhere close.

    In general terms I think the decision should be based on balance of harm and which nation the harm might occur in isn’t really relevant. If the expected attack would kill and injure many more people than the response to prevent it then the defensive strike could be justified. If you have to kill a billion foreigners to save a million of your own people, I’d suggest it’d be much harder to justify. You’d also have to consider the consequences. Will you be able to prove that you launched to prevent at attack against yourself because if not it could just be presented as an unprovoked attack and lead to a much larger attack, from the specific enemy or their allies.

    Of course, if I was the US President, I’d also be considered whether the people in the target area voted for me and whether I have any ongoing controversies to distract from. ;)
     
  22. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What's your source that it's an urban legend ? Snopes :roflol:

    I tend to give field grade military officers more credibility than Snopes or George Soros Media Matters or Hillary.


    Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, he's the officer who carried the nuclear football for President Clinton.

     
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    POTUS carries the launch codes on himself. The authentication codes are stored in a safes down the chain of Command at Cheyenne Mountain NORAD complex and each missile silo and SLBM subs.

    Not sure about Air Force B-52 SAC bases because we no longer have a Nuclear Triad. Maybe a Bi-Ad because we no longer have a fleet of B-52's in the air 24/7 carrying nukes since 1992.

    So when Hew Hewitt asked Trump a stupid question you would expect a liberal to ask, if he knew what the "nuclear Triad" was, the RINO was unaware there hasn't been a nuclear Triad for over 23 years.

    Here's how the loony left Rolling Stone reported on a nuclear triad that hasn't existed since 1992.

    Trump's Terrifying Nuke Answer at the Debate Should End His Campaign (But It Won't) ->
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-should-end-his-campaign-but-it-wont-20151216

    There is no nuclear Triad today.

     
  24. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The old imagery of multi-megaton nukes is totally outdated. We now have nuke that fit in suitcases and do little more damage than many of the traditional bombs do.
     
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. You know where the attack will come from.

    Post #8

    We'reinsaneistan has a missile on a launch pad. Launches in ~10 minutes, giving you 5 minutes to decide what to do.
    Your only asset within range is the USS Ohio, a SSGN a few miles off the coast, armed with Tomahawk TLAM-A missiles 150kt fixed warhead.
    The launch site is somewhere in a medium sized city of 300,000; at 10x the size of Little Boy, the city will be effectively destroyed by the 150kt detonation.
    If the missile launch is not stopped by the nuclear strike on the city, a 2MT warhead will detonate over a American city somewhere in southern California ~30 minutes after launch.
     

Share This Page