If a candidate declared that they would never employ nuclear weapons, would they be fit to serve as POTUS?

SN Greg Wright — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:39:00 -0400

Note: to my knowledge, neither candidate has said this, so no, I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm genuinely interested in the opinions I expect to get.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2016 4:41 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:41:39 -0400

Only if we are attacked with same.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2016 4:44 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:44:36 -0400

Not sure it would disqualify, unless you listed the disqualification as stupidity.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 27 at 2016 4:44 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:44:29 -0400

I say neither, as the use of WMDs is not a qualifier for the Office. Personally I think that taking one option (the Ultimate Option) off the table limits your negotiation credibility and options. Japan surrendered because we bluffed them, saying we had more A-Bombs and would use them if Japan did not immediately surrender. Would we have used them if we HAD them? Who knows? But it was a negotiating strategy that worked in that case.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 27 at 2016 5:14 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:14:39 -0400

Never say Never but they are weapons of last resort. I don't want anyone enthused about their use either.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Sep 27 at 2016 6:25 PM

Lt Col Jim Coe — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:25:38 -0400

No! It's bad enough that we have a candidate for President that has told our enemies ISIS) that US ground forces won't be used. To take nuclear weapons entirely off the table in all instances negates one of our most potent elements of national power. IMO, we should only "go nuke" to maintain the integrity of the US or if we are attacked with nukes first.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Sep 27 at 2016 7:30 PM

PO2 Peter Klein — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:30:10 -0400

I agree with PO1 Nagel. Absolutes are very hard to live with.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Sep 27 at 2016 7:38 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 19:38:05 -0400

Dont' think there is a politico in their right mind who would rule out anything in the face of aggression and enemies throughout the world. Our enemies far outnumber our friends and so-called sunshine allies.

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Sep 27 at 2016 9:47 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:47:17 -0400

The whole point of Nuclear Weapons is MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. You can't have MAD if you say you'll never employ Nuclear weapons. However, we could say that we would not execute a "first-strike" nuclear option and still support the MAD philosophy.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 28 at 2016 7:51 AM

SGT David T. — Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:51:07 -0400

Nuclear deterrence works on the premise that if someone uses a nuke that the other side is willing to use one too.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Sep 29 at 2016 12:21 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:21:49 -0400

Being a leader, you have to also have the ability to make the hard choices. I'm not saying nukes should be our first response, but they are an important asset in national security. Using the most outlandish possible scenario. We have a terrorist organization occupying an isolated island. They have weapons of mass destruction and they intend to target all the nations capitals. They give us an ultimatum. Either you take us out or we take out the world. Are we really going to hesitate???

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Sep 29 at 2016 9:12 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:12:50 -0400

NO.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Sep 30 at 2016 3:37 PM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:37:30 -0400

The candidate who stated that they would never use nukes under any circumstance is clearly not fit, as unfit as the candidate who would espouse a first strike strategy.