Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Donald Trump: US must greatly expand nuclear capabilities
Topic Started: Dec 23 2016, 06:12 AM (463 Views)
mysysail
Member Avatar
Global_Hick
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38410027
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mysysail
Member Avatar
Global_Hick
Donald Trump has called for the US to "greatly strengthen and expand" its nuclear capabilities.

The president-elect, who takes office next month, said the US must take such action "until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes".
His spokesman later said that he was referring to the need to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Mr Trump spoke hours after President Vladimir Putin said Russia needs to bolster its military nuclear potential.
The US has 7,100 nuclear weapons and Russia has 7,300, according to the US nonpartisan Arms Control Association.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Yes, because the ability to vaporize the planet 20 times over just isn't enough penis size compensation.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

wilmywood8455
Dec 23 2016, 06:46 AM
Yes, because the ability to vaporize the planet 20 times over just isn't enough penis size compensation.
Israel knows that size does not matter...Although the whole world dislikes Israel, they are comfortable with only having a couple hundred nukes................. :biggrin:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dr345
Member Avatar

Yea, We can be like North Korea. A big military police state and an impoverished populace.
un jour on se souviendra de ca comme on se souvient de ca
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

Nuclear policies and strategies take more than 140 characters. Trump is signaling his posture on the topic, not his blueprints. Capability can be expanded by upgrading bomb yields, increasing manufacture, improving delivery systems or a mix of all three. From what his spokesman added, his statement seems to be focused on proliferation by states like North Korea and Pakistan, not confrontation with major powers like Russia or China. This is an area where friendship with Russia could be very helpful to the US. We'll have to wait and see.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

So, let me see if I get this right. AG is proposing that Trump believes that by increasing our nuclear capabilities we will discourage states like North Korea and Pakistan from developing more nukes? Because I'm just not seeing how that works. It simply doesn't follow that increasing our capability to destroy such states from five times to ten times will somehow discourage their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eddo26
Member Avatar

Yet nobody complained when Obama started it. I wonder why?

Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race
We believe only what we want to believe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 23 2016, 08:32 PM
So, let me see if I get this right. AG is proposing that Trump believes that by increasing our nuclear capabilities we will discourage states like North Korea and Pakistan from developing more nukes? Because I'm just not seeing how that works. It simply doesn't follow that increasing our capability to destroy such states from five times to ten times will somehow discourage their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Good point...It makes no sense to kill people ten times over unless you like your steak well done................ :cheers:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

A total moron that is now becoming dangerous.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Dec 24 2016, 04:04 AM
A total moron that is now becoming dangerous.

Obama kept us out of war........... :biggrin:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 23 2016, 08:32 PM
So, let me see if I get this right. AG is proposing that Trump believes that by increasing our nuclear capabilities we will discourage states like North Korea and Pakistan from developing more nukes? Because I'm just not seeing how that works. It simply doesn't follow that increasing our capability to destroy such states from five times to ten times will somehow discourage their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Years ago, Charles De Gaulle characterized France's nuclear program by saying that it was not possible to defeat the USSR in a nuclear war, but it was possible for France to "tear an arm off the bear" should France be attacked. That deterrent capability is still the policy goal of North Korea and even China. Nobody thinks these countries could prevail in an all-out exchange with a nation as large and advanced as the USA, but having enough of a second-strike capability to deter US aggression is a real, if theoretical, option. Remember, we are the only country that has actually used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. As Kruchev pointed out, in a nuclear exchange the living would envy the dead.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mysysail
Member Avatar
Global_Hick
True, @ GA, the Living will most probably envy the Dead in the event of an all-out global nuke-war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

I am dangerous because at my age a nuclear war would afford me the likelihood of going out in a blaze of glory, rather than in mindless decrepitating end in a nursing home................... :nana:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
Coast2coast
Dec 24 2016, 04:04 AM
A total moron that is now becoming dangerous.

Sensing a pattern here....

Donald Trump: “The price tag for the new Air Force 1 is too damb high.”

Media: “OMG! Trump is so stupid! He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ”

Boeing CEO: “You know, we can probably knock that price down some.”
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Eddo36
Dec 23 2016, 08:36 PM
Yet nobody complained when Obama started it. I wonder why?

Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race
There is a difference between modernizing and expanding. You have to modernize because at some point your stuff won't work anymore. Maybe the idea for the no-nukes crowd but it is not realistic.

Trump talked about expanding the size of the arsenal. That is not modernizing to keep the same amount working but making more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Dec 24 2016, 11:44 AM
Opinionated
Dec 23 2016, 08:32 PM
So, let me see if I get this right. AG is proposing that Trump believes that by increasing our nuclear capabilities we will discourage states like North Korea and Pakistan from developing more nukes? Because I'm just not seeing how that works. It simply doesn't follow that increasing our capability to destroy such states from five times to ten times will somehow discourage their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Years ago, Charles De Gaulle characterized France's nuclear program by saying that it was not possible to defeat the USSR in a nuclear war, but it was possible for France to "tear an arm off the bear" should France be attacked. That deterrent capability is still the policy goal of North Korea and even China. Nobody thinks these countries could prevail in an all-out exchange with a nation as large and advanced as the USA, but having enough of a second-strike capability to deter US aggression is a real, if theoretical, option. Remember, we are the only country that has actually used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. As Kruchev pointed out, in a nuclear exchange the living would envy the dead.
And that argument, while it makes some sense, in no way supports the idea that the U.S. needs even more nuclear capability.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Dec 24 2016, 03:30 PM
Eddo36
Dec 23 2016, 08:36 PM
Yet nobody complained when Obama started it. I wonder why?

Obama’s Russian Rationale for $1 Trillion Nuke Plan Signals New Arms Race
There is a difference between modernizing and expanding. You have to modernize because at some point your stuff won't work anymore. Maybe the idea for the no-nukes crowd but it is not realistic.

Trump talked about expanding the size of the arsenal. That is not modernizing to keep the same amount working but making more.
You are one heck of a waterboy for Obama aren't you.

Do you use the same logic for gun magazines?
Certain states ban high capacity magazines but not the number of firearms owned. The left go after the first one. Why?
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 24 2016, 05:16 PM
George Aligator
Dec 24 2016, 11:44 AM
Opinionated
Dec 23 2016, 08:32 PM
So, let me see if I get this right. AG is proposing that Trump believes that by increasing our nuclear capabilities we will discourage states like North Korea and Pakistan from developing more nukes? Because I'm just not seeing how that works. It simply doesn't follow that increasing our capability to destroy such states from five times to ten times will somehow discourage their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Years ago, Charles De Gaulle characterized France's nuclear program by saying that it was not possible to defeat the USSR in a nuclear war, but it was possible for France to "tear an arm off the bear" should France be attacked. That deterrent capability is still the policy goal of North Korea and even China. Nobody thinks these countries could prevail in an all-out exchange with a nation as large and advanced as the USA, but having enough of a second-strike capability to deter US aggression is a real, if theoretical, option. Remember, we are the only country that has actually used a nuclear weapon against an enemy. As Kruchev pointed out, in a nuclear exchange the living would envy the dead.
And that argument, while it makes some sense, in no way supports the idea that the U.S. needs even more nuclear capability.
In August 1945 we only had 2 nukes and didn't hesitate to use them....If we reduce our arsenal to 2 nukes, that should give pause to any country wanting to mess with us...Use it or lose it............ :biggrin:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply