Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SmarterThanYou

Trump said we need more nukes

76 posts in this topic

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/

The Russkies and the U.S., have at least kept the arms race contained to saber rattling for numbers since the 1950's. Thanks to Obama and Kerry, the Mad Mullahs will of course ignore that unholy coalition, and thumb their noses at any attempt to hold them accountable. Edited by volperdinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

 

Kennedy worked with Kruschev to ban above ground nuclear bomb testing. He also steadfastly refused to bow to the enormous pressure being put on him by the joint chiefs to invade Cuba and start World War III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

~1700 deployed -- enough to wipe out 80% of the world population in the initial nuclear hellstorm, ruin the ecosystem of the planet for a few hundred thousand years, and maybe the human race survives, assuming the Ruskies don't retaliate.

 

To put it in perspective, those 1700 weapons are the equivalent of approximately 85,000 Hiroshimas  -- but the firestorms will be orders of magnitude more because cities are 100 to 1000 times more dense than in 1945.

 

If they do, then perhaps a few million years from now, intelligent cockroaches will be the dominant life form on Planet Earth.

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russkies and the U.S., have at least kept the arms race contained to saber rattling for numbers since the 1950's. Thanks to Obama and Kerry, the Mad Mullahs will of course ignore that unholy coalition, and thumb their noses at any attempt to hold them accountable.

 

So full of bovine excrement it is sad.

 

Obama and Kerry had nothing to do with it.

 

Saint Ronnie didn't step in in the 80's when Israel used Dimona to become a nuclear power.

 

-- but you don't want to address the real truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy worked with Kruschev to ban above ground nuclear bomb testing. He also steadfastly refused to bow to the enormous pressure being put on him by the joint chiefs to invade Cuba and start World War III.

He campaigned on a missile gap and very nearly started WW III.  His "steadfastness" led to the Bay of Pigs disaster.  He was obsessed with Cuber.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So full of bovine excrement it is sad.

 

Obama and Kerry had nothing to do with it.

 

Saint Ronnie didn't step in in the 80's when Israel used Dimona to become a nuclear power.

 

-- but you don't want to address the real truth[/quote

 

Dimona in the 80's? So what? How does that even remotely relate to a piece of garbage that was never submitted to Congress for ratification? The Iranian Parliament never approved it either. So it's not a treaty, an executive agreement, or a signed document by any definition, so it's binding exactly how?

Edited by volperdinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Does Trump have some (fake) evidence that we are in danger of "falling behind"? Is Russia violating the treaty on nukes? Certainly not from NK, Pakistan or Iran?

 

We all know this is just more saber rattling bravado by the bully-in-Chief...and his minions lap it up like the dogs they are (no disrespect to dogs, by the wAY).

Edited by SmarterThanYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Incirik

Araxos

Aviano

Ramstein

Buchel

Lakenheath

Volkel

Kliene Broggel

Norvenich

 

There you go.  No danger that Trump will do something as stupid as introduce tactical nukes at those bases.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Trump have some (fake) evidence that we are in danger of "falling behind"? Is Russia violating the treaty on nukes? Certainly not from NK, Pakistan or Iran?

 

We all know this is just more saber rattling bravado by the bully-in-Chief...and his minions lap it up like the dogs they are (no disrespect to dogs, by the wAY).

I have heard no plans to build a bunch of nukes, have you?  He merely said he won't allow us to fall behind.  OK.  We aren't behind right now, so untwist your panties.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard no plans to build a bunch of nukes, have you?  He merely said he won't allow us to fall behind.  OK.  We aren't behind right now, so untwist your panties.

How would any of us know?

 

Unless he has evidence that there is, or soon will be a nuke gap, what would be the rationale for making such a statement, in the first place? I guess it does help to appease and codify his brain-dead worshipers?

 

I've heard it said that the only thing scarier than Trump having his hands on nukes, is Trump having his hands on more nukes.

 

I don't wear "panties"? How about you? I like to "free flow"

Edited by SmarterThanYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the matter with spending a few billion more dollars on something we may never need to use?

Same argument can be used against global warming efforts.

 

Since it's "fake news", why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would any of us know?

 

Unless he has evidence that there is, or soon will be a nuke gap, what would be the rationale for making such a statement, in the first place? I guess it does help to appease and codify his brain-dead worshipers?

 

I've heard it said that the only thing scarier than Trump having his hands on nukes, is Trump having his hands on more nukes.

 

I don't wear "panties"? How about you? I like to "free flow"

 

So this is all just speculation and panic on the part of the left with no basis in fact.   Glad you cleared that up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would any of us know?Unless he has evidence that there is, or soon will be a nuke gap, what would be the rationale for making such a statement, in the first place? I guess it does help to appease and codify his brain-dead worshipers?I've heard it said that the only thing scarier than Trump having his hands on nukes, is Trump having his hands on more nukes.I don't wear "panties"? How about you? I like to "free flow"

What's the matter with spending a few billion more dollars on something we may never need to use?

Hmmm...

 

"Despite campaigning on a platform that endorsed having “a nuclear-free world” in the not so distant future, United States President Barack Obama is overseeing an administration that’s aim has taken another path, the New York Times reported this week.

 

According to the Times report, an effort to ensure that the antiquated nuclear arsenal being held by the US remains secure has since expanded to the point that upwards of $1 trillion dollars is now expected to be spent on various realms of the project during the next three decades, the likes of which are likely to keep the trove of American nukes intact and do little to discourage other nations from doing differently."

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/189660-obama-trillion-nuclear-times/

 

Relax.....it's the obama legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm...

 

"Despite campaigning on a platform that endorsed having “a nuclear-free world” in the not so distant future, United States President Barack Obama is overseeing an administration that’s aim has taken another path, the New York Times reported this week.

 

According to the Times report, an effort to ensure that the antiquated nuclear arsenal being held by the US remains secure has since expanded to the point that upwards of $1 trillion dollars is now expected to be spent on various realms of the project during the next three decades, the likes of which are likely to keep the trove of American nukes intact and do little to discourage other nations from doing differently."

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/189660-obama-trillion-nuclear-times/

 

Relax.....it's the obama legacy.

Russia Today though? :)

 

One Trillion will probably seem like a bargain in 30 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care that you used Russia Today, I was just messing with ya

I know you were, but some of your compadres would label me a comm-symp for using citing that source. ;)

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?

You answered your own question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard no plans to build a bunch of nukes, have you?  He merely said he won't allow us to fall behind.  OK.  We aren't behind right now, so untwist your panties.  

 

One does not simply bring up the topic of nuclear weapons, aggressively and multiple times, in an effort to assert the status quo.

 

The beautiful thing about the Donald and his sycophants is that all you have to do to refute them is to quote diarrhea-mouth directly: 

 

      "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes"

 

I would not classify that as "merely saying" anything.

 

But then, the question remains, WHAT does he ACTUALLY mean by his talk?

 

Sorry, but the Donald doesn't understand that as president, he no longer has the luxury of talking like he's BS'ing with his drunk country-club buddies. At some point one has to put up or shut-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard no plans to build a bunch of nukes, have you?  He merely said he won't allow us to fall behind.  OK.  We aren't behind right now, so untwist your panties.  

 

 

 

 

The United States is well underway on an extensive modernization of its entire nuclear weapons enterprise. Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend nearly $350 billion on modernizing and maintaining its nuclear forces and the facilities that support them (CBO

2015b). The results of this effort will include a new class of SSBNs, a new long-range bomber with nuclear capability, a new air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), a next-gen- eration land-based ICBM, and a new nuclear-capable tactical fighter aircraft. It will also include complete full- scale production of one nuclear warhead (the W76-1), initiation of production on two others (the B61-12 and W80-4), modernized nuclear command and control facil- ities, and new or upgraded nuclear weapon production and simulation facilities.

In addition to these programs, the United States is planning to significantly redesign warheads for ballistic missiles.  

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.1264213?needAccess=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You answered your own question.

 

Exactly. It makes no difference at all. My question was rhetorical. I'm glad you caught that.  

Edited by flyboy56

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