Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Trump said we need more nukes


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 SmarterThanYou

SmarterThanYou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,459 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:28 PM

What a doofus

http://www.cnn.com/2...enal/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, 25 February 2017 - 06:29 PM.


#2 JoyinMudville

JoyinMudville

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,560 posts
  • LocationBrooklyn

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:38 PM

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.



#3 flyboy56

flyboy56

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,444 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:43 PM

The only nukes you need to be afraid of is the ones that can't be accounted for. 



#4 ms maggie

ms maggie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38,143 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:47 PM

The only nukes you need to be afraid of is the ones that can't be accounted for.


How pithy.

#5 SmarterThanYou

SmarterThanYou

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,459 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:49 PM

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, 25 February 2017 - 06:51 PM.


#6 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 91,786 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 06:49 PM

The consequence of having a president who is sensitive about the size of his hands.
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#7 jdsample

jdsample

    The Doctor is In

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27,758 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 25 February 2017 - 11:28 PM

What a doofus

http://www.cnn.com/2...enal/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?


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We are all Keynesians now.
Richard M. Nixon

Cynicism--the intellectual cripple's substitute for intelligence.
Joseph Russell Lynes Jr.

Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer

#8 zenwalk

zenwalk

    Pundit

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48,444 posts

Posted 25 February 2017 - 11:55 PM

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. 


"A screaming comes across the sky. . ." -- Thomas Pynchon

#9 JoyinMudville

JoyinMudville

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,560 posts
  • LocationBrooklyn

Posted 26 February 2017 - 12:08 AM

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



#10 jdsample

jdsample

    The Doctor is In

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27,758 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 26 February 2017 - 12:19 AM

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?


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We are all Keynesians now.
Richard M. Nixon

Cynicism--the intellectual cripple's substitute for intelligence.
Joseph Russell Lynes Jr.

Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer

#11 karlydee2

karlydee2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,101 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 02:32 AM

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/issu...nuclear-forces/



#12 flyboy56

flyboy56

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,444 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 07:22 AM

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?



#13 mrdeltoid

mrdeltoid

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,343 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 07:30 AM

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/issu...d-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?



#14 gonzoliberal

gonzoliberal

    Higher Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,476 posts
  • LocationAnnapolis, Maryland

Posted 26 February 2017 - 07:40 AM

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.



#15 Jimmy Jazz

Jimmy Jazz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,450 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 08:22 AM

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/s...ing-to-upgrades

#16 cprenegade

cprenegade

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,658 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 10:27 AM

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/s...ing-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.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

#17 Rael

Rael

    Rational member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,129 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 10:47 AM

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.
Pessimism is just an ugly word for 'pattern recognition'.

#18 karlydee2

karlydee2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,101 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 11:20 AM

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.



#19 dogstarman

dogstarman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,903 posts

Posted 26 February 2017 - 11:51 AM

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.



#20 jdsample

jdsample

    The Doctor is In

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 27,758 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 26 February 2017 - 01:33 PM

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.  


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

We are all Keynesians now.
Richard M. Nixon

Cynicism--the intellectual cripple's substitute for intelligence.
Joseph Russell Lynes Jr.

Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users