Trump on using nuclear weapons: "Not taking cards off the table"

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

 

 

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

wow.

[Seeka 12,372]

Forget anything about the shooting gallery. I will stab this man personally.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/f/fc/Ff9-tonberry.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/200?cb=20130516063453

[Luiz 4,253]

i like the idea of a president that will remind the rest of the world that were still america and still crazy as ****.  

[Princess Die 1,864]

He's a reality show personality. He has no place in a political climate. 

[Logan 20,827]

The topic of nukes are just scary in general. We have the power to destroy the earth over and over again. 

[Sizzily 14,571]

inb4

[Whispering 18,865]

Electing him as President of the US would be a dangerous decision. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

Good.

[Goosey 3,017]

I suggested this several times. We have so many nukes that we've never used. This silly host thinks we should never talk about using the trillions of dollars we spent on thousands of nukes? Then why did we make the nukes? How come we refuse to get rid of them if we're never gonna use them?

[PartySick 172,518]

Not even sure what to say

Dangerously stupid man.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Good.

Please tell me how this is good  

[Bebe 17,289]

1 minute ago, Goosey said:

I suggested this several times. We have so many nukes that we've never used. This silly host thinks we should never talk about using the trillions of dollars we spent on thousands of nukes? Then why did we make the nukes? How come we refuse to get rid of them if we're never gonna use them?

It would be absolutely brilliant if the world disarmed itself of nuclear weapons. The reason that countries like the US don't do this is because if the U.S, for example, decides to disarm themselves, how does anyone prevent countries like Pakistan or North Korea or even France or The U.K from keeping or creating more nuclear weapons? The situation we have now is referred to as the concept of a nuclear stalemate.

China has nuclear weapons, for example, but they are deterred from using nuclear weapons because of the relative strength of opposing nuclear forces. Same goes for any nation in the nuclear club.

Think of this statement from the perspective of people outside the U.S (although people inside should be concerned too). Former presidents say something along the lines of "I'm against the use of nuclear weapons". Fantastic, we know they don't want to use nuclear weapons and we know they would condemn any country that does use nuclear weapons. If something incredible happened in the world and some countries started nuking other countries then unfortunately nuclear weapon use would have to be strongly considered by the United States. 

Statements like this from Trump are provocative and that's not something you want when talking about nuclear weapons. Everyone goes up in arms when North Korea talks about how they might take nuclear action (rightly so, although obviously it's now seen as pretty much hyperbole). 

There is a presidential candidate who is saying that he won't take nuclear weapons off the table when considering military action. There is a presidential candidate who is saying "I don't think so, I'm just not taking it off the table" when asked if he would use nuclear weapons in EUROPE. Don't you think that's at least a tiny bit disconcerting if you live in a European country?

He said that he wouldn't rule out nuclear action against ISIS because "We need unpredictability. We don't know who these people are. The fact is, we need unpredictability". The last person I would feel comfortable with handling nuclear weapons is someone who is unpredictable. 

The politics of nuclear weapons is a very unstable peace. The U.S should not be aiming to set a precedent for using nuclear weapons in warfare.

[Goosey 3,017]

17 minutes ago, Bebe said:

There is a presidential candidate who is saying that he won't take nuclear weapons off the table when considering military action. There is a presidential candidate who is saying "I don't think so, I'm just not taking it off the table" when asked if he would use nuclear weapons in EUROPE. Don't you think that's at least a tiny bit disconcerting if you live in a European country?

But... but... NATO itself is willing to use nuclear weapons in Europe. The Soviets had too many tank divisions, tactical nuclear devices were an integral part of NATO's defensive strategy. And those devices would have been detonated within NATO countries. Germany especially.

"Our studies have indicated that without their immediate use we could not successfully defend Europe within the resources available. Any delay in their use - even measured in hours - could be fatal. Therefore, in the event of a war involving NATO it is militarily essential that NATO forces should be able to use atomic and thermonuclear weapons in their defense from the outset."

[Bebe 17,289]

1 hour ago, Goosey said:

But... but... NATO itself is willing to use nuclear weapons in Europe. The Soviets had too many tank divisions, tactical nuclear devices were an integral part of NATO's defensive strategy. And those devices would have been detonated within NATO countries. Germany especially.

"Our studies have indicated that without their immediate use we could not successfully defend Europe within the resources available. Any delay in their use - even measured in hours - could be fatal. Therefore, in the event of a war involving NATO it is militarily essential that NATO forces should be able to use atomic and thermonuclear weapons in their defense from the outset."

You are using a source from 1954 to try and defend a position taken by Donald Trump in 2016.  We are not living in the same circumstances...

When that was written there was in regards to preventing another world war  "A war in Europe, Eisenhower insisted from beginning to end, would be a war with the USSR, and thus inevitably a general war. With so much at stake, both sides would use whatever forces they had. The whole argument about 'mutual deterrence' - the idea that both sides would hold back from using nuclear use for fear of retaliation, and would therefore fight with conventional weapons only - was in his view 'completely erroneous'"

It was a defence strategy to prevent the USSR from overrunning Europe IF a fighting war with the Russians were ever to break out. No strategy up to that point and no NATO strategy since, placed such a heavy and unequivocal emphasis on rapid and massive nuclear escalation.

"This was not an aggressive strategy. It had to be clear, as President Eisenhower and other NATO leaders said repeatedly at the time, that Soviets were responsible for the war. But as soon as it was clear that the Soviets were to blame, America and her allies had to open up with everything they had. 'Our only chance of victory in a third world war against the Soviet Union, would be to paralyze the enemy at the outset of the war. We are not going to provoke the war' said Eisenhower"

NATO has unilaterally reduced the size of its land-based nuclear weapons stockpile by over 95 per cent since the height of the Cold War. We are not in the same world and we are talking about a current presidential candidate.


Lets look at the other members of the 'nuclear club': Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom,Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.

Could you imagine if Putin said, in regards to if he would use nuclear weapons against the US, "I don't think so, I'm just not taking it off the table"? You know that you would find that provocative. You know that you would find it dangerous. You know you would condemn Putin for saying such a thing.

Could you imagine if  French President François Hollande said that in regards to the US? Everyone would think the French had become crazy and fundamental.
 

If Hu Jintao said it then there would be fear over this Chinese authoritarian regime.

If David Cameron said it then it would be a pretty strange and provocative thing for them to say, everyone would think they had become dangerous.

Let's not even get into what people would think if the leaders of Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea said that they wouldn't take nukes off the table when it comes to potentially using them against the US. 

I'm certain your response wouldn't be:

"I suggested this several times. They have so many nukes that they've never used. Then why did they make the nukes? How come they refuse to get rid of them if they're never gonna use them?"