Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SmarterThanYou

Trump said we need more nukes

76 posts in this topic

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.

 

I haven't seen a spending bill to make a bunch of nukes.  Maybe he can plagiarize JFK's bill to close the non-existent missile gap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen a spending bill to make a bunch of nukes. Maybe he can plagiarize JFK's bill to close the non-existent missile gap?

My hat is off to you. Most Trump apologists point to Obama policies--him too, him too!!!

 

You go back 50 years. Bravo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hat is off to you. Most Trump apologists point to Obama policies--him too, him too!!!

 

You go back 50 years. Bravo.

 

LOL.  I'm obviously not concerned that we will be building massive new stockpiles.  I am trying to get used to a guy that speaks carelessly and with a lot of bluster but hopefully will do much of what he promised.  Yeah, I know, some of those promises were also bluster.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. I'm obviously not concerned that we will be building massive new stockpiles. I am trying to get used to a guy that speaks carelessly and with a lot of bluster but hopefully will do much of what he promised. Yeah, I know, some of those promises were also bluster.

With all due respect, I think you fundamentally misunderstand Trump.

 

Really don't think he has any philosophy or core beliefs. It's all ad hoc. How can he dominate the news cycle? How can he strike back at critics?

 

His attention span is alarmingly short. He made a lot of promises. Well in any endeavor that is vast in scope, you have to focus. Dig in, do the tedious work of analysis and bringing in key stakeholders, have a long term actualization plan.

 

Trump? Case in point this immigration ban.

 

He foolishly "confides" to Guiliani he wants to keep Muslims out. That asshat can't keep his mouth shut--anything for 5 minutes on cable news. Then he lets a 32 year old with no relevant experience pen an EO that is handily shot down.

 

Well OK, rookie mistake. The sensible thing would be to rescind that EO and get some experts in to help write an EO that can pass muster.

 

But no. Rescinding the initial EO wouldn't be "winning". So they keep that out there, yet promise a revision--that is now days overdue. Meanwhile the DHS comes out basically refuting the logic of the EO. Clearly they weren't in the loop.

 

Fire, ready, aim.

 

Good grief.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I think you fundamentally misunderstand Trump.

 

Really don't think he has any philosophy or core beliefs. It's all ad hoc. How can he dominate the news cycle? How can he strike back at critics?

 

His attention span is alarmingly short. He made a lot of promises. Well in any endeavor that is vast in scope, you have to focus. Dig in, do the tedious work of analysis and bringing in key stakeholders, have a long term actualization plan.

 

Trump? Case in point this immigration ban.

 

He foolishly "confides" to Guiliani he wants to keep Muslims out. That asshat can't keep his mouth shut--anything for 5 minutes on cable news. Then he lets a 32 year old with no relevant experience pen an EO that is handily shot down.

 

Well OK, rookie mistake. The sensible thing would be to rescind that EO and get some experts in to help write an EO that can pass muster.

 

But no. Rescinding the initial EO wouldn't be "winning". So they keep that out there, yet promise a revision--that is now days overdue. Meanwhile the DHS comes out basically refuting the logic of the EO. Clearly they weren't in the loop.

 

Fire, ready, aim.

 

Good grief.

I certainly don't claim to understand him, but I doubt anyone of his critics in this first 30 days do either.

 

 But seriously, do you have to rescind an EO overturned by the court?  It is out of play.  Gone.  To rescind it is like burning your grandmother's ashes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly don't claim to understand him, but I doubt anyone of his critics in this first 30 days do either.

 

But seriously, do you have to rescind an EO overturned by the court? It is out of play. Gone. To rescind it is like burning your grandmother's ashes.

I don't think it was overturned, it was "stayed".

 

The latest from the admin was that they would rescind it once the new, improved version was issued. I assume you don't just leave an EO out there hanging once you have one that renders it moot.

 

On the 16th the admin stated the new EO would be announced " next week". That would have been last week.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-travel-ban-20170216-story,amp.html

 

Over promise. Under deliver.

 

My guess is cooler heads have advised Trump that the EO he wants isn't compatible with what can be defended in the appeals court.

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was overturned, it was "stayed".

 

The latest from the admin was that they would rescind it once the new, improved version was issued. I assume you don't just leave an EO out there hanging once you have one that renders it moot.

 

On the 16th the admin stated the new EO would be announced " next week". That would have been last week.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-travel-ban-20170216-story,amp.html

 

Over promise. Under deliver.

 

My guess is cooler heads have advised Trump that the EO he wants isn't compatible with what can be defended in the appeals court.

 

OK.  They seem to be reconsidering.  I guess we have to wait and see what they come up with next.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. They seem to be reconsidering. I guess we have to wait and see what they come up with next.

Perhaps. I think he's moved on. Not a quick win? He has no time for it.

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I am trying to get used to a guy that speaks carelessly and with a lot of bluster but hopefully will do much of what he promised.  Yeah, I know, some of those promises were also bluster.  

 

So, in other words, you're trying to accept a president who bull****'s contantly. 

 

That's a recipe for disappointment, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.  I'm obviously not concerned that we will be building massive new stockpiles.  I am trying to get used to a guy that speaks carelessly and with a lot of bluster but hopefully will do much of what he promised.  Yeah, I know, some of those promises were also bluster.

Which will come first in his list of promises: (1) The wall, or (2) "lock her up".

 

Personally, I'd like to see #2 first. Like the OJ trial, we can make a movie out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which will come first in his list of promises: (1) The wall, or (2) "lock her up".

 

Personally, I'd like to see #2 first. Like the OJ trial, we can make a movie out of it.

 

 

Don't forget the promise to come up with a plan to "defeat ISIS" in 30 days.

 

Status check...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal logic- Iran should be allowed nukes. Meanwhile the US and Israel cannot be trusted with them.

Nukes are worthless weapons. Too costly for something that isn't likely to ever be used

 

We've survived with Pakistan and India having Nukes. Iran getting nukes won't make us any less safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes are worthless weapons. Too costly for something that isn't likely to ever be used

 

We've survived with Pakistan and India having Nukes. Iran getting nukes won't make us any less safe

Do you think they still would never be used if we didn't have them? Say, if Iran was the only country to have nukes would they restrain themselves from their use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they still would never be used if we didn't have them? Say, if Iran was the only country to have nukes would they restrain themselves from their use?

I don't know about Iran but the US is the only country to ever use Nukes and we did it when no one else had them

 

Truman also threatened the Soviets with nukes before they became a nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Iran but the US is the only country to ever use Nukes and we did it when no one else had them

 

Truman also threatened the Soviets with nukes before they became a nuclear power.

 

Not only is the US to ever use nukes and did it twice but I recall reading about a declassified document of the USAF overruled plan to drop some nukes on China if it initiated a blockage of Taiwan in a confrontation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only is the US to ever use nukes and did it twice but I recall reading about a declassified document of the USAF overruled plan to drop some nukes on China if it initiated a blockage of Taiwan in a confrontation.

Before Mutually Assured Destruction became a thing, we came close to using nukes again after WWII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the promise to come up with a plan to "defeat ISIS" in 30 days.

 

Status check...?

 

I believe Trump stated he knew more about ISIS than our generals and he had a foolproof plan to defeat ISIS but he (Trump) was going to have his generals "...to provide a plan in 30-days to defeat ISIS."  Having the generals' plan in 30-days is different than defeating ISIS in 30-days.

 

We will know if and when Trump executes his plan cause he will "...bomb the "shyte" out of ISIS" and take all the oil.  So when you see shyte all over the place and really cheap oil, ISIS will be toast.

Edited by BaySock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes are worthless weapons. Too costly for something that isn't likely to ever be used

 

We've survived with Pakistan and India having Nukes. Iran getting nukes won't make us any less safe

 

Nukes, as long as they stay safely packed away in a bunker, are the most useful weapons in existence. They're a bargaining chip.

 

The "nuclear club" is a pretty exclusive club whose members are able to make deals with each other and leverage power over other nations which are not in the nuclear club. North Korea is trying to force its way into that club. To be fair, it's not a club where members receive an invite, all members "force" their way in.

 

They're not going to get much farther before they collapse from the inside, I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes, as long as they stay safely packed away in a bunker, are the most useful weapons in existence. They're a bargaining chip.

 

The "nuclear club" is a pretty exclusive club whose members are able to make deals with each other and leverage power over other nations which are not in the nuclear club. North Korea is trying to force its way into that club. To be fair, it's not a club where members receive an invite, all members "force" their way in.

 

They're not going to get much farther before they collapse from the inside, I hope.

Agreed but then no one could have envisioned two reckless morons head to head like Trump and JungUn. The ironic part is the only plausible agreement with NK will look a whole lot like the current Iran deal which Manchild has already sworn he wants to tear up.  

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 ...

Good point!

 

Historically, superior nuke stockpile contravenes rebuilding U.S. military. This was such an issue 60 yr ago that LtGen. James Gavin (& others) retired over it: his U.S. Army would go wanting so that we could fulfill the Dulles policy of "massive retaliation," i.e., if attacked, we reply 10x over.

 

I doubt that anyone in the Trump admin. knows anything about that; if any of his ret. flag O appointees do, they're mum. & You'll notice they sent the doofus SecyState to make the case for war on N. Korea; not SECDEF, likely cuz he knows better.

 

In any case, good luck Pres. Trump w/ your nuke AND U.S. mil. build-up: it's way evident that he plans on tripling the deficit before the mid-term elections. After all, he always was a liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nukes, as long as they stay safely packed away in a bunker, are the most useful weapons in existence.

 

Sounds good and since Trump, our president, may not be unaware of the "Nucleur Triad," perhaps a great deal of the nukes maybe safe from him:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before Mutually Assured Destruction became a thing, we came close to using nukes again after WWII

Which pretty much proves your original point about them being useless is incorrect. Deterrence requires a threat of use in order to deter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before Mutually Assured Destruction became a thing, we came close to using nukes again after WWII

 

I think MacAuthur wanted to use them against China during the Korean war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think MacAuthur wanted to use them against China during the Korean war.

There is a difference between strategic and tactical nukes.

 

Allegedly we had tactical nukes in viet nam and for sure have/had them in europe to stop the rooskies from pouring thru the fulda gap.

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