Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 272

Should the U.S. Adopt a No First Use Policy for Nuclear Weapons?

Argument in favor

America’s current nuclear strategy is unnecessarily risky, creating opportunities for nuclear war when countries come into conflict with the U.S. Codifying a No First Use policy would help make the U.S. and the world safer.

Hailey's Opinion
···
09/04/2019
It should never come to the point of using nuclear weapons in the first place....
Like (83)
Follow
Share
jimK's Opinion
···
09/04/2019
The godlike power to end the world as we know it by engaging in a full-out nuclear conflict needs to be restrained in as many ways possible. We have all been witnessing the nut-balls current running our government and THEY ALL NEED RESTRAINTS. I say NO to first use of nuclear weapons EVER. If multiple nuclear capable missiles were ever launched targeting our country, then a rapid and measured in-kind response would certainly be required- without escalation beyond any 'in-kind' response. The world might survive that. Our defense against nuclear attack comes mainly from the deterrence arising from our having a decisive ability to strike back- which hopefully we will never have to use. … …. A much better solution to all of this is to build the world-wide coalition necessary to tackle the looming impacts of climate change. This will be costly and require world-wide coordination, planning and commitments to stop and hopefully reverse these threats as well as to provide aid to countries with populations suffering from changing watersheds, loss of productive crop lands and vanishing coastal lowlands. When world leaders have to work together to solve a common problem- it is much less likely that they will also be trying to destroy one another.
Like (72)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
···
09/04/2019
Haven’t we talked about this already? We have only ever used them once and the results was immediate surrender. We didn’t use them as a first strike then and we never should do that. There’s no reason why that is ever going to be necessary. Ever.
Like (39)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

America’s nuclear arsenal is an important deterrent against nuclear threats to both it and its allies, and has prevented nuclear war. Eliminating the deterrent of a potential pre-emptive nuclear first could embolden adversaries like Russia & China.

JDMA's Opinion
···
09/04/2019
No, we have the right to self preservation. Why would you tie your hands when you are protecting yourself? Only a fool who take the option off the table. Then again this is coming from the far left..
Like (77)
Follow
Share
Lori's Opinion
···
09/04/2019
No. Never take your ultimate option off the table. You never know what unforeseen scenario may necessitate such a first response.
Like (32)
Follow
Share
JTJ's Opinion
···
09/04/2019
This is proof that warren would be a terrible commander in chief. She has no clue.
Like (21)
Follow
Share
    It should never come to the point of using nuclear weapons in the first place....
    Like (83)
    Follow
    Share
    No, we have the right to self preservation. Why would you tie your hands when you are protecting yourself? Only a fool who take the option off the table. Then again this is coming from the far left..
    Like (77)
    Follow
    Share
    The godlike power to end the world as we know it by engaging in a full-out nuclear conflict needs to be restrained in as many ways possible. We have all been witnessing the nut-balls current running our government and THEY ALL NEED RESTRAINTS. I say NO to first use of nuclear weapons EVER. If multiple nuclear capable missiles were ever launched targeting our country, then a rapid and measured in-kind response would certainly be required- without escalation beyond any 'in-kind' response. The world might survive that. Our defense against nuclear attack comes mainly from the deterrence arising from our having a decisive ability to strike back- which hopefully we will never have to use. … …. A much better solution to all of this is to build the world-wide coalition necessary to tackle the looming impacts of climate change. This will be costly and require world-wide coordination, planning and commitments to stop and hopefully reverse these threats as well as to provide aid to countries with populations suffering from changing watersheds, loss of productive crop lands and vanishing coastal lowlands. When world leaders have to work together to solve a common problem- it is much less likely that they will also be trying to destroy one another.
    Like (72)
    Follow
    Share
    Haven’t we talked about this already? We have only ever used them once and the results was immediate surrender. We didn’t use them as a first strike then and we never should do that. There’s no reason why that is ever going to be necessary. Ever.
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Never take your ultimate option off the table. You never know what unforeseen scenario may necessitate such a first response.
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons are a answer to any political problem is clearly insane
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    For humanity’s sake.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    This is proof that warren would be a terrible commander in chief. She has no clue.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    The US should have a no-first-use nuclear policy regardless of the type of attack or aggression, even in response to chemical or biological attack.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Why in the world would you want to make a foolish law from using nuclear weapons. It would hamstring our military from protecting our nation! So are we supposed to wait until they explode a nuclear bomb somewhere in our country?Just look at who sponsored this bill! Let’s use some common sense! Should we have waited until Japan for Germany nuked us before we reacted? No this bill just doesn’t make any sense.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    For the entire duration of trumps presidency there should be a no use policy and acted by Congress. Trump is so erratic, vapid, and so slowly stupid that he might not even realize the impact a nuclear strike would have.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Warren is not only a clueless candidate, she is now a dangerous one. Warren is the political equivalent to an angry blind man wielding a loaded gun.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Never take your strongest weapon off the table. Now that our enemies know this, do you think they’ll go soft on us for the first strike? This is a pretty stupid idea and nothing more than red tape for our military and our protection. We don’t know when the time to use our nuclear weapons will come, but creating rules against it now without knowing any details is naive and backing ourselves into a corner. And just think of all the other dumb ideas to come if this woman gets elected.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Let’s get agreements back so that we eventually wipe out all nuclear weapons. Sounds like utopia, but anything is possible. But I understand having the use for first strike capabilities until utopia takes effect.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Require congressional approval and no emergency exceptions. Somebody please throw yourself on the big orange clown if he so much as glances at the red button.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. The point is to deter other countries. If we cannot fire first, they’re still deterred. There’s no reason we should ever be using a nuke, unless we have no choice.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Once anyone fires a nuclear bomb the earth as we know it is gone from us forever. Damn right we should at least pass a NO FIRST USE resolution!
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    No first strike policy is reality
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Why would we let our adversaries ever know our positions on US security.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    The US should not continue to be the policeman, protector and enforcer of the world with a huge nuclear weapons arsenal. This is a good first step towards reducing the threat that nuclear weapons create, but we need to go much further. I like Senator Warren’s ideas for reducing nuclear weapons over time, but we should go even further, and lead a global discussion with the goal of getting rid of these weapons altogether. And we should also lead discussions to get rid of chemical, biological and other enhanced and unconventional weapons as well. The US should be a leader in promoting peace and prosperity for all nations, on terms that take into account all nations’ interests.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE