Trump asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC [W: 221]

[SMTA]

Several months ago?

Gosh. And MSNBC is only coming out with it now?

Gee Wiz. I wonder why they sat on it throughout the primary. :roll:

Maybe they were laughing too hard to type.

 

[Anagram]

You might be impressed be future President Al Franken:

Maybe just because my own art skills are terrible, but that is pretty impressive.

 

[Cardinal]

Here's an example of where he said it, but sort of walked it back a while ago.

msnbc townhall

TRUMP: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?



MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in '45, heard it. They're hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.



TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? We had (inaudible).


If you'd like to read the section completely in context, I suggest ctrl+f nuclear.

"Then why are we making them?"

There's a kind of simple, child-like logic to that everyone should find terrifying. There have been several science fiction stories of a god-like child visiting earth and humans having to explain to it why he can't just make people act like he wants or why he can't just destroy all living things.

 

[Moon]

I'm reading into it the thing that he said (allegedly). People who weren't grown in a test tube in an evil laboratory know why nuclear weapons are bad and why we shouldn't use them. Trump has shown exactly the level of narcissism, lack of self-awareness and sociopathy that allows me to accept that he approaches the idea of the use of wmd's cavalierly.

Okay.

 

[Ikari]

Non-wmd's that are just as deadly? Such as?

No, you're right. For some reason I was thinking we had stuff that was on order of the original bombs. But we don't. Still, with some of our largest conventional bombs, it's hard to see a reason to need nuclear weapons.

 

[cpwill]

There's a kind of simple, child-like logic to that everyone should find terrifying. There have been several science fiction stories of a god-like child visiting earth and humans having to explain to it why he can't just make people act like he wants or why he can't just destroy all living things.

Um. Er. In any of those books, did any random, ordinary, people ever discover a consistent way to get the child-like powerful entity to act in accordance with basic decency and stop self-destructing and bringing others with it?

Asking for a friend.

 

[natsb]

Definitely

Care to explain? How does promising not to retaliate make us safer? Are you thinking all the bad guys will volunteer to lay down their weapons if we do it first?

 

[Cardinal]

Um. Er. In any of those books, did any random, ordinary, people ever discover a consistent way to get the child-like powerful entity to act in accordance with basic decency and stop self-destructing and bringing others with it?

Asking for a friend.

There was a Star Trek incarnation of that story if I recall, and Star Trek being Star Trek, Kirk (or Picard) was able to convince the child-god of the value of life and individuality. Sadly, the Twilight Zone version didn't end so well.

 

[natsb]

No, we have conventional weapons that are just as deadly.

I can't imagine any. I did my homework, but perhaps my google-foo skills are lacking. Could you please give an example? I am willing to learn.

 

[Cardinal]

No, you're right. For some reason I was thinking we had stuff that was on order of the original bombs. But we don't. Still, with some of our largest conventional bombs, it's hard to see a reason to need nuclear weapons.

Ah, you're probably referring to MOAB. While certainly nothing I would want to be in the sites of, it doesn't come anywhere close to Fat Man or Little Boy, or the potential death toll of a well placed gas or biological weapon.

 

[cpwill]

There was a Star Trek incarnation of that story if I recall, and Star Trek being Star Trek, Kirk (or Picard) was able to convince the child-god of the value of life and individuality. Sadly, the Twilight Zone version didn't end so well.

Are you talking about Q?

 

[Ikari]

Ah, you're probably referring to MOAB. While certainly nothing I would want to be in the sites of, it doesn't come anywhere close to Fat Man or Little Boy, or the potential death toll of a well placed gas or biological weapon.

Yup, 11 tons (MOAB) of TNT vs 15 kilotons (Little Boy). I'm just being stupid, sorry.

 

[Cardinal]

Are you talking about Q?

No, something else. I can't remember the exact episode. Though it could be argued that Picard did achieve a kind of moderation of Q's psychotic and judgy nature. It just took him seven seasons to accomplish even that.

 

[azgreg]

Are you talking about Q?

That guy was a dick.

 

[cpwill]

Ah, you're probably referring to MOAB. While certainly nothing I would want to be in the sites of, it doesn't come anywhere close to Fat Man or Little Boy, or the potential death toll of a well placed gas or biological weapon.

The MOAB has been replaced as my top favorite bomb with the GBU-57A/B: the MOP. (P stands for "Penetrator." hehehe).

 

[Cardinal]

That guy was a dick.

I don't want to wait seven years for Trump to figure out that people should be treated with decency and respect.

 

[Top Cat]

An unnamed source said something that can't be verified! It must be true!

Meanwhile, did you know that Hillary Clinton adopted a toddler and then strangled it with her bare hands just to watch the light flicker out of it's eyes? An unnamed source confirms the story is true.

Yeah, except one rather glaring problem. This story is perfectly in character for Trump.

This should scare the hell out of everyone. But alas, even if he shot someone, his loyal minions wouldn't care.

 

[matchlight]

I've always believed it was useful for U.S. Presidents to refer occasionally to our nuclear weapons, and to make clear this country has never had a policy of no first use. Our arsenal of these weapons--now about six thousand of various sizes--can only deter adversaries from hostile actions if they believe the President might, under some conditions, order their use. Some of our military's many contingency plans certainly call for the use of nuclear weapons, and that is as it should be. Presumably we would never have gone to all the effort and expense of building them if we had resolved never to use them, no matter the circumstances.

 

[cpwill]

I don't want to wait seven years for Trump to figure out that people should be treated with decency and respect.

Gosh. He would be... 77 by then?

 

[Fledermaus]

Non-wmd's that are just as deadly? Such as?

A wide range of biological and chemical agents.

 

[Cardinal]

A wide range of biological and chemical agents.

Those are wmds.

Gosh. He would be... 77 by then?

Yeah, that's a little late in life without the help of some military grade psychotropics.

 

[Fledermaus]

The MOAB has been replaced as my top favorite bomb with the GBU-57A/B: the MOP. (P stands for "Penetrator." hehehe).

Tsar Bomba

 

[Cardinal]

I've always believed it was useful for U.S. Presidents to refer occasionally to our nuclear weapons, and to make clear this country has never had a policy of no first use. Our arsenal of these weapons--now about six thousand of various sizes--can only deter adversaries from hostile actions if they believe the President might, under some conditions, order their use. Some of our military's many contingency plans certainly call for the use of nuclear weapons, and that is as it should be. Presumably we would never have gone to all the effort and expense of building them if we had resolved never to use them, no matter the circumstances.

"We built all these nuclear weapons, I wanna play with them! I WANT TO PLAY WITH MY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!"

 

[Cardinal]

Tsar Bomba

Yeah, they won that particular dick measuring contest.

 

[Fledermaus]

Those are wmds.




Yeah, that's a little late in life without the help of some military grade psychotropics.

Yes. Yes they are.

But they are non-nukes.

Fwiw - The smallest nuke was the Davy Crockett which at 10 - 20 tons yield is beaten by the FOAB .

Hell, air to air missles were are with a variation if this warhead.