Trump and Putin call for stronger nuclear forces

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, nottocus said:

Reset all. Nuke the planet i reckon. Humans heading for extinction so may as well speed it up. Let the cockroach people rule in 100,000 years time when radiation levels are safe

So you are willing to donate to the 200M foundation to hack the dead man handle to kill us all?

The radiation is still not the big problem, when it comes to our survival, but who cares as you would be willing to donate to the cause. 

[iReason]

43 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

I wouldn't rule out mass deployment of nukes at some point in the future as a result of global competitive hysteria arising from sudden depletion of resources due to overpopulation and climate change (in which case, sudden population reduction would be necessary).

 

There's a lunatic statement if I ever heard one. Really sick stuff.

 

Fortunately, you don't have your finger on the button.

 

BTW, what part of the earth's population would you annihilate if you deemed it "necessary"?

[hawker9000]

21 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Because the USA needs to be able to destroy the world 10 times over instead of 5 times over. Exactly how many nuclear weapons do you think it takes to intimidate a nation?  

10 times, eh?  Really.   Wow, such a careful, pinpoint, thoughtful analysis. 

 

Critics just lub-lub-lub to mindlessly parrot this question.   Do they need to be able to parrot a silly question 10 times over instead of 5 times over?  Do they think parroting a question "deters"  any motivation to acquire actual knowledge of the topic?  Well genius, the question isn't how many "you think it takes to destroy the world"; the question is how many can you get through to targets and so have a meaningful deterrent.  Planners don't assume that every missile sitting in a silo or submarine's missile tubes, or the bomb bay of a B-52 or attached to a cruise missile is going to survive an attack to even be launched, let alone penetrate defenses, survive EMP, etc.,  and reach a target.   I would imagine there are maintenance cycles during which the weapons are offline as well.   Do us all a favor, and stop asking the dumb questions, and try and find something useful to backbite with.  

 

MY question is:   I thought dems were all worked up because Trump was such good friends with Putin!   A renewed arms race doesn't sound all THAT "friendly" to me...

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

would imagine there are maintenance cycles during which the weapons are offline as well

 

Given the Obama Administration has estimated it will cost U$1 trillion over thirty years to modernise and maintain the current nuclear arsenal, can you explain why it is necessary to acquire additional nuclear weapons capability. Apparently the Trump Transition Team justification for additional nuclear weapons is based upon a premise to stop nuclear proliferation, where as Trump did make inflammatory comments that Japan and other nations should develop their own nuclear weapons capability; so what are the facts?

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization

[maewang99]

Trump is using up his easy freebies before he even takes office.  he has yet to mouth off at all (of course!) about the March 2017 expiration of the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act.  the financial markets normally have not been at all jittery on the debt limit extensions... but the debt of the USA is crossing one of those magic numbers ($20 trillion US for those not following this very carefully at all) and Trump has said "why not default" along with lots of other endless nonsense.... that market folks do pay attention to.  and a Congress that is not at all in his pocket when it comes to dealing with the debt.....

and putting a revived ****nuclear**** arms race on top of all of that is a good idea?

oh boy.  not.  this go around, if you look at the spending charts for the federal gov, is all but gonna have to bring Medicaid and Medicare spending into it... and that brings along the 3rd rail with it as well.

.... but if you are already getting a Social Security check... and have to do your own health cover anyways.... as in US expats in Thailand... we get to watch the show without too many worries. not bad!

     

Edited December 24, 2016 by maewang99

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.  

[craigt3365]

12 hours ago, rabas said:

 

I think because  the Russian government (i.e., Putin, not the Russian people) is being judged in the West for it's military adventurism and proxy war into the Ukraine, which contradicts and confutes the official state dogma which you provide here.

 

It's my view that Russia and America, and even Europe are, should be, natural allies. In the long term we will need to be. But we will not get there this way. The Russian and American people have never for one minute been enemies.

Good post.  And it's not just Ukraine where Putin is being judged.  It's also Georgia, Moldova, Chechnya, and now Syria.  His ambitions are well known.  And the people in Russia are paying the price.  Russia will never become the player it was back in the old days.  Can't just take over countries like you use to be able to, which Russia did with a vengeance last century.

 

Russian people would have a different view of the world if their news wasn't controlled by the government.  Not sure who said it, but turn on RT TV.  Nothing but slams against the west, and the US.  Pure propaganda, at it's worst.

[Silurian]

So I guess Don the Prez is going to spur the US economy by investing in the military. Someone is going to have to build all those new nuclear weapons.

 

'Let it be an arms race': Trump appears to double down on nuclear expansion

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-arms-race

 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

10 times, eh?  Really.   Wow, such a careful, pinpoint, thoughtful analysis. 

 

Critics just lub-lub-lub to mindlessly parrot this question.   Do they need to be able to parrot a silly question 10 times over instead of 5 times over?  Do they think parroting a question "deters"  any motivation to acquire actual knowledge of the topic?  Well genius, the question isn't how many "you think it takes to destroy the world"; the question is how many can you get through to targets and so have a meaningful deterrent.  Planners don't assume that every missile sitting in a silo or submarine's missile tubes, or the bomb bay of a B-52 or attached to a cruise missile is going to survive an attack to even be launched, let alone penetrate defenses, survive EMP, etc.,  and reach a target.   I would imagine there are maintenance cycles during which the weapons are offline as well.   Do us all a favor, and stop asking the dumb questions, and try and find something useful to backbite with.  

 

MY question is:   I thought dems were all worked up because Trump was such good friends with Putin!   A renewed arms race doesn't sound all THAT "friendly" to me...

 

Right now the USA has about 1367 active nuclear warheads.  There are another 4571 warheads in storage.  And this is to say nothing of tactical nuclear weapons. Our nuclear submarine based missiles are virtually immune to detection. And what nation is going to count on the effectiveness of an anti-missile system to intercept incoming nuclear weapons.  

And if what you're saying is the case, Israel, with a first rate anti-missile system, is getting itself worked up over nothing about Iranian nuclear weapons. Let them know what you think.  And I'm sure they will be laughing with you and not at you.

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Nilats said:

It could be just one of those Trump things. He toyed around with Romney nomination and only to ditch him at the last moment and nominate somebody completely different. Let's wait till he gets into office and then we can see what he's actually going to do. I hope they can work it out and improve relations as each side declared they wanted to.

 

He might be just playing to be a tough guy against Putin at the moment to make sure the Opposition - establishment, etc don't try to do something stupid and provoke a confrontation with Russia before Trump gets into office. Statements like this actually defuse the tensions in the last month before Trump gets into office. He keeps ball to himself to make sure the Establishment and Obama don't get to play it themselves.

 

How does starting a new arms race contribute to "defuse the tensions"?

[Morch]

15 hours ago, rabas said:

 

They can design new nuclear weapons directly on computers.  In many cases they do not need to test a fully assembled weapon, much of the physics can be tested on a small scale, which is one potential use for the National Ignition Facility.

 

Yes, thermonuclear bombs developed in the 1950s were vastly more powerful than early atomic bombs. They do not even build them that big now. What is real scary  is the development of very small, low radiation, cleaner weapons for tactical use, hitting subs, carriers, etc. That would make it much more tempting to cross the nuclear boundary from a conventional war.

 

Recent threats from Putin to design and upgrade nuclear capabilities are the reason Trump brought this issue up, I'm sure he is being briefed by the defence department on defence needs.

 

Reminds me of my ol' landlady back in New Delhi. We had a talk about the recent Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests. The latter were a "clear provocation", but the former - "well of course in needs to be tested, after all they are made locally". Been pretty close to test area shortly afterwards. There was a vague parameter lined with corpses of birds, rodents and lizards. Locals knew better than to go further.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

10 times, eh?  Really.   Wow, such a careful, pinpoint, thoughtful analysis. 

 

Critics just lub-lub-lub to mindlessly parrot this question.   Do they need to be able to parrot a silly question 10 times over instead of 5 times over?  Do they think parroting a question "deters"  any motivation to acquire actual knowledge of the topic?  Well genius, the question isn't how many "you think it takes to destroy the world"; the question is how many can you get through to targets and so have a meaningful deterrent.  Planners don't assume that every missile sitting in a silo or submarine's missile tubes, or the bomb bay of a B-52 or attached to a cruise missile is going to survive an attack to even be launched, let alone penetrate defenses, survive EMP, etc.,  and reach a target.   I would imagine there are maintenance cycles during which the weapons are offline as well.   Do us all a favor, and stop asking the dumb questions, and try and find something useful to backbite with.  

 

MY question is:   I thought dems were all worked up because Trump was such good friends with Putin!   A renewed arms race doesn't sound all THAT "friendly" to me...

 

 

At some point it doesn't matter how many "they" will manage to put through and how many "we" will. Even if one side was to succeed in carrying out a significant attack they'd be effected as well. The whole deterrence thing works, sort of, if both sides apply the same kind of logic and reasoning, and if there aren't additional players to make things complicated. That ship sailed long ago.

 

As for your question - can be asked in a different way, how do Trump supporters feel about him now considering HRC was supposed to be the militaristic warmonger destined to bring us WWIII?

 

[optad]

 

 

Link below is an interesting reminder show casing thirty odd alarming nuclear close calls as this poster suggests.

 

One or two you will know, many you wont and it is the innoxious circumstances which caused serious potential to unravel which is scary. 

 http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/close-calls

 

 

[hawker9000]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

At some point it doesn't matter how many "they" will manage to put through and how many "we" will. Even if one side was to succeed in carrying out a significant attack they'd be effected as well. The whole deterrence thing works, sort of, if both sides apply the same kind of logic and reasoning, and if there aren't additional players to make things complicated. That ship sailed long ago.

 

As for your question - can be asked in a different way, how do Trump supporters feel about him now considering HRC was supposed to be the militaristic warmonger destined to bring us WWIII?

 

"As for your question - can be asked in a different way, how do Trump supporters feel about him now considering HRC was supposed to be the militaristic warmonger destined to bring us WWIII?"

 

Wow!  What a talent you have for spinning things upside down!!  This is what TRUMP was accused of (as Republicans habitually/consistently/obsessively have been ever since the Goldwater days...) by wingnuts!!!

 

Furthermore, you completely (or should I say conveniently) overlook that many "Trump supporters" were actually voting AGAINST HRC, and not really "FOR" Trump.  Frankly, I think the whole thing with Putin is a bit of bombastic tit-for-tat.  I'll choose that over Obama's kneeling, ring-kissing, and laughable red lines, which only subverted U.S. global credibility, any day.

 

And the idea that we don't have to worry about a nuclear attack because "they'd be effected as well" is just bizarre.  You fantasize that we can hang actual deterrence on THAT??   The Russians essentially did that to themselves at Chernobyl (and who knows what else they've successfully covered-up over the years), and life seemed to go on...   Well, keep on drinking that koolaid - 'least it's got Vitamin C now (and maybe you can get some at a discount from HRC - they're probably a bit overstocked, for those victory parties and Inaugural Ball you know).

 

 

 

 

[DM07]

Yeah....Iran probably some day having nukes is a horrible threat! Forget Pakistan, India or Israel, who already have "the bomb", Putin the megalomaniac or the orange man- baby, with the nuclear codes and a "if we have them, why don't we use them"- attitude...
But beware of Iran!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Ulysses G.]

34 minutes ago, DM07 said:

But beware of Iran!
 

 

 

Yes indeed. The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and they believe in an apocalyptic religion.

[DM07]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Yes indeed. The biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and they believe in an apocalyptic religion.

Ever heard of Saudi Arabia!

Oh...no...they are our "friends"!

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Ever heard of Saudi Arabia!

Oh...no...they are our "friends"!

They are everybody's friend because they have oil.  But yes, probably a larger sponsor of terror than Iran.  Though both countries are at the top of the list for state sponsored terrorism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

[Morch]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

"As for your question - can be asked in a different way, how do Trump supporters feel about him now considering HRC was supposed to be the militaristic warmonger destined to bring us WWIII?"

 

Wow!  What a talent you have for spinning things upside down!!  This is what TRUMP was accused of (as Republicans habitually/consistently/obsessively have been ever since the Goldwater days...) by wingnuts!!!

 

Furthermore, you completely (or should I say conveniently) overlook that many "Trump supporters" were actually voting AGAINST HRC, and not really "FOR" Trump.  Frankly, I think the whole thing with Putin is a bit of bombastic tit-for-tat.  I'll choose that over Obama's kneeling, ring-kissing, and laughable red lines, which only subverted U.S. global credibility, any day.

 

And the idea that we don't have to worry about a nuclear attack because "they'd be effected as well" is just bizarre.  You fantasize that we can hang actual deterrence on THAT??   The Russians essentially did that to themselves at Chernobyl (and who knows what else they've successfully covered-up over the years), and life seemed to go on...   Well, keep on drinking that koolaid - 'least it's got Vitamin C now (and maybe you can get some at a discount from HRC - they're probably a bit overstocked, for those victory parties and Inaugural Ball you know).

 

 

 

 

 

Trump, during the election campaign said that HRC's views and projected policies on Syria could lead to WWIII. This was often repeated by Trump supporters on this forum, with added varying degrees of exaggeration. The counter claim by Trump's supporters was that his obvious policy of playing nice with Russia would lead to a deescalation of the tensions between the countries, some even going as far as productive cooperation. Trump being Trump, he also made controversial and contradicting comments on proliferation which were rightly denounced, but explained away or ignored by his supporters.

 

Trump was hailed by supporters as a someone who will lower tensions, despite some of his contrary statements, while HRC was deemed by the same as the warmonger. Many of those not favoring Trump saw it otherwise - and still do. So their opinion did not change, as they were simply not buying into Trump's projected image. Guess it comes down to how invested people are with defending everything Trump says.

 

What does Obama got to do with it? It was HRC or Trump. Between the two, Trump's stance is much softer when it comes to Russia.

 

Where did I say that we do not need to worry about nuclear threats? Talk about spin. And the same goes for the rest of your creative interpretation. All I said was that there's such a thing as overkill. And yes, in realistic terms there are no winners if a major nuclear war erupts, not a concept some like to contemplate, but that's the way it is. Further, deterrence between two players is one thing, with the addition of other players, things get way more complicated, so its not a straightforward thing as it used to be.

 

[Krataiboy]

On 12/23/2016 at 11:22 AM, ddavidovsky said:

 

I wouldn't rule out mass deployment of nukes at some point in the future as a result of global competitive hysteria arising from sudden depletion of resources due to overpopulation and climate change (in which case, sudden population reduction would be necessary). But (correct me if I'm wrong) setting them all off at once would still only result in pockets of destruction here and there, not wholesale, irreversible incineration of the planet beyond redemption, which people commonly suppose. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thriving cities again within a few years.

 

 

I would rather not find out the hard way, wouldn't you?

[alanrchase]

They are everybody's friend because they have oil.  But yes, probably a larger sponsor of terror than Iran.  Though both countries are at the top of the list for state sponsored terrorism.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

No longer true. America and other western countries deal with Saudi for strategic purposes. Quid pro quo. Do they directly fund terrorists? Probably not. Due to being custodians of the two holy mosques the have to give an appearance of supporting Muslim values. Yet another farce dictated by religious beliefs.

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, alanrchase said:

 

No longer true. America and other western countries deal with Saudi for strategic purposes. Quid pro quo. Do they directly fund terrorists? Probably not. Due to being custodians of the two holy mosques the have to give an appearance of supporting Muslim values. Yet another farce dictated by religious beliefs.

 

They may not directly support terrorists, but the deranged version of Islam that they have spread around the world differs little if at all from that espoused by Sunni Terrorists.  In fact, it was this version of islam that fostered Sunni Terrorism.  

Edited December 25, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[alanrchase]

They may not directly support terrorists, but the deranged version of Islam that they have spread around the world differs little if at all from that espoused by Sunni Terrorists.  In fact, it was this version of islam that fostered Sunni Terrorism.  

Get your post. Direct support of terrorism is questionable. Unfortunately religion dictates certain requirements. The Saudi's can't escape religious responsibilities. They have to be be seen to toe the line. Suni and Shia is a wonderful discrace. Religion? What a joy!

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, alanrchase said:

 

No longer true. America and other western countries deal with Saudi for strategic purposes. Quid pro quo. Do they directly fund terrorists? Probably not. Due to being custodians of the two holy mosques the have to give an appearance of supporting Muslim values. Yet another farce dictated by religious beliefs.

Guaranteed SA and Iran directly fund terrorists.  They are the 2 biggest problems in the ME today.  And all because of oil wealth.

[rabas]

On 12/24/2016 at 1:46 PM, Morch said:

 

At some point it doesn't matter how many "they" will manage to put through and how many "we" will. Even if one side was to succeed in carrying out a significant attack they'd be effected as well. The whole deterrence thing works, sort of, if both sides apply the same kind of logic and reasoning, and if there aren't additional players to make things complicated. That ship sailed long ago.

 

As for your question - can be asked in a different way, how do Trump supporters feel about him now considering HRC was supposed to be the militaristic warmonger destined to bring us WWIII?

 

Was is not Putin himself, and/or his top aids, saying that a Hillary Clinton presidency could lead to a nuclear WW3?

 

Let me pass on an interesting observation. About 6 or 7 years ago a friend gave me an analysis of Middle East risks written by a Russian expert  working with an international strategy group. I think it was prepared for a  Singapore financial conference.  In his view, the ME would experience a rising number of conflicts that would likely coalesce into wider regional conflict with a significant chance it would draw Russia and the US into direct conflict. ME instability would last for many years with a small but real probability of ~20% of triggering a global conflict. He gave a few reasons, some about oil, money, etc., but said the major cause would be a declining US commitment to maintaining regional stability along with Russian adventurism.

 

That's circa 2009. He did not mention names like Obama, Hillary, or Putin. But this was shortly after Obama was elected thus Hillary would have been SOS.

Edited December 25, 2016 by rabas

[alanrchase]

Guaranteed SA and Iran directly fund terrorists.  They are the 2 biggest problems in the ME today.  And all because of oil wealth.

Guaranteed SA directly funds terrorists? Suppose you have proof?

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, rabas said:

Was is not Putin himself, and/or his top aids, saying that a Hillary Clinton presidency could lead to a nuclear WW3?

 

Let me pass on an interesting observation. About 6 or 7 years ago a friend gave me an analysis of Middle East risks written by a Russian expert  working with an international strategy group. I think it was prepared for a  Singapore financial conference.  In his view, the ME would experience a rising number of conflicts that would likely coalesce into wider regional conflict with a significant chance it would draw Russia and the US into direct conflict. ME instability would last for many years with a small but real probability of ~20% of triggering a global conflict. He gave a few reasons, some about oil, money, etc., but said the major cause would be a declining US commitment to maintaining regional stability along with Russian adventurism.

 

That's circa 2009. He did not mention names like Obama, Hillary, or Putin. But this was shortly after Obama was elected thus Hillary would have been SOS.

 

Putin is not favorable toward HRC, - no secret, and not much love lost there. On the other hand, whatever he opined on the recent US elections is somewhat suspect, or at the very least, not bereft of interest.

 

Thanks for your story (or observation). There are plenty of of assessments and projections made regarding the ME, and related issues, many of the serious ones succeed predicting certain elements while failing to account for others. On some occasions, there is an sense "something" will happen, and the way in which it materializes trumps the cards (no pun intended). 

 

It might be a correct analysis (even if questioning the global conflict bit), but I somehow doubt that Trump would have a stabilizing effect on things, rather the opposite. To put it another way - with HRC the danger factor was constant, with Trump, it's volatile. When it comes to the deterrence and such, constant is, IMO, a better option.  

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, alanrchase said:

 

Guaranteed SA directly funds terrorists? Suppose you have proof?

 

From my link:

Quote

 

While Saudi Arabia is often a secondary source of funds and support for terror movements who can find more motivated and ideologically invested benefactors (e.g. Qatar), Saudi Arabia arguably remains the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.^[94]

 

Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism,^[95] which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide, according to Hillary Clinton.^[96] According to a secret December 2009 paper signed by the US secretary of state, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups."^[97]

 

The violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is partly bankrolled by wealthy, conservative donors across the Arabian Sea whose governments do little to stop them.^[96] Three other Arab countries which are listed as sources of militant money are Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, all neighbors of Saudi Arabia.

 

 

Remember a guy named Osama bin Laden?

[alanrchase]

 
Remember a guy named Osama bin Laden?

I agree that terrorism is funded by Saudi nationals. Directly funded by the Saudi government is questionable. Osama bin Laden was funded by the US government during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, alanrchase said:

 

I agree that terrorism is funded by Saudi nationals. Directly funded by the Saudi government is questionable. Osama bin Laden was funded by the US government during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

That's how I read the previous post, SA does not mean the SA  government. However, Osama bin Laden was not funded by the US to kill and terrorize innocent civilians.Your incongruent juxtaposition of the US and terrorism is a disingenuous prevarication, a lie!

 

It also seems US funding for Osama is literally untrue, Peter Bergman and many other sources who have studied it have said it never happened, only Robin Cook ever made such a claim, probably after misinterpreting various reports that bin Laden was happy to see US support for the Mujahideen. See:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

Edited December 26, 2016 by rabas