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.