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

[Fledermaus]

Yeah, they won that particular dick measuring contest.

And a mighty johnson it was.

 

[Cardinal]

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.

Ikari distinguished between conventional vs non-conventional (wmd).

As for the Davy Crockett, you got me there. I always forget about that one.

 

[Cardinal]

And a mighty johnson it was.

The problem with Tsara is demonstrated by the analogy of which caveman brings the biggest rock to the fight. Eventually one of them can slowly roll over a giant boulder, and impressive as that may be, he still can't lift it so he can drop it on the other caveman's head. (In fact there may have been a Roadrunner cartoon to that effect). That's the problem with any of these megaton beasts: you can't put the damn things on an icbm like a civilized person. They can really only be for show.

 

[beefheart]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html



Its unbelievable...except for the fact that it, being Trump, makes it totally believable.

Every day, another story/statement comes out of Trump that disqualifies him for President.

He needs to be locked in a straight jacket and sent to a room with very soft walls.

 

[matchlight]

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

You seem to be quoting yourself. I'm certain that every U.S. President from Harry Truman on has been keenly aware of how destructive nuclear weapons are, and has taken his responsibility for authorizing the use of those weapons very seriously. I am also certain that either of the current candidates would take the same view if elected President.

It is hard to imagine what could be more dangerous for this country than for a U.S. President to convince adversaries that have nuclear arsenals, through words, actions, or both, that the U.S. would never use its nuclear weapons, no matter what.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You seem to be quoting yourself. I'm certain that every U.S. President from Harry Truman on has been keenly aware of how destructive nuclear weapons are, and has taken his responsibility for authorizing the use of those weapons very seriously. I am also certain that either of the current candidates would take the same view if elected President.

It is hard to imagine what could be more dangerous for this country than for a U.S. President to convince adversaries that have nuclear arsenals, through words, actions, or both, that the U.S. would never use its nuclear weapons, no matter what.

Our nuclear arsenal is a weapon of last resort: the power to level entire cities is not something thrown around lightly.

Our nukes are a deterrent: they are so powerful that one has to use restraint.

 

[Fledermaus]

The problem with Tsara is demonstrated by the analogy of which caveman brings the biggest rock to the fight. Eventually one of them can slowly roll over a giant boulder, and impressive as that may be, he still can't lift it so he can drop it on the other caveman's head. (In fact there may have been a Roadrunner cartoon to that effect). That's the problem with any of these megaton beasts: you can't put the damn things on an icbm like a civilized person. They can really only be for show.

Its all for show. I agree.

 

[sangha]

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.

because the leaders of other nations don't know that :roll:

 

[Mithros]

Presidential nominees aren't allowed to ask about nuclear weapons that they may have to utilize someday? Seems like an odd rule.

The mental gymnastics that people are willing to go through for trump is staggering.

What does it say about someones judgment if they have to ask why using nuclear weapons is a bad idea? Being president is a TOUGH job. If something ends up on the president's desk, it's because no one further down the chain of command had a good answer. The decisions are all tough. Having someone who hasn't thought about the purpose of nuclear weapons enough to know why using them is a bad idea is a terrifying thought.

Just think about different times in history. Replace Kennedy with Trump..., nuclear Armageddon. Replace Reagan with Trump..., nuclear Armageddon. What are the odds of Trump attempting to use nuclear weapons because someone insulted him? If that answer isn't an easy zero, that person can't have access to nuclear weapons. We're talking about the possible extinction of all life on the planet. And that's not hyperbole!

But I'm sure politics is much more important than that.

 

[Casper]

Our nuclear arsenal is a weapon of last resort: the power to level entire cities is not something thrown around lightly.

Our nukes are a deterrent: they are so powerful that one has to use restraint.

Restraint is not part of Trumps skill set, just another reason he should not be in the Oval Office.

 

[Mithros]

You seem to be quoting yourself. I'm certain that every U.S. President from Harry Truman on has been keenly aware of how destructive nuclear weapons are, and has taken his responsibility for authorizing the use of those weapons very seriously. I am also certain that either of the current candidates would take the same view if elected President.

It is hard to imagine what could be more dangerous for this country than for a U.S. President to convince adversaries that have nuclear arsenals, through words, actions, or both, that the U.S. would never use its nuclear weapons, no matter what.

Seeing as we're the the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in anger, I suspect the rest of the world is reasonably confident that we'd use them if provoked.... regardless of any statements we happen to make.

Riddle me this, would you care if Putin said that he would never use nuclear weapons no matter what? Words matter... but so does having fueled city killer ICBMs on alert.

 

[reinoe]

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.

Depends on who he shot.

 

[reinoe]

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

We've been waiting 30 years for Hillary to do just that.

 

[WillyPete]

First, I believe this is the full transcript they are referring to. <Link>

Trump is repeatedly goaded into saying he would never use nuclear weapons, period. Not even Obama would say that.

The correct posture, and our position since Truman, is that we won't use nuclear weapons aggressively.

Trump's statement are largely incoherent (a concern in itself,) but it is clear that he has the correct position.

To declare we would never use nukes under any circumstances would completely change the dynamic of MAD doctrine, which has kept us safe for decades.

 

[Top Cat]

Depends on who he shot.

Case in point.

 

[matchlight]

Our nuclear arsenal is a weapon of last resort: the power to level entire cities is not something thrown around lightly.

Our nukes are a deterrent: they are so powerful that one has to use restraint.

I think that is obvious.

 

[apdst]

This was a classified briefing. Why are anyone's comments from that briefing being leaked?

Who wants to bet this is bull****? Man, the Libbos's will fall for anything...lol

 

[MrPeanut]

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?

I believe that launching nuclear weapons should be treated with more seriousness than Trump has shown. The threat of launching a nuclear missile should not be used as a negotiating tactic at any point because even the mention of it escalates any situation to the highest levels possible. No, nukes should not be considered as retaliation if there were an ISIS attack on the US, which Trump implied could be a valid reason, when other non-nuclear weapons could be equally effective without the decades long residual effects associated with nuclear weapons. The nuclear missiles of today are many times over more powerful than the A bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for why I believe a presidential nominee should refrain from discussing the use of nuclear weapons, it's pretty simple. There isn't a country crazy enough to risk the world on a nominees pledge.

 

[Caine]

Yeah. See. That's sort of the issue. We expect Presidents to know basic things, like what a nuclear weapon is, and how to identify America on a map.

Just trying to figure out how many more people, like yourself, are going to read stupid **** into what Moon is trying to point out.



Oh... Debate Politics... why do I even bother with thee?

 

[Caine]

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.

You know... just MAYBE... he was looking for an answer a little bit more sophisticated than,

 

[Hatuey]

You might be impressed be future President Al Franken:

That's actually really impressive. I don't think I could do it while talking to a lot of people or on a stage.

 

[iguanaman]

If it were not Trump asking the question and the context were right, the question would be totally to the point. I am becoming increasingly convinced that the probability of the use of nuclear weapons is growing and that it might be necessary to use them in the not all to distant future, if we do not get a hold on the challenges of international security. As we are going right now, we are exactly on the trajectory that some of the 1990s analysis had projected. These simulations ended in nuclear war.

If you are saying that Trump may get us into a nuclear war I agree. And you apparently think having Trump is a good choice in a nuclear war too. Perhaps he should make up some new hats. "Make America a cinder" has a nice ring to it.

 

[Phys251]

The mental gymnastics that people are willing to go through for trump is staggering.

What does it say about someones judgment if they have to ask why using nuclear weapons is a bad idea? Being president is a TOUGH job. If something ends up on the president's desk, it's because no one further down the chain of command had a good answer. The decisions are all tough. Having someone who hasn't thought about the purpose of nuclear weapons enough to know why using them is a bad idea is a terrifying thought.

Just think about different times in history. Replace Kennedy with Trump..., nuclear Armageddon. Replace Reagan with Trump..., nuclear Armageddon. What are the odds of Trump attempting to use nuclear weapons because someone insulted him? If that answer isn't an easy zero, that person can't have access to nuclear weapons. We're talking about the possible extinction of all life on the planet. And that's not hyperbole!

But I'm sure politics is much more important than that.

Issues such as taxation policies, infrastructure, and trade deals don't mean anything once the nukes start flying.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

They were built to deter anyone from ever using them. It is called Mutual Assured Destruction or MAD for short. We have decided that the only sure way to prevent their use is to make it ALL or nothing. Trump obviously doesn't get that like so much that he doesn't get.

 

[TheGoverness]

I assume this is the cover for Fallout 5.