Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Trump said we need more nukes


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 dogstarman

dogstarman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,903 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:20 AM

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...?



#62 Manny

Manny

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,342 posts
  • LocationEastern Shore of Maryland

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:24 AM

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

#63 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67,949 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:39 AM

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
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#64 Rael

Rael

    Rational member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,129 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:44 AM

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?


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

#65 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67,949 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:49 AM

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.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#66 BaySock

BaySock

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:02 AM

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.



#67 soulflower

soulflower

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67,949 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:09 AM

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
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias"

#68 BaySock

BaySock

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:22 AM

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, 19 March 2017 - 11:26 AM.


#69 dogstarman

dogstarman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,903 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:59 AM

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.



#70 zenwalk

zenwalk

    Pundit

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48,444 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:04 PM

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.  


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

#71 Hexexis

Hexexis

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,476 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:20 PM

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.


"...anyone who can offend almost anybody is [a] brilliant and original thinker."--S.I. Hayakawa

#72 BaySock

BaySock

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,530 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:44 PM

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:

 



#73 Rael

Rael

    Rational member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,129 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:19 AM

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. 


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

#74 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,902 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:33 AM

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.



#75 Dr Johnny Fever

Dr Johnny Fever

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,369 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:47 AM

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.

#76 ivanbalt

ivanbalt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,902 posts

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:59 AM

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.

 

I believe the US developed a small yield nuke that could be fired from an artillery gun.  I wouldn't want to be down wind if that was fired.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users