Trump's stance on nuclear restraint is ambiguous

[webfact]

Trump's stance on nuclear restraint is ambiguous

By ROBERT BURNS

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's ambiguous answer to a debate question on nuclear restraint raised doubts about his understanding of the issue. On the other hand, his words — by design or coincidence — mirror the nub of a policy argument the administration is wrestling with in the final months of Barack Obama's presidency.

 

Asked at this week's debate whether he supports the decades-old U.S. policy of refusing to rule out being the first to use nuclear weapons, Trump at first said, "I would certainly not do first strike." That would seem to indicate he does not support the current policy of keeping it indefinite. But then he said, "I can't take anything off the table." And that would suggest just the opposite: that he would not rule out a nuclear first strike.

 

It was difficult to tell whether Trump has considered this aspect of nuclear weapons policy. Or some others. During a Republican primary debate he was asked his view on modernizing the three main elements of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, known as the "triad," and he couldn't name all three: missiles launched from the air, underground silos and submarines.

 

In his answer Monday he tossed in a mention of the B-52 bomber, which is part of the airborne leg of the nuclear triad. He correctly said the B-52 is extraordinarily old by weapons standards, and he said this shows the U.S. is "not keeping up" with other nuclear powers. The U.S. actually is planning to build a new-generation bomber and to replace all other elements of its nuclear arsenal.

 

Questions about the circumstances in which the United States might use a nuclear weapon have resurfaced in recent months, as Trump opponents have openly expressed fear that he would use them unwisely, unleashing nuclear hell.

 

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons," Hillary Clinton said in her speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

Two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Ted W. Lieu of California and Sen. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, said Tuesday they had introduced a bill that would prohibit the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress.

 

But Thomas Mahnken, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said he hopes Obama does not choose to adopt a "no first use" policy.

 

"Potentially it would be a president in the waning months of his administration seeking to tie the hands of his successor," he said.

The administration in 2010 considered but rejected adopting a "no first use" rule on nuclear weapons, which in some respects would align with Obama's pledge to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security policy. In recent months the administration has returned to the question but has announced no decision yet.

 

The issue is complicated, but it boils down to this: What is to be gained by declaring in advance that the U.S. would not be the first to use a nuclear weapon? This was not an issue in August 1945 when the U.S. hit Japan with two atomic bombs, because no one else had the bomb.

 

Those who favor a "no first use" policy say the prospect of first-use encourages Russia and possibly China to field a large portion of their nuclear forces on hair-trigger alert in order to avoid a disarming U.S. nuclear strike. That in turn increases the chances of nuclear war by accident or design.

 

The counterargument is that "no first use" would undermine the confidence of U.S. allies in Europe and Asia that the U.S. would fulfill its treaty commitment to defend them.

 

Clinton raised that point when she followed Trump's response at the debate. She did not say whether she favors a "no first use" policy but suggested she does not. After Trump's answer, she seemed to feel it necessary to reassure U.S. allies.

 

The fact that it made her look more presidential perhaps played into her thinking as well.

 

"Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president," she said. "And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."

 

Asked at a news conference Tuesday whether he favors a "no first use" policy, Defense Secretary Ash Carter made a similar point about alliance commitments, but not in the context of the political debate.

 

"It has been the policy of the United States to extend its nuclear umbrella to friends and allies, and thereby to contribute to the deterrence of conflict and the deterrence of war," he said. "Many of our friends and allies have benefited from that over time," and that should endure, he added.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-29

[Silurian]

What a joke of a headline. Trump's stance on almost anything is ambiguous.

 

I wonder how many articles could start with the same headline?

Trump's stance on "topic x" is ambiguous

 

But to be honest, this is a tricky subject and not to be taken lightly. If you take "first strike" completely off the table then you can tie up the military decisions. I would like to think that in almost every case, a nuclear first strike would be one of the last options. One that any sitting president would struggle with.

[mike324]

I fail to see how US is not keeping up, US has the best and most capable military around the world. The only reason why other countries are catching up because they are spending more and more on defense and research. Quite frankly, whats there to complain about? We are reaching out limits in regards to development hence the US is no longer innovating as fast as before.

 

B-52 is old but still very capable, don't see a point of pointing it out. It was designed very well from the start hence no direct replacement yet, it has been upgraded continuously. 

[williamgeorgeallen]

going to be very interesting to see what happens if trump gets in. hard to know weather to be for or against him. for sure it would be a change, for the good or bad i dont know. trump may not be up to speed on many issues which i am not surprised as a relative new comer and he tends to waffle off b#llshit rather than just own up to the fact he needs to research something to come up with a proper policy. as far as the B52 being out dated just because it has been in service for so long that is outright wrong. it has been through so many updates it is still quite capable of doing its job. just like americas main battle tank. they have not had to build one for over 20 years as they are constantly refitting the shells they have as they wear out their running gear. it is cheaper and very effective. americas military might is incredible, along with the countries national debt.

[Chicog]

Has Trump never heard of the B2 and B21?

Maybe he should ask at his next briefing.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

54 minutes ago, Chicog said:

Has Trump never heard of the B2 and B21?

Maybe he should ask at his next briefing.

He's more likely to ask if his hair looks ok or if his hands look big enough.

Classic narcissist. 

[elgordo38]

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

going to be very interesting to see what happens if trump gets in. hard to know weather to be for or against him. for sure it would be a change, for the good or bad i dont know. trump may not be up to speed on many issues which i am not surprised as a relative new comer and he tends to waffle off b#llshit rather than just own up to the fact he needs to research something to come up with a proper policy. as far as the B52 being out dated just because it has been in service for so long that is outright wrong. it has been through so many updates it is still quite capable of doing its job. just like americas main battle tank. they have not had to build one for over 20 years as they are constantly refitting the shells they have as they wear out their running gear. it is cheaper and very effective. americas military might is incredible, along with the countries national debt.

Do you really want a waffling BS'ers small fingers on the big red button that says "Kiss your arse goodbye"

[dunroaming]

On the positive side the companies who build nuclear bunkers would be rubbing their hands together if Trump was elected!  Best for Trump to be ambiguous at the moment because that way it's easier when it comes to the denials.

[manfredtillmann]

what always gets to me in this entire TRUMP parody:

many of his current supporters would have been the same people who told me  (us)  that 'their father carried his rifle across the Rhine' - to defeat an un - democratic, evil and un - just government that persecuted people on behalf of their race and religious believes...

did you usa guys not defeat us germans and japanese to re - install justice, equality, religious freedom?

and what on earth are you doing now to elect your own 'HITLER' to defeat everything your parents fought for?

[Neurath]

6 hours ago, Silurian said:

What a joke of a headline. Trump's stance on almost anything is ambiguous.

 

I wonder how many articles could start with the same headline?

Trump's stance on "topic x" is ambiguous

 

But to be honest, this is a tricky subject and not to be taken lightly. If you take "first strike" completely off the table then you can tie up the military decisions. I would like to think that in almost every case, a nuclear first strike would be one of the last options. One that any sitting president would struggle with.

To understand just how close we are to oblivion and why it's so very important not to have someone like Donald Trump anywhere near decisions regarding the fate of us all I'd recommend this book: "Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Incident and the Illusion of Safety", Eric Schlosser, 2014. We teeter on the edge of oblivion even now and the risk that Trump presents is just not worth it. The margin for error is minuscule. He is erratic and would rather protect his ego than our fate.

[Neurath]

I'd add this too: Donald Trump tells us he's all about winning, he is a winner a huge winner he says. Well, what does it mean to win a nuclear war that his carelessness and obliviousness to consequence could easily start? hat would it mean? Hundreds, that's right, hundreds of Megatons are ready to rip. That's not in total. That's on a single city - multiply that by 50 or a hundred cities in the continental States and take a good hard look at Donald when he blathers about how he's a winner. It's just not worth risking. Not ever.

[Grubster]

I have never seen so many people who believe the US president has so much unfettered  authority. Its not going to make a lot of difference who is president, they will both answer to the big bosses. Wall street and the mega rich.

[dunroaming]

It is true that the future of the USA isn't just about whether to press the nuclear button or not.  It is also not about their economic influence anymore.  It may well be time to rein itself in and concentrate more on domestic matters.  The rest of the world can manage very well on it's own.  Jobs, health care and education are surely paramount.   In which case people need to look at who will address those issues and more importantly who will do something positive about it.  The last thing that the USA needs now is a hedonistic loose cannon.