Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SmarterThanYou

Trump said we need more nukes

76 posts in this topic

What a doofus

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/25/politics/trump-nuclear-arsenal/index.html

 

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump would like the US to be "at the top of the pack" when it comes to having nuclear weapons.

 

The statement, in an interview with Reuters Thursday, left non-proliferation experts puzzled and concerned.

 

The President said the US has "fallen behind on nuclear weapons capacity" and that, while he would like to see the lethal weapons abolished, as long as they exist "we're never going to fall behind on nuclear power." And he added that an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear arms is "a one-sided deal."

 

 

...and it's stuff like this, that scares me the most. Clowns should not be President.

Edited by SmarterThanYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has no idea what he's talking about which is terrifying when you consider that he's the guy with his historically small pudgy fingers on the button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How pithy.

 

He's a Trump minion.

 

That's all they have...make light of serious issues, or try to deflect by bringing up Obama or Hillary.

 

Pathetic

Edited by SmarterThanYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a doofus

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/25/politics/trump-nuclear-arsenal/index.html

 

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump would like the US to be "at the top of the pack" when it comes to having nuclear weapons.

 

The statement, in an interview with Reuters Thursday, left non-proliferation experts puzzled and concerned.

 

The President said the US has "fallen behind on nuclear weapons capacity" and that, while he would like to see the lethal weapons abolished, as long as they exist "we're never going to fall behind on nuclear power." And he added that an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear arms is "a one-sided deal."

 

 

...and it's stuff like this, that scares me the most. Clowns should not be President.

So where should we rank?  Third, tenth?  What is the right place to be among world powers to not be considered a doofus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where should we rank?  Third, tenth?  What is the right place to be among world powers to not be considered a doofus?

We reached that status election day nukes or no nukes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where should we rank?  Third, tenth?  What is the right place to be among world powers to not be considered a doofus?

 

We have a deployed arsenal of more than 1,700 nuclear bombs, deliverable by subs, bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and F-16s. How many more do you want? Please be specific and list targets 1,701, 1,702, et cetera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a deployed arsenal of more than 1,700 nuclear bombs, deliverable by subs, bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and F-16s. How many more do you want? Please be specific and list targets 1,701, 1,702, et cetera

You are answering a question with a question.  Where should we rank?

 

Trump said we should not fall behind.  Should we?  How far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where should we rank?  Third, tenth?  What is the right place to be among world powers to not be considered a doofus?

 

Out of 14,900 nuclear weapons in the World

 

We have 6800 - Russia has 7000

 

Which considering there are only 4037 cities in the world with a population of 100,000 people (and 95% of the population), after 4037 -- it doesn't really matter

 

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How pithy.

 

So humans can blow up the world one time or hundreds of times, what difference does it make at this point if Trump adds more nukes to the US arsenal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of 14,900 nuclear weapons in the World

 

We have 6800 - Russia has 7000

 

Which considering there are only 4037 cities in the world with a population of 100,000 people (and 95% of the population), after 4037 -- it doesn't really matter

 

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-force

 

This is the part that doesn't make sense. One issue in Trumps campaign was to rebuild the U.S. military. Now he basically said he wanted the U.S. to have a superior nuclear stock pile " And he added that an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear arms is "a one-sided deal." Why would Putin want him as POTUS if he wants American Military power to be superior to Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part that doesn't make sense. One issue in Trumps campaign was to rebuild the U.S. military. Now he basically said he wanted the U.S. to have a superior nuclear stock pile " And he added that an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear arms is "a one-sided deal." Why would Putin want him as POTUS if he wants American Military power to be superior to Russia?

 

History repeats.

 

Pootie is playing St.Ronnie.  He's angling to bankrupt the US by tricking T-rump into breaking the bank on the MIC.

 

When you're locked,loaded and bearing on the target, it doesn't matter how many guns said target has in his back pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like classic DC. Identify an issue that may or may not even be a problem, overhype the severity, ignore that action has already been taken, apply some minor fix of your own, declare victory.

 

Just last year Obama put the US on track to spending 1 trillion over 30 years to update and modernize the nuclear arsenal.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/05/25/479498018/obamas-nuclear-paradox-pushing-for-cuts-agreeing-to-upgrades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like classic DC. Identify an issue that may or may not even be a problem, overhype the severity, ignore that action has already been taken, apply some minor fix of your own, declare victory.

 

Just last year Obama put the US on track to spending 1 trillion over 30 years to update and modernize the nuclear arsenal.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/05/25/479498018/obamas-nuclear-paradox-pushing-for-cuts-agreeing-to-upgrades

Agreed. And really hasn't this been our nuclear strategy for the last 50+ years? We are always willing to talk reductions, but when the dust settles we are going to be at the top, or close to it, in terms of the number of nukes we own compared to the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So humans can blow up the world one time or hundreds of times, what difference does it make at this point if Trump adds more nukes to the US arsenal?

If we had unlimited resources I suppose it wouldn't matter much. But we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the part that doesn't make sense. One issue in Trumps campaign was to rebuild the U.S. military. Now he basically said he wanted the U.S. to have a superior nuclear stock pile " And he added that an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear arms is "a one-sided deal." Why would Putin want him as POTUS if he wants American Military power to be superior to Russia?

 

 

If you were Putin, what better way to solidify power even more, than to own a faux threat (Trump) to mother Russia?

 

Pootie knows that the US -- CAN'T spend much more than we already do on defense.

 

Pootie knows that the US military is already the best.

 

Pootie knows that the number of warheads is a Red Herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So humans can blow up the world one time or hundreds of times, what difference does it make at this point if Trump adds more nukes to the US arsenal?

 

It makes a lot of difference. For one thing nukes are expensive, to design, manufacture, maintain and dispose. For another, we increase our risk of an accident as we increase the number of nukes. 

 

 

You are answering a question with a question.  Where should we rank?

 

Trump said we should not fall behind.  Should we?  How far?

 

We should have as many as we need to ensure their ACTUAL purpose of deterrence. If that means the USA can do with a few less than Russia, so be it.

 

There is, unfortunately, another dimension here that might be lurking in the background. Some hawks might start to consider "tactical" nukes again now that the government is pretty much smoking crack. 

 

Tactical nukes are smaller nukes which are intended for battlefield situations rather than wiping out entire metropolitan areas. They were largely phased out by the 1970's as people far more intelligent than Trump realized that the usage of tactical nukes would greatly increase the subsequent probability of strategic nuke usage. And that, after all, precisely aimed big bombs can "do the job" for any battlefield.

 

I expect Trump is just thumping his chest to be tough guy like Putin, but if he backs that up with somehow reviving tactical nuke programs, that will be yet another mess to clean up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes a lot of difference. For one thing nukes are expensive, to design, manufacture, maintain and dispose. For another, we increase our risk of an accident as we increase the number of nukes. 

 

 

 

We should have as many as we need to ensure their ACTUAL purpose of deterrence. If that means the USA can do with a few less than Russia, so be it.

 

There is, unfortunately, another dimension here that might be lurking in the background. Some hawks might start to consider "tactical" nukes again now that the government is pretty much smoking crack. 

 

Tactical nukes are smaller nukes which are intended for battlefield situations rather than wiping out entire metropolitan areas. They were largely phased out by the 1970's as people far more intelligent than Trump realized that the usage of tactical nukes would greatly increase the subsequent probability of strategic nuke usage. And that, after all, precisely aimed big bombs can "do the job" for any battlefield.

 

I expect Trump is just thumping his chest to be tough guy like Putin, but if he backs that up with somehow reviving tactical nuke programs, that will be yet another mess to clean up.

 

I saw no mention by Trump of tactical nukes.   But I can tell you we still had them into the mid 80's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like classic DC. Identify an issue that may or may not even be a problem, overhype the severity, ignore that action has already been taken, apply some minor fix of your own, declare victory.

Just last year Obama put the US on track to spending 1 trillion over 30 years to update and modernize the nuclear arsenal.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/05/25/479498018/obamas-nuclear-paradox-pushing-for-cuts-agreeing-to-upgrades

This thread is about bashing trump. Let's stay focused. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw no mention by Trump of tactical nukes.   But I can tell you we still had them into the mid 80's.  

 

We have about 180 stationed in NATO countries at these airforce bases

 

Incirik

Araxos

Aviano

Ramstein

Buchel

Lakenheath

Volkel

Kliene Broggel

Norvenich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are answering a question with a question.  Where should we rank?

 

Trump said we should not fall behind.  Should we?  How far?

 

We're not falling behind. Trump is an uninformed idiot. It's a dangerous situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not falling behind. Trump is an uninformed idiot. It's a dangerous situation.

Trump didn't say we were falling behind, but that we wouldn't.  

 

I remember when the hero of the left talked about the missile gap to the irritation of Ike.  Kennedy was an uninformed idiot and THAT was a dangerous situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw no mention by Trump of tactical nukes.   But I can tell you we still had them into the mid 80's.  

 

Well then, you answer, how many more nukes should we have? 

 

Trump has no fathomable reason to start talking vaguely about nuclear weapons.

 

What, exactly, is the point of all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0