“I think the differences are subtle, but they do seem to be recognized.”
I am not sure your sources show the difference clearly at all. Besides Beagle seems to be making the much stronger point that first use implies a war in progress so that the two terms are mutually exclusive. So it goes beyond “subtle” differences.
When I say subtle I suppose I mean that a nation with a no first-strike policy could still be the first to use nuclear weapons, but would only do so in the context of an ongoing war, while a country with a no first use policy is counting on taking at least one hit first. Anyway, point is Feinstein is wrong, and all parties are safest when the US reserves the right to do what ever it chooses vis a vi nuclear weapons. At least we can all agree on that, right? 
“millions of allied casualties”
Why allied?
Why “casualties”?
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.
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.
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.
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 <i>everybody.</i> But, it seems, its just for those countrys that <i>dont have them yet.</i>
Because I don’t hear a word about how the US <i>has </i> 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 <i> might use </i> them?
Like the US is thinking of doing?
why the hell do I have an edit button, if I cant use it?
Anyway, sorry for the wrong type of code markers. 
:mad:It’s Hell!:mad: Muhahahaha.
Only divine beings and moderators or administrators can edit. I think. Maybe the CIA.
Use instead of <>.
I posted this in the Pit:**US nuclear policy undergoes changes under Clinton. This has background on US first use doctrine.
Bush I started a GD topic on those nuclear bunker busters, and first use, BTW.
Here’s some stuff on the Cold War that is interesting. Deterrence and such.
This book summary does a good job of shedding light on the complexity of Cold War theorizing. 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.
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.
From the “Clinton” link.
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.