Time to Get Rid of the Presidential Power for Nuclear First Strike

[candycorn]

As the 2024 presidential election season heats up, you'll have candidates weighing in on all sorts of issues to where their impact as President would be minimal at best. The President has nothing to do with crime on the streets, minimal impact on how society behaves, and almost nothing to do with job creation. OF course we like report cards, grades, and objective data so we apply rates and polls to points in time and attribute those to whomever is in office.

One area where the candidates could actually have an impact is to strip away some of the crazy power we give the chief executive. One of the most glaring idiocies is to give the President the ability to essentially end the world by launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon.

There is no reason to ever have such an ability invested in one person. A retaliatory strike? Yes. But to squeeze off a nuke when we were not hit first is unthinkable and, up until recently, unimaginable.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

As the 2024 presidential election season heats up, you'll have candidates weighing in on all sorts of issues to where their impact as President would be minimal at best. The President has nothing to do with crime on the streets, minimal impact on how society behaves, and almost nothing to do with job creation. OF course we like report cards, grades, and objective data so we apply rates and polls to points in time and attribute those to whomever is in office.

One area where the candidates could actually have an impact is to strip away some of the crazy power we give the chief executive. One of the most glaring idiocies is to give the President the ability to essentially end the world by launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon.

There is no reason to ever have such an ability invested in one person. A retaliatory strike? Yes. But to squeeze off a nuke when we were not hit first is unthinkable and, up until recently, unimaginable.

Wait until after we are hit by a nuclear weapon ? After millions of US citizens are dead then we strike ?

 

[Rambunctious]

I agree until senile Joe Biden is voted out....

 

[B. Kidd]

You no little about nukes #1, and #2, have way too much time on your hands

 

[j-mac]

Just an idiotic premise for a thread…Candy must be drinking already…

 

[Death-Ninja]

As the 2024 presidential election season heats up, you'll have candidates weighing in on all sorts of issues to where their impact as President would be minimal at best. The President has nothing to do with crime on the streets, minimal impact on how society behaves, and almost nothing to do with job creation. OF course we like report cards, grades, and objective data so we apply rates and polls to points in time and attribute those to whomever is in office.

One area where the candidates could actually have an impact is to strip away some of the crazy power we give the chief executive. One of the most glaring idiocies is to give the President the ability to essentially end the world by launching a first-strike with a nuclear weapon.

There is no reason to ever have such an ability invested in one person. A retaliatory strike? Yes. But to squeeze off a nuke when we were not hit first is unthinkable and, up until recently, unimaginable.

You possess IQ of a tomato, literally a tomato!

 

[candycorn]

Wait until after we are hit by a nuclear weapon ? After millions of US citizens are dead then we strike ?

Ummm no. That would be a retaliatory strike is there is a nuke that hits us.

But getting back to some semblance of reality... What do you think would happen if we launched a nuclear first strike? Do you think anyone that we are hitting isn't going to nuke us and give us "millions of US citizens" who are dead?

 

[candycorn]

I see there is nobody who wants to (outside of Thunder) discuss the topic. Typical.

 

[Rambunctious]

But getting back to some semblance of reality

Reality?... did you ever think people would fly commercial jets into buildings?... did you ever expect China to leak a virus from one of their labs that killed millions of people?....
Realty can change in an instant... and now think of how a China spy balloon floated across America and we did nothing.... please wake up....

 

[candycorn]

Reality?... did you ever think people would fly commercial jets into buildings?...

No...a nuclear first strike being on the table or off wouldn't have changed it since...you know... it didn't.

did you ever expect China to leak a virus from one of their labs that killed millions of people?....

No....not only did it not happen a nuclear first strike being on the table or off wouldn't have changed it since...you know... it didn't.

Realty can change in an instant...\

Novel events can happen...reality is always reality.

and now think of how a China spy balloon floated across America and we did nothing.... please wake up....

a nuclear first strike being on the table or off wouldn't have changed it since...you know... it didn't.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Ummm no. That would be a retaliatory strike is there is a nuke that hits us.

But getting back to some semblance of reality... What do you think would happen if we launched a nuclear first strike? Do you think anyone that we are hitting isn't going to nuke us and give us "millions of US citizens" who are dead?

If we have intel that someone is going to nuke the US and we don't strike first then every person who made that decision should be immediately executed.

 

[whitehall]

If it ain't the president, then who gets to authorize a nuclear strike? Do we authorize some unelected drone that nobody knows? Like it or not, Americans have the responsibility to elect the guy who has his thumb on the nuclear button and if we ain't smart enough to get the right guy, it's on us.

 

[candycorn]

If it ain't the president, then who gets to authorize a nuclear strike? Do we authorize some unelected drone that nobody knows? Like it or not, Americans have the responsibility to elect the guy who has his thumb on the nuclear button and if we ain't smart enough to get the right guy, it's on us.

The president gets full authority to retaliate. Not strike first.

 

[candycorn]

If we have intel that someone is going to nuke the US and we don't strike first then every person who made that decision should be immediately executed.

So when we launch…what do you think they are going to do?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So when we launch…what do you think they are going to do?

So just wait until someone nukes the US and kill millions ? Fucktards like you are the reason the US doesn't win wars anymore.

 

[Nostra]

You possess IQ of a tomato, literally a tomato!

You owe tomatoes everywhere an apology.

 

[Nostra]

Ummm no. That would be a retaliatory strike is there is a nuke that hits us.

But getting back to some semblance of reality... What do you think would happen if we launched a nuclear first strike? Do you think anyone that we are hitting isn't going to nuke us and give us "millions of US citizens" who are dead?

Do you think someone who nuked us first is gonna stop if we nuke them back?

What a moron.

 

[Nostra]

I see there is nobody who wants to (outside of Thunder) discuss the topic. Typical.

Not much of a discussion to be had. You idea is beyond stupid on all levels,

 

[candycorn]

So just wait until someone nukes the US and kill millions ? Fucktards like you are the reason the US doesn't win wars anymore.

Well, here is the scenario you've cooked up.

We have apparently intel that someone is going to nuke us.

If we have intel that someone is going to nuke the US

Isn't it true that the intel can be right or it can be wrong? See our great Iraq mis-adventure for proof that it can be.

So we launch a nuclear missile at this nation/terrorist group. If they have a nuclear missile they are going to launch it while ours is in flight. If they don't have one...we've just nuked someone and will draw, at best, worldwide condemnation (which for a terrorist group is likely just as good). At worst, we will draw fire from other nuclear powers in the region we've targeted and get a robust response.

 

[candycorn]

Do you think someone who nuked us first is gonna stop if we nuke them back?

What a moron.

What are you trying to say...what you wrote doesn't make any sense. Hopefully, when we nuke them back (there is no "if"), they will be destroyed and unable to launch more devices.