Trump and nuclear weapons

Every President since Truman has tried to find ways to limit or even eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. But Trump says he can save the U.S. money by pushing smaller nations around the world to build nuclear weapons of their own. That, Trump says, would release the U.S. from having to defend them. But Trump doesn’t deal with the reality that with more nations building nuclear weapons the pressure builds for one of them to actually use them. How does that help keep America safe, since our propensity to start wars has made us a more popular target in the eyes of other countries?

Trump has shown no awareness that nuclear weapons are actually different from conventional ones. He seems to think that they’re simply “bigger and stronger” bombs. But that’s not the case. For example, if a hostile nation were to drop 50 of the largest conventional bombs ever made on cities in the U.S., they would kill massive numbers of people, and disrupt society in those immediate areas for days or weeks, but have little impact beyond that. If a nuclear nation were to hit the U.S. with 50 nuclear warheads, it would kill millions, wipe out all electrical and transport systems in the country instantly, and totally disable American society as a functional unit for many months or possibly years.

Spreading nuclear weapons is a really BAD idea, with no merits whatsoever. Every Presidential candidate before Trump was smart enough to know that. Is Trump the kind of person you want to put in control of the most powerful military in the world? Is Trump the kind of person you want to have control over thousands of nuclear warheads?

God, I hope not.

 

Sorry, but that global cop stuff is too expensive, and other countries should have the right to defend themselves against aggression.

 

You Americans talk a lot of bunk about nuclear weapons, and yet have crafted the cartel to give yourselves and a few other nations a monopoly on nuclear weaponry. As if you own the place. More than that, the US and UK have been instrumental in getting Israel, Pakistan and India armed with nukes. The double standard is on a truly astronomical scale.

On this issue, I think North Korea is in the right. (*)(*)(*)(*) the hegemony, assert your sovereignty.

 

Of course-- but maybe not with nukes.

Couldn't we just give everyone a really nasty flu virus?

 

The trouble is, we have always felt that we were trustworthy. Unfortunately, since GWB, that has seemed less certain.

 

Since at least Wilson.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Mister "He Kept Us Out of War", who created the modern nanny, welfare and warfare state.

 

Roosevelt?

 

I don’t see the argument against actively promoting nuclear proliferation contradicts the idea of the US reducing its role as “global cop” or that countries have the right to defend themselves. Global conflicts and different nations response to them will continue regardless. Whether we should seek to increase or reduce the scale and scope of nuclear weapons across the world is a largely separate question, certainly as a matter of principle.

 

Yes because every mad man should have his own private nuclear arsenal. This is only okay if we have very robust ABM systems.

 

Which one? Teddy and Frank are culpable in their own right, but Wilson for me is when (*)(*)(*)(*) became irreversible. If Teddy hadn't done the dirty with Wilson Taft would have won and the world would likely be a much less hegemonic, totalitarian place.

Then again, the Progressives would have found a way to persist.

 

and when they turn against the US in 30 years and use the nukes in a way we didn't intended we just blame it on islam, brown skin or whatever - THE AMERICAN WAY!:flags:

this global cop stuff by the way is necessary and u are a fool to think that will change, u can't legitimize a military budget that (insanely) huge and not use your stuff; if u wudnt, sooner or later people wud demand that those monies wud be spent on education ( ) or social security ( ) and the like and we certainly do not want that

 

Does that include Iran and North Korea.

- - - Updated - - -

How come you left Isreal off the list?

 

I think you mean if actual working ABM systems existed. So far despite Ronne Raygun there is no actual working system.

 

Alrighty.., while I'm relatively sure that Trump is thinking along the lines of whether the U.S. still has the economic means to stay with the traditional position on proliferation, he may still be on the right track for this and other reasons:

First, Obama's actions and lack thereof has changed things dramatically. His decisions a) to invade Libya after they had abandoned its WMD programs and b) to not fulfil our defense arrangements with the Ukraine when that arrangement supported their agreement to give up its portion of Soviet nukes, both send very powerful messages to the world: Have nukes equals left alone. Can't rely on the American defense umbrella any longer. This will most assuredly result in proliferation regardless of what Trump or any other future president does.

Second, The U.S. is undoubtedly loosing both its will and ability to live up to its traditional defense role. Our traditional allies and others must prepare for this accelerating change.

Third, the U.S. is becoming more politically unstable. Up until recently, the U.S. had the stability to pursue long-term, multi-generational defense strategies, such as what won the Cold War and supported non-proliferation. Those days are over, as evidenced on our increasing polarization. Consider that the extreme and foolish Bernie, the corrupt and power obsessed Hillary, and the often ignorant, usually clownish Trump are being offered as our new leader.

Given all of this, is it really that crazy to prepare for and have some management over this transition to the near certain spread of nukes worldwide?

 

Wrong. If you can shoot down rocket artillery a la Iron Dome, ICBM's are comparatively a piece of cake.

 

Let's totally ignore that they are magnitudes faster, use completely different ballistics, and are relatively hard compared to artillery rockets (they don't have on board fuel to explode).

 

Well. that's Trump's position.

 

And apparently Obama's. But also on Turmp's case one of those things that might change once he reads through that first presidential briefing.

 

They are also much larger do have on board fuel, and you have have far more time to obtain a targeting solution and that is the real crux of the problem in either case. The problem we had early on was that the computers simply weren't fast enough to compute a targeting solution in time. That is no longer the case.

 

An ICBM reentry vehicle does not have onboard fuel and are not much larger than artillery rockets. They are considerably faster.

 

Best TV ad the Democrats will run this fall...

cue video of Trump ranting.....then cut to the "missile launch" scene from the end of "Terminator-3"....over-lap with Trump ranting.....


and the voice-over simply says "Can we take the risk?"

 

Interesting in that this is exactly what the Democrats tried to do with Reagan. The irony is that Reagan ended up pursuing arms control and accelerating the end of the Cold War. Also funny how the Left constantly accuses the Right of fear tactics, when such tactics are all the Left uses.

 

Thanks for the elucidation. I don't recall my American History course getting into any of that.