has warren made a statement on missile defence?

and, in case you didn't know...

number of troops in japan: 50,000.
number of troops in korea: 30,000.
number of troops in afghanistan: 15,000
number of troops in iraq: 5,000

and, also, let me be clear on this point.

the invasion of afghanistan was intended to be a long term occupation of a strategically vital region in the centre of asia. there is no goal to be completed in afghanistan, no end point, no exit strategy. but, that is not a reason to send troops home, but the very reason they are in the first place. so, there will be no withdrawal from afghanistan. ever. you'd might as well be talking about withdrawing from japan or korea, things that will not happen until the empire starts to permanently crumble. as the withdrawal of legions from the frontier in britain marked the end of roman control in the northwest, symbolically if not functionally, an american withdrawal from afghanistan would actually signal that the empire is beyond permanent decline and at the point of imminent collapse.

when candidates start talking about sending troops back from afghanistan at this stage in the process, there's one of two reasons:

1) they have not yet been briefed, and they essentially have little understanding of the actual goals and purposes of american foreign policy. when candidates like this win (and while obama was a candidate of this type, let's recall that he actually ran on bombing afghanistan, not withdrawing from it. his argument against iraq was that it redirected resources away from afghanistan (which is probably wrong, too)), they usually change their tune very quickly.
2) they're deep state and are playing right into the propaganda. and, they're lying through their teeth about it.

or, to put it another way.

if bernie is the revolution, warren is the counter-revolution.

and, it's the counter-revolutionaries that the elite let actually govern.

she may lose the general, but she's clearly the establishment favourite, at this point.

elizabeth warren is a reactionary.

and, it's increasingly clear that bernie is too stupid to realize it.

a nuclear first-strike is obviously bad news, and you want to be more concerned about electing leadership that keeps you (and the world) out of that scenario than about what happens when you're faced with it. so, i could argue i'm in favour of a ban on killing wildlife, but i'm more concerned about changing a culture that has some kind of drive to kill. i don't kill things, but it's not because there's a law against it, it's because i actually, really, honestly don't want to.

it opens up the question, though: what happens if, despite your best efforts, you find yourself face-to-face with an angry bear?

the thing about rules is that there's always exceptions, and this is why i don't actually take elizabeth warren particularly seriously when she offers a no first-strike policy. the senator from massachusetts likes to talk about rules, but her debate performances suggest that she's aware that exceptions to the rules always exist, and that she seems to see herself as the exception to most rules. it's not unique, really. i don't doubt that she'd use them, in the situation that the exception applies, as she understands the specific exception.

my intent is not be insolent or sarcastic, but to suggest that the right policy is to legislate the exceptions, because everybody knows that they're there, and that they have to be there. it's magical thinking to wave them away. so, i'd support developing an updated, detailed, complicated first-strike policy that explicitly denotes when first-strike is permitted as an option and when it doesn't. warren's policy, as presented, is overly simplistic, intended solely for simple-minded voters and very poorly suited for real-world applications.

the other side of the argument is that if you broadcast your first-strike policies then you're opening yourself up to exploitation, but i think that's a misreading of any serious opponent. one of the exceptions in the no first strike policy legislation should be that if the country finds itself up against an opponent with such nefarious motives, then a first strike should be on the table - that would be a foe that needs to be instantly neutralized. you can't debate with an entity that's deadset on destroying you. but, insofar as the opponents are nation-states, at least, this is not realistic. a clear first-strike policy insofar as it relates to them is preferable, so long as the status quo of relatively stable global leadership persists. "so long as"...clauses, conditions. it's complicated, really - it's not a simple thing with an easy plan to fix, although that's good marketing in late capitalism, isn't it?

bernie: it's not me, it's you. we need hard work and lengthy organizing to come together and solve the world's problems. it's going to take generations. but, we can do it if we put enough into it.
warren: don't worry about it, i'll take care of it. i have a simple plan that everybody can understand. just sign here.

but, to an extent, this is the reason america has a commander-in-chief. there has to be somebody there, on the ground, in real-time, who is going to analyze the evidence and make a choice, and that process cannot be clouded by religion or ideology or any other kind of idealism. it must be strictly evidence-based. so, all a policy can do is offer rules of thumb around how to analyze the evidence.

as i understand it, these policies already exist. they could use an update, i'm sure.