Forums / Discussion / General

This…

…was posted in the Daily News General thread and judging by the comments already posted on the subject and its nature I can't help but feel like it would generate too big a discussion for that thread.

Basically, Trump has claimed that we need to strengthen out nuclear capabilities, in a time of disarmament, until the world comes to its senses regarding nukes. To me, "coming to your senses regarding nukes" means "doing everything in your power to lower the chances of nuclear war", something strengthening our nuclear capabilities does the exact opposite of.

Only Russia has more nukes than America, and Trump claims to want to be friends with them, so why would out nuking them make any sense? Strengthening out nuclear capabilities (and announcing we are doing so) can only end in Cold War 2, something that no one wants. I understand the need to keep M.A.D. around, but it seems like his plan and his goal are opposite of each other.

So, is this Trump blowing more smoke, trying to flex America's muscles or is he serious? Personally, I hope this is just him blowing smoke because if he means this, this would be the first thing Trump has said that has me legit a bit worried. I highly doubt Trump would actually start WWIII, but him turning back the clock to midnight is still something that's worrying to me.

Just like the good old days after WW2

I dont see how even more nukes would give an advantage at this point, both sides has basically enough nukes to kill eachother a hundred times over, I dunno why he would urge for more, pork barreling maybe?

It's really vague, and that's the advantage.

If I were to take it as "improve" and not "expand",

it would mean to update the nuclear data systems (Some of them run on really outdated comps) and bring more awareness to nuclear protocol.

As for what I think the tweet actually means, it probably means being fast enough to destroy nations before they can even detect the nuclear launch so that truly no one (except the US) can use nukes.

He even specifies nukes, to make sure no one mistakes it for regular nuclear power. The fuck? Why would one need any more at this point? Seems like a waste.

And I am not entirely sure what he means by coming to senses with them. That is what weirds me out the most. Building more nukes until everyone realizes there shouldn't be more nukes built? Building more nukes until everyone realizes everyone has to have them to keep MAD going? Building more nukes until everyone realizes they were meant for some outside-context threat? Okay, that last one's sarcasm but still.

That's basically impossible. ICBMs do have travel time, and most nuclear countries can respond to an enemy launch within minutes. On top of that, even if you managed to hit their major cities first, they'll almost certainly have nuclear launch operators in obscure locations who can fire back even as their population centers are destroyed.

And if even that's not enough, Russia (which is, I reiterate, the only country we're even remotely likely to have a nuclear war with) has a computerized nuclear response system that can fire their arsenal independently, so even if we attacked and somehow managed to kill every single person in Russia, they could still respond.

MAD is pretty much unavoidable, which is something I'd argue is better for humanity in the long run.

Russia and China both said it first (and China has been test launching nuclear missiles for months now), our current administration simply chose to ignore it and let their aggression continue unchecked. I would have preferred a stronger statement personally. The media freak out continues to be histrionic and pathetic.

First of all, the "Republican President is a Dangerous Nuke Addict" is an old smear which goes all the way back to the 1964 election, when Lyndon Johnson created one of the most famous political campaign ads of all time (the Daisy Ad) to portray Barry Goldwater as a nuclear nut.

Ronald Reagan received the same treatment during the 1980s. John McCain got hit with it in 2008. Hillary Clinton used it against Trump during the late election. It's a standard attack against Republican Presidents and Presidental candidates. That is the context in which the media is reporting this story.

Now, Trump did send out this tweet. But what did he actually say? He used the word capability, which is not necessarily the same as capacity. As I pointed out over in DNG:

And then there's this:

“The GAO report found that the Pentagon’s Strategic Automated Command and Control System -- which “coordinates the operational functions of the United States’ nuclear forces, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers, and tanker support aircrafts” -- runs on an IBM Series/1 Computer, first introduced in 1976.

The system’s primary function is to “send and receive emergency action messages to nuclear forces,” the report adds, but “replacement parts for the system are difficult to find because they are now obsolete.”"

Whether one believes in a nuclear deterrent or not, having the nuclear forces operating on a system over 40 years old is not safe. Older systems require more maintenance, have a higher risk of failure, and as the article points out become harder locate replacement parts for.

Expanding capability doesn’t necessarily equate to expanded capacity. Updating and upgrading systems older than the space shuttle would expand capability without having to build a single additional warhead.

The US nuclear arsenal is old and outdated. It needs to be upgraded and brought into the 21st century. C-A-P-A-B-L-I-T-Y. You know who else made this point on September 28th? Obama Defense Secretary Ash Carter And little known fact: Obama began a $1,000,000,000,000 upgrade of the nuclear weapons system. What Trump is proposing is already underway due to Obama.

Since 1976, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all developed nuclear weapons. Those systems are newer (though not necessarily better, I'll concede). Iran is working on a program, despite the deal struck with the Obama administration. Israel has almost certainly has a nuclear weapon system. Other countries are certainly interested in obtaining one. This is what Trump meant by the world "coming to its senses." Proliferation is a real thing and it's ongoing as we speak.

Okay, that makes significantly more sense.

My view this is that all the psycho states (i.e. Iran and N. Korea) are even pushing for their own nukes is that see the U.S.A. as weak and feckless. More so under Obama. But having the nukes and the capability of using them is not enough to stop states that wish to do the rest of the world harm. It is the WILLINGNESS to push the button. For the longest time, I didn't know if the U.S. had the will to fire the nukes any more. There is no point in keeping a gun on your person if you don't have the willingness to use it on your attacker/raper. I would bet that Obama wouldn't fire back, but I know that Trump would have the guts to retaliate to any attack. That threat alone can go a long way to prevent attacks in the first place.

I don't believe Trump is talking about improving the technology that controls our nuclear response. I think he believes we should have enough Nukes to have 2-3 times our next two competitors combined. This would throw off the power balance and be very dangerous.

Willingness to retaliate has nothing to do with the size of our armament. The US and Russia are at a power balance, they have enough nukes to wipe them and all their allies off the face of the earth several times over. This is known as "Mutually assured Destruction" It is something that must be maintained or the power shifts and those with less have nothing to lose by attacking, and those with more may decide they have enough to win a nuclear war.

No One Wins a Nuclear War. A nuclear War would probably be the last major conflict humanity ever sees. It is important for the US and any country with nuclear weapons to be balanced. No one should have the upper hand in a nuclear war, or else the button might be pushed. Imagine Two men sitting at a table, both are pointing a revolver at the other. Neither one gets along with the other and both want the other dead, but they know that the other guy will shoot them and kill them if they pull the trigger, so neither pulls it to save their own skin. That is the goal here. If Trump upsets that balance it could be very dangerous.

Also if you think Obama wouldn't have the willingness to push that button, you are a fucking idiot. Every Single President has and knows what that button does and when to push it. Some system are totally automated and would return in the event of a nuclear attack even Without the presidential confirmation. The real Danger Trump proposes is his seeming willingness to use them in conflict at all. The nuclear option should always be the LAST option.

I don't want a president who is totally willing to launch an nuclear strike. I want a president who knows why we have them and why they shouldn't be used by anyone.

"I don’t want a president who is totally willing to launch an nuclear strike. I want a president who knows why we have them and why they shouldn’t be used by anyone."

But doesnt the latter require acting like the former? One side in a nuclear stalemate is only willing to move as far as he can without antagonising the other into launching, and the optimal situation is an opponent that is paralyzed because he is convinced he is always a hairs breadth from being nuked.

"Imagine Two men sitting at a table, both are pointing a revolver at the other. Neither one gets along with the other and both want the other dead, but they know that the other guy will shoot them and kill them if they pull the trigger, so neither pulls it to save their own skin. That is the goal here. If Trump upsets that balance it could be very dangerous."

The balance is upset already… sort of. The three articles I linked to all point out the fact the US is 20 years behind both Chinese and Russian systems. That means that the US deterrent, despite its size, is lacking parity. Russia in particular has newer bombers, newer launch systems, and newer air defense systems. Obama, and Trump, want to bring the US systems up to technological parity.

"The real Danger Trump proposes is his seeming willingness to use them in conflict at all. The nuclear option should always be the LAST option."

Didn't you just say:

"Also if you think Obama wouldn’t have the willingness to push that button, you are a fucking idiot. Every Single President has and knows what that button does and when to push it."

So you must agree a President needs to be open to using them in very limited instances. Which leads me to believe you meant Trump is more willing to use them. Where is the evidence of this? It's not in the tweet, which only says the US "must strengthen and expand its capacity."

Let me pile on to why Basil is an idiot. Our most dangerous foe, Iran, wants a nuclear war. Why? because the mad men who run that state fully believe their divine savior will appear amid the atomic holocaust and lead them to the final victory over everyone else. Obama has failed at every turn in foreign relations and created messes all over the world.

Due to that, the world sees Obama as a weak and cowardly leader who talks a lot but does little to back it up. That and he takes a long time to make up his mind before making a decision. Much like when he took days to decide to make the call to off Bin Laden.

So in your scenario of two men pointing guns as each other, if the one guy pegs the other as a man with not enough guts to pull the trigger and/or some one who takes too long to make up his mind to pull the trigger, he knows he can shoot first and not worry about the second shot. The other guy will be dead before he can fire back.

That is how I see the real foes to the U.S. (and the west in general) view us as. The world see Trump a man of his word and not easily cowed.

Hey, let's not pile on and say why Basilius is an idiot. And let's not call anyone idiots in the first place.

Yeah let's spend billions of dollars on more nukes and jets,instead of actually using that money for something that would help everyone,Fusion Energy for example.Furthermore the US already has enough nukes to destroy every country on the planet.Are they doing this because Russia has more nukes or is this just money wasting stupitidy?

This is starting to get a bit ridiculous.

This is a vague message and although it is difficult to interpret what his views are on the global nuclear situation you seem to be going with the best possible outcome of what possibly could have been meant without thinking about the context.

You have to remember that this is a tweet. It's a short statement that a huge amount of people are going to see and judge at face value and Trump knew that. If he really meant that he only wanted to improve the current systems and infrastructure he would have made that the focus of his statement and it would have been obvious, rather than saying 'strengthening and expanding nuclear capabilities'.

Speaking of which, you can't use the word 'capability' as though it was proof that he meant improving existing systems. 'Strengthening and expanding nuclear capabilities' definitely gives the impression that he wants to build more weaponry even if the sentence doesn't technically mandate that. This reminds me of the claims that the wall was always supposed to be a figurative wall, it's interpretation to the level that it's essentially putting words in his mouth.
Trump is very unfairly represented but he's not infallible and you can't pretend that he never has bad ideas just because he has generally good policies. The truth is that we don't know.

Apologies if you weren't trying to imply certainty, it just came off that way.

Also, what was up with that comment at the start of this post? Nobody was calling Trump dangerous except the other people in this thread. Are you trying to imply that people on KYM are trying to manipulate the public using underhanded political tactics? An argument being inappropriate in the past doesn't mean it's never appropriate.

Just working on the assumption that Basil is treating others how he would like to be treated and obliging. { If you think Obama wouldn’t have the willingness to push that button, you are a fucking idiot. }

>This is a vague message
>it is difficult to interpret what his views are on the global nuclear situation
>You have to remember that this is a tweet
>you can’t use the word ‘capability’ as though it was proof

{ ‘Strengthening and expanding nuclear capabilities’ definitely gives the impression that he wants to build more weaponry even if the sentence doesn’t technically mandate that. }

wow bruh who's making assumptions off a vague and difficult to interpret tweet now?

He was responding to Putin, who had literally just finished discussing being able to penetrate "any existing and prospective missile defense systems". This is called "context", you can add it to the other "contextual information" you have which lets you know that our nuclear facilities are in desperate need of updates that would bring them in line with Russia and China. So you take in and absorb all of this context and conclude…….. that Trump DEFINITELY means we need more individual warheads ya'll!! Along with "context", I'm gonna need you to learn the words "critical thinking".

"Apologies if you weren’t trying to imply certainty, it just came off that way."

There's no need to apologize.

Am I reading too much into a tweet? Probably, though this is intentional.

People are inferring that Trump and Putin are about to start Cold War II based off a 140 character limited statement. They're doing so based on how they interpret the word capability. I presented a counter point, but went into greater detail and, as always, tried to provide context of the state of the US nuclear arsenal as well. As you correctly point, this is the "best case" interpretation. Its presence is here to offset the "worst case" interpretation.

"Also, what was up with that comment at the start of this post?"

Now, I was going to post a list of articles portraying Trump's statement negatively, but finding articles from 21 hours ago is now impossible as they've been drowned out by the latest Trump statement, so that is impossible now. I'll just say that media coverage was one sided.

And "Trump is dangerous" story has been floated for months. The issue has even been linked to nuclear weapons. Clinton invoked the Daisy Chain ad during the campaign. I linked it above. Obama has repeatedly said Trump is "unfit" and has inappropriate "temperament" which are vaguer implications he shouldn't be near nuclear weapons. It was the whole, unspoken premise behind the faithless elector campaign. Again, it's going to be difficult to find stories about this prior to the last 24 hours.

I brought the issue up because I knew I'd be asking the following question at some point:

"Which leads me to believe you meant Trump is more willing to use them. Where is the evidence of this? It’s not in the tweet, which only says the US “must strengthen and expand its capacity.”

As I wait for the answer to that question, let's take a look at what Trump has already said about nuclear weapons.

"Asked whether the U.S. should be the first to launch a nuke during a confrontation with an enemy, Trump said that should be the “absolute last step.” “Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power,” he said. “It’s a very scary nuclear world,” he added. “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.”"

"“I don’t want to rule out anything,” he said. “I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons.” “I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be,” he added. “But I will never, ever rule it out.”"

"“I will have a military that’s so strong and powerful, and so respected, we’re not gonna have to nuke anybody,” he said, adding that he would be “amazingly calm under pressure.”"

He also made a statement about how Japan and South Korea might someday need to acquire a nuclear arsenal.

And he knew about the poor state of the US system as early as March, when he said this:

"We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work.”

So I asked where this belief in itchy trigger finger came from believing I knew the answer, which is that it comes from the media portrayal as Trump as a madman… just as Goldwater, Reagan, and McCain were. Because Trump has spoken about nuclear weapons before, and none of his statements were controversial.

While older systems are harder to maintain and may break they are also less likely to be susceptible to cyber attacks. A completely modern defense system opens itself to being hacked into. If you're systems are all Floppy Disks and Radio Waves that becomes almost impossible to hack. However like you said a modern system is more accurate and easier to maintain.

Both new systems and old systems have their advantages. But Trumps tweet says "Expand our Nuclear capabilities" not "Fix our nuclear infrastructure". This implies he thinks we need to create MORE nukes and not fix the systems we already have. The US also has enough nukes in submarines to form a sufficient response to a nuclear strike.

The US has enough airbases that they could form a counter-strike ANYWHERE in the globe within a few hours. Russia and China do not have that kind of response. If Russia or China launched any nuclear weapons the US would detect it and be able to start responding possibly even before the first nuke hit the ground.

US also has several allies with their own nuclear armaments.

US is updating it's nuclear arsenal and creating knew submarines everyday. Russia and the US also contain 90% of ALL nuclear weapons on the face of the planet. The process of updating older hardware is not cheap or simple.

Mutually Assured Destruction is balanced. The cowboys at the table may not have the same gun but as long as both have the same likelihood of death, balance is ensured.

Also let me make this clear, I don't think Trump plans to start WW3 or a Cold war. I just worry that his lack of regard for national security briefings and the systems in place may lead to him making a mistake.

I must ask all the Trump supporters who jumped at my "If you think Obama wouldn't be willing to use nukes if needed, you are a fucking idiot" comment. What do you think is an appropriate time to use a nuclear strike?

If you think it should be a last resort, then you can't criticize that statement because Obama was never put in a situation where a nuclear option was needed. You are forming a mental bias against a person because of their political side and putting them in a hypothetical situation. You think Obama would just sit under his desk and cry? You have no evidence of how Obama would respond to a nuclear attack so don't act like you know the guy personally.

I don't think we're going to see cold war 2 and if we did Russia would lose. The united states ability to dominante foreign trade will allow it to dwarf a lot of the russian efforts. Russia is also starving for resources such as crude oil, which Belarus controls for them domestically via the pipeline. It's why imo they are in Syria, they need more oil and they're going into the political hellscape of the middle east to get it.

A nuclear arms race could help us get to fusion energy faster, just like it did eith nuclear power. Hydrogen bombs are already creatable, so it wouldn't be oit of the question to make a hydrogen sub and to compact the tech further. Assuming that even happens, since as others have stated, a tweet is vague and short and could mean anything. Regardless we are already fighting more proxy wars at a time via syria, pakistan, afghanistan, and yemen, then we did in a cold war, so the net loss for going into one would be pretty much indistinguishable from the current cost now.

Basilius, we ALL know Obama personally because he sticks his face in all media outlet he could find with his narcissistic attitude for the last 8 years. We also know him by his actions for the last 8 years to know what he would do. He put the line in the sand in Syria and then backed off. He sent Libya into a failed state. He sat back and let the Green revolution in Iran fail and now the hardliners there have a stronger grasp of the place than ever before. I could go on, you should get my point. I have zero faith that he would push that button. And thank god we never got to that point of having to find out.

Trump only wanted to hear about new changes, not hear the same intel over and over. Remember, Obama skipped most of his daily briefings as well.

You started in calling people Idiots first Basilius, You should apologize for that so we all can put away the the rudeness.

The Obama who attempted to impose a "no nuke first" policy on the United States of America?? The world's most powerful military can't use nukes unless one of our enemies does first? The fuck? He has done everything possible for the last eight years to cripple US foreign affairs, literally only started passive military support to try and save down ticket Democrats and he didn't even do that effectively because he assumed Hillary was a certainty.

I'd like to steer this thread closer back to the original purpose. We're about to hit a complete derail.

"Trump tweets that the US "needs to strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities" "

Alright, my first issue is "Trump tweets". 140 characters or less is not a good method to outline foreign policy. You shouldn't need your supporters to clarify what you say every other day. How much am I expected to know that Trump said:

“Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power,” he said. “It’s a very scary nuclear world,” he added. “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.””

““I don’t want to rule out anything,” he said. “I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons.” “I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be,” he added. “But I will never, ever rule it out.””

“We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work.”

So, is this Trump blowing more smoke, trying to flex America’s muscles or is he serious?

I think Trump would go through with it, if Congress backs him. It seems Trump doesn't vary a large amount from congressional Republicans, or at least wouldn't get in their way. That's what I've seen, at least. A larger nuclear arsenal sounds in line with what many want.

{ How much am I expected to know that Trump said: }

Why are you gonna freak out over what a tweet could possibly mean if you don't even keep up with the rest of his statements that go far more in depth about his opinion on the issue?? Jumping to unlikely conclusions because you don't keep up with current events isn't your fault because you can't be expected to keep up with current events? This thread is so full of what the fuck logic.

But… I'm not freaking out. I'm hoping he'll clarify a bit more, because as I said, 140 characters isn't exactly a lot to work with, and picking up bits and pieces of other things he's said on the topic only helps so much.

Even if you could make a comprehensive argument of what Trump meant, there's no guarantee he'd actually do it anyways. We all know what people say they'll do before ending up in office and what they actually do can often be wildly different things.

EDIT: Checking, he said more on the issue.

Source

"Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all," Trump said in a statement to "Morning Joe" host Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC.

…

Newly-minted Trump press secretary Sean Spicer appeared to try to clarify Trump's remarks on NBC's TODAY show Friday, saying the president-elect's statements are meant as a "warning" to other nations not to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

"There's not going to be [an arms race] because he's going to ensure that other countries get the message that he's not going to sit back and allow that," Spicer said. "And what's going to happen is they will come to their senses and we will all be just fine."

Watching the top video, it also seems Kellyanne Conway confirmed, more or less, the idea that Colonel was espousing, with her saying that Trump meant on improving nuclear readiness.

"US is updating it’s nuclear arsenal and creating knew submarines everyday. Russia and the US also contain 90% of ALL nuclear weapons on the face of the planet. The process of updating older hardware is not cheap or simple."

This isn't WWII. The US is not pumping out submarines at the rate of one of every 36 hours. As one of the links I shared mentioned, the US nuclear system was neglected over the last 20 years due to the military's focus on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama began to make upgrades to the system, a policy which Trump appears to be ready to continue.

At this point, I've provided multiple sources stating the US system is outdated and not up to modern standards. This is a disparity. If you wish to share any evidence this is not the case, I am open to seeing it.

As to modern systems having their own drawbacks, we're more or less on the same page.

What the debate comes down to is what Trump meant. I think the argument's been made sufficiently at this point that it is open to interpretation, and in any event as Rivers has succinctly put it, Twitter isn't the ideal source to be parsing for meaning.

Second person plural "you" is freaking out, literally every time I use the second person on this website everybody takes it as a personal attack, not everything is about you, you guys. "Freaking out" is exactly what claiming that Trump's tweet is going to start a nuclear arms race is, it's more histrionic nonsense that the entire mainstream media has picked up and run with.

Rachel Maddow is going apeshit on air saying that Trump is moving to expand the USA's nuclear weapon arsenal. She says it's not just a tweet because “the president making policy happens whenever the president speaks on a national security matter.” okay well he's not the fuckin' President yet, first of all, and we'd be in for a hell of a shitshow if we took all Obama's tweets as policy lmfao.

{ 140 characters isn’t exactly a lot to work with }

He wasn't issuing an executive order, he was giving an opinion ffs! Why are (trigger warning: second person plural) you trying to work with 140 characters instead of all the other opinions and statements he's given that have been reported, not to mention repeatedly posted in this thread?

{ As one of the links I shared mentioned, }

Is it not abundantly clear by now that none of these people are clicking your links?

No Nuke First policy sounds fantastic to me. It shows that we are not willing to use nuclear arms except as a last resort. You know like they should be.

The US Military is so large that it can reliably respond to any threat besides a nuclear strike. If someone does launch a nuclear attack then all bets are off and America is free to respond. That sounds logical and rational to me.

5 common comments about the Military Under Obama

The logistical and political shitstorm that every country would be kicked up into if the US responded to a threat with a nuclear strike would be unimaginable. Nuclear weapons are not just regular bombs. They turn people to shadows, turn sand to glass, and leave huge irradiated areas and dust clouds that can be picked up by the wind and blown for many miles. It also fries all the electronics in an area.

What enemies are we talking about here? Who exactly is the US's enemy right now that would be so deserving a nuclear strike?

Just to put this out there for the sake of further context, russias weapon systems aren't exactly prestine and up to date. Perhaps it was merely because of the different type of weapon, but I remember a news story years ago about the state of russias military security for its WMD's. The chemical weapons they showed being stored were being stored in a normal warehouse in the middle of nowhere with 12 guards at most who were 2 months behind on being payed, and with a frozen over barbed wire fence being the only security measure o stop a person walking onto the base. The story discussed it from a perspective of keeping WMD;s out of the hands of terrorists, but I think it may give a bit more context to this whole thing.

Both countries upgrading their defense systems being mistaken as a sign of rising hostilities and aggression is one of the stupid reasons the cold war got as bad as it did. I don't think now is the time to bring that kind of stuff back. We need to be smarter then that, and make smarter moves then we did back then.

I can definitely see the need to update and replace our current arsenal as most of our nukes were built in the sixties and seventies and there's doubt as to whether or not they even work anymore, but I must disagree with expanding it.

We already have a thousand of them. That's enough to blanket Russia and China. Why do we need even more? It's a massive waste of money that could be used for far, far better purposes.

>inb4 he pulls a Regan and nearly bankrupts Russia with an expensive nuclear arms race to soften them up diplomatically

Basilius said:

I think he believes we should have enough Nukes to have 2-3 times our next two competitors combined. This would throw off the power balance and be very dangerous.

How so? MAD only requires that you have enough nukes to wipe out the other side and you can launch them successfully. Having 2x nukes as Russia doesn't change the fact that they still would cripple us.

.

A nuclear War would probably be the last major conflict humanity ever sees.

Doubtful. It would certainly cripple the participants for decades or centuries, but the nuclear winter theory has been fiercely criticized, primarily because it relies on estimates from Hiroshima and Nagasaki--cities from half a century ago made almost entirely out of highly flammable materials. It's unlikely modern cities' destruction would kick up enough material to have an extinction-tier effect on the planet.

If more than 2 nations become a nuclear threat to each other then you need more nukes to keep MAD up.

The next major conflict would be over food and water sources. Let's not pretend the human race would sing kumbaya and hold hands while people starve and dehydrate in large numbers.

Hmm idk how about Russia, who just got done publicly announcing plans to improve and expand their own nuclear warheads in order to overcome other countries anti-missile defenses? Literally what Putin said yesterday, not that he's going to expand them to deter other countries, not that he's going to disarm Russia in an attempt at world peace, that he wants Russia to be able to bomb straight through any other country's defenses.

Or maybe China, whose aggression and Obama's response to pull our warships out of the Pacific has lead to passive Asian countries becoming concerned with their own military forces, as the US is apparently unwilling to fulfill its defense contracts.

Could it possibly be Iran, who are becoming bolder in their rejection of UN sanctions against their missile program and continue to declare the nuke deal invalid on account of the US violating it.

These three countries have been aligning to improve each others nuclear capabilities while we willingly disarm ourselves and think we're sooooo fucking righteous for it.

But no, the liberal answer is to ignore all of these countries and their aggression until they decimate a region of our country and hundreds of thousands of our citizens. Then the liberals will think about possibly responding, maybe I mean, as long as we don't have to intervene, we should just mind our own business.

Wasn't it Trump supporters saying "Russia is not our enemy" when the whole Russia hacking controversy was going on? Or are we enemies now that Trump is safely in the white house?

China has nothing to gain from a nuclear war. They also have less than 10% of the nuclear weapons that exist on this planet. They have no way wiping the US out, nor would they want to since they rely so much on the US consumers for their economy.

So what you are saying is, is that there IS WMDs in Iran? Oh thank goodness, Good to know that strategic military invasion that destabilized the region leading to the largest time period of terrorism wasn't a complete failure.

Intervention has repeatedly created problems. If every country didn't interfere except with absolutely necessary many of the problems of modern age wouldn't be here. Also Don't act like you responding to me, is responding to all Liberals. I speak for myself and no one else. I may be liberal but I don't agree with all things Liberal.

What would you have us do then Lisa, Nuke Iran out of existence now before they possibly maybe get WMDs? Nuke China now before they are even a major threat to the US in anyway? Or would you rather the US storm the Kremlin and throw Putin in cell? I thought Trump was pretty buddy buddy with him, maybe he can make a deal and get Putin to stop making nukes.

All we've said about Russia is that they didn't infiltrate our election system with the intent to help Trump win, as every mainstream media source is still claiming, though much more quietly after their verbal spanking by John Kerry. Nobody has ever declared Russia an infallible ally. You asked me who could be deserving of a nuclear strike in the future, and based on the ongoing aggression of these three countries they are the top contenders.

China has nothing to gain from 100% of their actions in the Pacific, so why are they continuing them? Why are they building floating military bases all over the ocean, and why wont they stop despite repeated warnings from the UN? Why have they threatened open war with the USA if we "provoke" them on their aggression in the SCS? Why don't any of those super important economic concerns matter to China right now, and why will they suddenly decide that they matter should they follow through with their threat of war? We're not the only country that imports from China anymore, by a long shot.

{ What would you have us do then Lisa, }

Hey, I don't fucking know, how about we expand our nuclear capabilities by upgrading our infrastructure and outdated facilities so we can immediately and instantly respond to the escalating threats from any country that chooses to present themselves as one? The USA will be the global superpower with the most and best nuclear warheads and delivery system, and we wont be responding to aggression by pulling our military OUT, by running AWAY from the conflict because of an irrational fear of intervention which only leads to greater aggression thus escalating the problem even further and making it far more likely that a war breaks out. WHAT A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD TWEETED ABOUT IT EARLIER.

{ If every country didn’t interfere except with absolutely necessary many of the problems of modern age wouldn’t be here. }

Yeah, if mankind all fucked off onto private islands and had no contact with each other whatsoever the world would be a more peaceful place lmfao what an absolute joke. The countries and cultures that are trying to violently conquer the world aren't going to stop just because the USA decides to close their eyes real tight.

On this topic -- the New Yorker recently published an excellent longread story about the current state of the American nuclear arsenal, and how it affects US strategic nuclear policy, military theory and doctrine, and international relations.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/world-war-three-by-mistake

For anyone interested.

The idea of the USA finally taking a stand against these countries by fighting them head on or at least showing them it' done fucking around sounds appealing. At least this way, the USA's own interests will be secured in a less underhanded, convoluted way.

I would say 'Nam, Iraq, and Afganistan, but I guess you could call those "what are we trying to do here" wars.

About nukes and tweets:

Make sure you guys are pulling the most recent articles. I'm too lazy to have to defend my own opinion right now, but any political policy can change within a very short time.

Once again, I'll just use this to describe my feelings towards this issue.