Technically, in my hypothetical, we would _not_ be launching a first strike. But we could still employ _a nuclear first use policy_.
If the North Koreans have launched millions of rockets, shells, and missiles - there is nothing “first” about our strike.
---
### Author:  [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/24 "2003-03-13T02:20:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \*
> Bah! WTF happened to my coding? No linking to cached google pages?
Your links are working now. Looks like a few extra “[\*\*url]” tags snuck in to the middle of those addresses.
---
### Author:  [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/25 "2003-03-13T02:24:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \*
> \*\*Your links are working now. Looks like a few extra “[\*\*url]” tags snuck in to the middle of those addresses. \*\*
You are my hero! Thanks man! Sorry to cause you extra work.
---
### Author:  [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/26 "2003-03-13T02:28:06Z")
Once again North Korea has been able to potentially inflict millions of casualties for decades. Why has a first strike policy sudden become more attractive now?
Let me repeat my point that North Korean nukes make nuclear retaliation more dangerous not less.
Finally you still haven’t shown that first use implies a war in progress.
---
### Author:  [@feath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/feath)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/27 "2003-03-13T03:04:33Z")
You will have to excuse my innocents (stupidity?) on this issue, but I did have a question rise when reading your comments.
We need to back up a bit…
The UN has stated countries are not to build or maintain WMD.
I know I’m uniformed, but I thought that was for \everybody.\ But, it seems, its just for those countrys that \dont have them yet.\
Because I don’t hear a word about how the US \has \ WMD. Or Russia. But everyone is just going crazy over Iraq or NK having them.
Is that because they are ‘bad’? Or perhaps a more polite term would be ‘unstable’ … in other words, if they had them, they \ might use \ them?
Like the US is thinking of doing?
---
### Author:  [@feath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/feath)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/28 "2003-03-13T03:11:02Z")
## why the hell do I have an edit button, if I cant use it?
Anyway, sorry for the wrong type of code markers. ☹
---
### Author:  [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/29 "2003-03-13T04:00:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> why the hell do I have an edit button, if I cant use it?
:mad:It’s Hell!:mad: Muhahahaha.
Only divine beings and moderators or administrators can edit. I think. Maybe the CIA.
---
### Author:  [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/30 "2003-03-13T04:20:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Is that because they are ‘bad’? Or perhaps a more polite term would be ‘unstable’ … in other words, if they had them, they _might use_ them?
>
> Like the US is thinking of doing?
Use instead of \<\>.
I posted this in the Pit:\*\*US nuclear policy undergoes changes under [Clinton](http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_11-12/pdd.asp). **This has background on US first use doctrine.**
[Bush](http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/may02/triad.asp) I started a GD topic on those nuclear bunker busters, and first use, [BTW](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=164354&highlight=worst+idea+ever).
[Here’s some stuff on the Cold War that is interesting.](http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/12/documents/mcnamara.deterrence/) Deterrence and such.
[This book summary does a good job of shedding light on the complexity of Cold War theorizing.](http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/cwh_1-2.htm) The presumption behind having nuclear weapons is that under certain circumstances they might be used. When allies enter the picture it gets even more complicated.
---
### Author:  [@Thaumaturge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thaumaturge)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/31 "2003-03-13T04:20:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \*
> \*\*Once again North Korea has been able to potentially inflict millions of casualties for decades. Why has a first strike policy sudden become more attractive now?
>
> Let me repeat my point that North Korean nukes make nuclear retaliation more dangerous not less.
>
> \*\*
Hmm just a WAG, but I think the fact that NK no longer has the implicit backing of Soviet Russia has something to do with it. I am unaware of their current relationship with China though, but I was under the impression that it wasn’t that rosy. So the only difference I see that could see is that NK is more on its own now.
---
### Author:  [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2003, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938/32 "2003-03-13T04:25:55Z")
From the “Clinton” link.
> [@](#):
>
> In this context, Bell explained that it is U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first against any state except in three cases. First, “if a state that we are engaged in conflict with is a nuclear-capable state, we do not necessarily intend to wait until that state uses nuclear weapons first—we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict whether its CW [chemical weapons], BW [biological weapons] or for that matter conventional [weapons],” he said. Under the second scenario, Bell said the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first “if a state is not a state in good standing under the Non-Proliferation Treaty or an equivalent international convention.” Finally, he said if a state attacks the United States, its allies or its forces “in alliance” with a nuclear-capable state, then the United States reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first, even if that state is not a nuclear-capable state and is in good standing under the NPT. Because these three exceptions have existed for some time, Bell said “there is no policy change whatsoever in this PDD with respect to fundamental U.S. position on no first use of nuclear weapons.”
Note, in the case of biological or chemical weapons being used, it is not a “first strike” to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.
But, it is a “first use.”
I’ll work on a limerick or song lyrics, perhaps a pnemonic device.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/from-the-office-of-senator-dianne-feinstein/160938.md?page=1)