Did I miss something?

I'll confess — I didn't actually watch the entire VP debate. I gave up after about 30 minutes and realizing that Biden and Palen weren't actually debating, but were rather just trying to squeeze in sound bites (to put an overly simplistic view on things). Blame it on the silly "debate" format.

What I want to know is this: did I miss something in the candidates' replies when they were asked about whether the United States should or would ever use nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity? Palin seemed have started off saying about Iran and ended up talking about how to fight the war in Afghanistan (and nothing about nuclear first strikes); Biden seems to have taken a circuitous route to end up talking about the non-proliferation and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

However, neither one of the candidates seems to have answered the damn question. How hard could it possibly be? When asked whether the U.S. would consider a nuclear first strike, just say no!

Addendum: Yes, I'm aware that low-yield tactical nuclear weapons exist. But, I'm also aware of the moral and political stigmas against emploing any sort of nuclear weapon. So, using even one low-yield weapon would lead to opening a can of worms that we simply could not contain.