╌>

Trump repeats call for US nuclear supremacy

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  randy  •  7 years ago  •  20 comments

Trump repeats call for US nuclear supremacy

nukestupid.jpg

President Donald Trump has said he wants the United States to expand its nuclear arsenal, in his first comments on the issue since taking office.

Mr Trump said it would be "wonderful" if no nation had nuclear arms, but otherwise the US must be "top of the pack".

He told Reuter that the US had "fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity".

Critics say the US and Russia already have more weapons than necessary to deter a nuclear attack.

The US has 6,800 nuclear weapons and Russia has 7,000, according to the US nonpartisan Arms Control Association.

Speaking to Reuters in a wide-ranging interview, Mr Trump said: "I am the first one that would like to see everybody - nobody have nukes, but we're never going to fall behind any country even if it's a friendly country, we're never going to fall behind on nuclear power."

"It would be wonderful, a dream would be that no country would have nukes, but if countries are going to have nukes, we're going to be at the top of the pack."

His latest comments on nuclear weapons echo a tweet he sent a few weeks after his election win, in which he pledged to increase the country's capability.

nukestupid1.jpg

A new strategic arms limitation treaty between the US and Russia, known as New Start , requires that by 5 February of next year, both countries must limit their arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons to equal levels for 10 years.

The independent Arms Control Association non-profit group criticised Mr Trump's remarks.

"Mr Trump's comments suggest, once again, that he is ill-informed about nuclear weapons and has a poor understanding of the unique dangers of nuclear weapons," the group said in a statement .

"The history of the Cold War shows us that no one comes out on 'top of the pack' of an arms race and nuclear brinksmanship."

Mr Trump also told Reuters:

  • He considered China the "grand champions" of currency manipulation
  • He is "totally in favour" of the European Union
  • China could get North Korea into line "very easily"
  • Nato allies "owe a lot of money" and he will press them to contribute more
  • He prefers a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but is open to other solutions too

During Mr Trump's campaign he referred to nuclear proliferation as the "single biggest problem" facing the world, but also said he could not rule out using nuclear weapons against Europe.

His Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, repeatedly cast Mr Trump during the campaign as too erratic and lacking in the diplomatic skills required to avoid a nuclear war.

She mocked him by saying "a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39073303



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy    7 years ago

Modernization I can understand. Replace a new more modern nuke and destroy an older one for each new one at the same time, maintaining the same total number of weapons. For generations we and the Russians had many, many more times then enough nukes to destroy the world many, many times over and while we have many less then we used to, we still have more then enough to do the job completely and that is enough. Enough to do the job is all we need. Enough for complete annihilation is enough!

Adding any significant amount of more warheads to our inventory, even if the Russians do, is just a case of ignorant machismo. It's just a case of my dick is bigger then yours and is stupid, expensive and unnecessary. We, ourselves, can destroy all life on this planet now and more. Why do we need more? Why do we need to spend money on more and get back into the stupidity of the 1960's and 70's when we had ten's of thousand of warheads more then we needed to pay a fortune to maintain?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
link   Kavika   replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Randy, I believe that a modernization is under way and has been for awhile.

Not sure of the status now though.

How do you come out on ''top of the pack'' when it's weapons that will destroy the earth. We already have more than enough of now..

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

How do you come out on ''top of the pack'' when it's weapons that will destroy the earth. We already have more than enough of now..

That's where the "I have a bigger dick then you do" comes in. We have more then enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world now, so adding to the arsenal just means wasting more money maintaining more of them and it does not make us any safer. However it's sort of like "I have more doomsday power then you do!" when having enough doomsday weapons for one time is having enough. How many times over can you destroy the Earth once you have the power to already to destroy it several times over now? A new nuclear arms race is nothing more the a very expensive ego trip.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Kavika   7 years ago

"Randy, I believe that a modernization is under way and has been for awhile.

Not sure of the status now though."

Behind schedule. 

 
 
 
deepwaterdon
Freshman Silent
link   deepwaterdon    7 years ago

Randy.... If we can agree to disagree on another matter, we can also agree to agree on this one. Well said, thank you.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  deepwaterdon   7 years ago

I do to believe that this is something we can agree on. When I served in the 321st Strategic Missile Wing, which was a ICBM wing, we had over 2,000 Minutemen Three missiles in the ground ready to launch at a moments notice. Each of these missiles had three Hydrogen warheads that were hundreds of times more powerful then the Hiroshima bomb. Our missile  wing alone essentially could destroy all life on Earth. Our air base also had a fully equipped B52 Nuclear Bomber wing (the 319th Bomb Wing) and there was (and still is) a duplicate base in Minot North Dakota. In the 1970's the state of North Dakota was the 3rd strongest nuclear power in the world all by itself. In a full exchange just with our forces we could destroy the world through destruction and radiation. Nothing would survive. And that doesn't count what the USSR would be throwing back. Between the two of us we had over 50,000 warheads, that are hundreds and in some cases thousands of times more powerful then the Hiroshima bomb. It was ridiculous the amount of nuclear weapons we both had.

Now, through treaties and some common sense we have reduced the numbers considerably. Now, instead of being able to reduce our planet to an unrecognizable volcanic cinder, we are only at the point where we can kill every living thing down to the smallest microbe. I think that's quite sufficient. We have much more then enough to do the job to keep up the threat that is complete mutually assured destruction if anyone with nukes decides to launch them to the point where we can destroy the world. We can wipe out our species and every other one on Earth with what we have now several times over. Why in the fuck do we need more power then that?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51    7 years ago

Being number one in national security, defense, and strategic forces is something progressives have never been comfortable with with regard to America.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah    7 years ago

Anyone who comments here should be required to read Command an Control  first.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Hal A. Lujah   7 years ago

And they should be required to work at a nuclear weapons lab for several decades... Hanging loose

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   XXJefferson51    7 years ago

Peace through strength!  

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    7 years ago

We have serious deficiencies in our ability to design, manufacture, and maintain nuclear weapons. We should spend money on these issues before it's too late. However, we DO NOT need to increase the number of warheads we possess.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Agree completely. Modernize (some of ICBMs in the holes were there more 40 years ago when I was in the USAF), but do not increase the overall numbers. It's not needed, it's too expensive to build, too expensive to maintain and the biggest thing is that it will not make us any safer. We only need the power to destroy the world once. How is it more threatening to be able to destroy all of humanity more then once?

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

How strange that we actually agree...

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

Somethings are just plain commonsense. I mean if you have enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy the world and all life on it once (and we and the Russians each do many times over), then why do you need more? It is not peace through strength. It is a waste of money.

 
 
 
1ofmany
Sophomore Silent
link   1ofmany    7 years ago

You don't need a big arsenal; just get a big bomb. 

 
 
 
Aeonpax
Freshman Silent
link   Aeonpax    7 years ago

To build up our nuclear arsenal right now is sheer madness.

 

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  Aeonpax   7 years ago

It is. After many years in the 1960's and 70's of having tens of thousands of warheads that could have destroyed the planet hundreds of times over we are now down to having enough to destroy every living thing, down to the last microbe, several times over and all we need (if we can really say we even need such power in the first place) is to do it just once. What is the logic in being able the destroy all of humanity and second or third or tenth or twentieth time, when all it takes is just once? Modernize yes, but to add to our total capability is madness.

Let the Russians or Chinese spend a fortune building more. If we have 6,000 total warheads (and we have about 6,800 now) and they decide to build 20,000 or even 30,000, so what? Does that make them stronger then us? Of course not! It makes them more stupid then us for spending all of that trillions of dollars to build and maintain such a huge nuclear weapons program that doesn't make them any stronger or us any weaker because we can still destroy the world with the amount of warheads we have several times over so why in the hell do we need to spend money on more? If they launch their 20,000 or 30,000 warheads they are going to achieve the same same results we would if we use our 6,800. All humanity will be dead either way (and no, there will not be some sort of Mad Max survivor world, everyone WILL die) I think Trump thinks of it as some sort of national pride, when the truth is it is national stupidity.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
link   Buzz of the Orient    7 years ago

Hey Randy! Have you bought yours yet?

32933185431_f65cc7c75f_b.jpg

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 years ago

No, but I do have my "Not my President", "I Am A Member of the Resistance." and "Don't Blame Me, I Didn't Vote For The Bastard" bumper stickers. I am going to but my "Resist. It's Your Duty As An American" T-shirt next week.

BTW, I really believe in all of those.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   seeder  Randy  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

 BTW, I really, really believe in all of those and the new bumper sticker I am getting that says "Trump is America's First and Last Russian President!"

He is NOT my President.

 
 

Who is online

Kavika


118 visitors