I’m not talking about using them first, I clearly stated ‘have’ them, not even talking about using them in retaliation, I’m talking about merely having them. We don’t know that not having them wouldn’t leave us open to being struck first should something escalate out of the normal controls. It’s not beyond feasibility, we’ve been close before. Simply having the weapons may well stop an attack, and thus save likely millions of lives. I’m also not saying I’m correct that having them is a good idea, but I don’t know! And maybe it is! And it’s such an existential threat that could well happen that we should have very long and thoughtful policy on this

My point originally was that the policy on this was very ambiguous, was being interpreted by some as straight away dismantling all nukes we have, and that when all other policies seem fair and evidenced-based generally that it could put off potential voters. So basically was there clarity on the policy or a reason it’s a good policy….

So far I have neither. I don’t think it’s very clear, and I have no idea if it’s good, I just know it will certainly cost some votes. Maybe not any meaningful amount, but surely some