Preemptive strikes and nukes

Should nations keep the option of a nuclear "first strike" open in foreign policy?

Only China and India, among the nuclear powers, have ruled it out at present.

admin: No, but governments should be only allow conditional first strikes.
What warrants a nuclear first strike:
-Invasion of your nation by an enemy force
-A serious attempt to destroy your nation's nuclear deterrent
-An attack on your nation not directly by another nation but by one or several of its proxies (that is, if for example the Houthis launched a second 9/11 on American soil at Iran's urging and with its aid then the U.S. should be free to launch a nuclear strike on Iran)

Dassault Papillon: Also, cyberattacks on your nation should be considered equivalent to conventional military attacks on your nation.

By nuclear first strike, you do mean resorting to nuclear weapons before your opponent does, right?

Dassault Papillon: Yes, though NATO type governments have also refused to rule it out as just using them ad hoc.

Would you consider nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation deals attempts to destroy nuclear deterrents?

Why are some countries allowed such deterrents then and others not, like North Korea?

admin: Because the United States has had nuclear weapons for over 70 years now and it hasn't gone around threatening to use them left and right. That is, the U.S. is a responsible nuclear weapons state.
On the other hand it's 50/50 that North Korea would use its nukes in the first 10 years if it developed them fully.

admin: In an ideal world, the abolishment of nuclear wars (and any kind of wars actually) would be great. But that won't happen.

However, the first strike strategy, which targets the opponent's arsenal, is better than direct attacks to the civilians, like in Hiroshima.

Dassault Papillon: Funny, 25 years ago the US was saying the same about Russia.

admin: Wrong. The U.S.S.R. desires to be the sole superpower in a world of communist nations, but by 1991 surely it had been established that they would not use nuclear weapons under any normal circumstances. Their leaders viewed everything through strategic lens; emotional thinking was not part of the Soviet style.
North Korea is different. It has no hope of attaining superpower status at any point in this millenium and its leaders have demonstrated clear emotional volatility and the liberal use of nuclear threatening.

Basically the Soviet Union was never as likely to use nuclear weapons as North Korea is now.

Dassault Papillon: I'm pretty sure the US narrative at the time was that the Soviets were VERY threatening with their nuclear weapons. And that Stalin was a ruthless dictator who'd gladly and manically kill everyone just for his own personal glory.

I'd argue that any nation that fails to rule out first strikes, is not using their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. They are using them so they can blow up their opponents. I think North Korea is despotic, but for so long as the other nuclear nations refuse to rule out blowing up North Korea with their nukes, I don't see any problem with North Korea refusing to rule out blowing up those other nations.

admin: North Korea has explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons...on multiple occasions. And by the time the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons arsenal really became a big thing Stalin was dead.
If you use the threat of a nuclear first strike to prevent a conventional invasion of your country then it serves to deter very strongly. If everyone vows not to use nukes first under any circumstances then the war-preventing potential of nukes can never be reached. Nukes would become useless and only good for warding off someone else with nukes, which is such a waste.

Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent conventional conflicts. It's the reason that the Soviet Union never invaded Western Europe or vice-versa. Pakistan and India probably would've gone at it on a large scale by now had it not been for both sides possessing nuclear weapons.
If nukes are ever finally used then we're all screwed, but until that day comes they are tremendously beneficial to mankind.

Dassault Papillon: And if you say nukes are not useless, then you're saying you advocate the mass murder of people using nuclear radiation.

I guess this is a fundamental difference between you and me because I don't support killing people.

admin: I never said in this thread that I support killing people. I am saying that the threat of mass murder, if we are willing to follow through with it, will help prevent war. Until the day comes that they are used, nuclear weapons save lives. If anything, I support saving people.

As nuclear weapons weren't used until the very end, WWII is a very good example of what non-nuclear mass murder looks like. I suppose mass murder is good so long as no nukes are involved, right?

Because here's the thing: if you advocate for the abolition of nukes then you're begging for WW3. You're demanding that tens of millions of lives be lost in a conventional global conflict, because that's almost certainly what would've happened by now without nukes. If you are anti-nukes you are pro-war.

But back to the point regarding North Korea; the life-saving benefit of nuclear weapons is completely negated in the face of irrational nuclear actors who would quite likely use nuclear weapons in a bid for the apocalypse or the destruction of their arch-enemy (I.e. North Korea or Iran). That's why these states should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

The existence of nuclear weapons is a mistake. They should have never been invented. However, since they are already used, It would be hard to turn back.
Preemptive strikes, in my view, should only be used if needed. I think the U.S. should do a preemptive strike on the terrorist group ISIS. All nations should rule out first strikes except for against terrorist groups.

Dassault Papillon: So you believe overwhelming military force is needed to preserve peace?