View Full Version : Trump Says He's Ready to Use Nukes
Doc Safari
06-05-19, 11:02
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-05/trump-prepared-responsibility-using-nukes
In a wide-ranging interview with Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain, President Trump said that he's ready to press the nuclear button if and when the time comes.
When asked if he would negotiate with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to avoid war, Trump said "Of course. I've said that and he's said that. I know so much about nuclear weapons and I see the horrible damage done. I don't want that."
Morgan then asked Trump if he would press the nuclear button, to which Trump replied: "I think it’s a terrible responsibility but one I’m prepared to handle," adding "I don’t want to have to think about it, but there may be a time when I do have to think about it."
My take: This is probably just a signal to Iran that he's serious, like when Reagan joked on an open mike that "we begin bombing" Russia in five minutes. But still, I get kind of nervous about the idea.
Adrenaline_6
06-05-19, 11:07
Nukes are the last resort, but you never admit to never using a weapon in your arsenal otherwise you've just rendered it worthless as both a weapon AND a bargaining tool.
Taking in to consideration bump stocks and now suppressors, has he been meeting with Eric Swalwell?
I think his answer is the best anyone can give. No one wants a nuclear war, but why have them and refuse to consider ever using them?
That's what all of our adversaries have been trying to get every president since Truman to commit to: "no, I won't use nukes" or at the very least "I won't be the first to use them". Either answer renders the threat useless.
The rest of the world is still mindful that the US still remains the only country to use them. And they view someone as unhinged as Trump (or Ronnie-raygun) as a legitimate threat.
I agree that was about the best or only answer that he could give. But if Obama said it "oh that's just perfect and wise" but since Trump said it, "oh he's such a bellicose neanderthal warmonger ". Pffft....
Delete- double tap
I prefer accidental discharge to double tap. LOL
I am against EVER using them first. However, I believe that using them in retaliation is a MUST. I don't give a shit what our "conventional" capabilities are, if one is sent our way the offender gets canned sunshine in return. And if it is our civilian population that is targeted, then theirs is too but ten-fold.
titsonritz
06-05-19, 19:04
I am against EVER using them first. However, I believe that using them in retaliation is a MUST. I don't give a shit what our "conventional" capabilities are, if one is sent our way the offender gets canned sunshine in return. And if it is our civilian population that is targeted, then theirs is too but ten-fold.
I can get behind that.
Grand58742
06-05-19, 19:43
I think he said exactly what he should have said. No President should ever want to use nukes. But every President should be prepared to use nukes if they have to.
Grand58742
06-05-19, 19:44
I am against EVER using them first. However, I believe that using them in retaliation is a MUST. I don't give a shit what our "conventional" capabilities are, if one is sent our way the offender gets canned sunshine in return. And if it is our civilian population that is targeted, then theirs is too but ten-fold.
I wish we had a like button.
Thats a better answer than some diplomatic BS response the doesn't even mean anything. Whats he supposed say? No I won't use them even if America is getting nuked?
I think he said exactly what he should have said. No President should ever want to use nukes. But every President should be prepared to use nukes if they have to.
Agree, that was kind of a no-brainer.
Averageman
06-05-19, 22:24
I am against EVER using them first. However, I believe that using them in retaliation is a MUST. I don't give a shit what our "conventional" capabilities are, if one is sent our way the offender gets canned sunshine in return. And if it is our civilian population that is targeted, then theirs is too but ten-fold.
When I was a kid, my Dad told me never be the first one to throw a punch.
That didn't serve me well and until I decided he was wrong, I took a couple serious beatings.
School yard fights and nukes are different, but never say never.
Im all for nukes! Nukes restores balance, gives meaning, a different perspective and a sense of purpose for those being nuked! Look at Japan, we nuked them, twice, and our relationship couldn't be any better. Stronger than ever, like BFF's. Now look at all the nations we didn't nuke! They hate us, disrespect us, treat us like shit and take advantage of us. We can bring a sense of unity and admiration to this world with a simple nuke!
LOL
Yeah way to make America great again, bruh!
Openly threatening (with nukes, no less) a nation half the world away that:
a) isn't flagrantly violating your territorial sovereignty by pumping "immigrants" across your vast unprotected./shoddily protected border
b) isn't actively building mosques, training and sending the most rabid Jihadist imams to said mosques to further agitate and wage Jihad (of both the legal and illegal variety)
Meanwhile Mexico and Saudi Arabia, respectively, are doing both those things.
But I guess Mexico and Saudi Arabia aren't rivals and ancient hated tribal enemies of Our Greatest Ally, so policy will be tailored accordingly.
#MIGA
I don't think Pres. Trump is threatening anybody. I think he was asked about them, and said the only thing a President should say: "We don't want to, but if it comes down to it, and we must, I am capable of doing so." As has been mentioned, it was basically the best thing he could have said. You can't say you'd never use them as they then become worthless and no longer a deterrent.
what should he say NO we will never use them I would never use them ?
reckon every president says they are ready to use cause that is part of the job if he said I WANT to use them that would be scary
if I ask you are you going to die ? you can only answer that with yes nothing else cause no other answer exists ? the president IMHO has the same no other answer can exist for the US
to use them first or not ? glad we as a country did use them first saved a lot of lives and folks learned a lot
there is NO definitive answer (and should not be) to when and how
also piers morgan is a moron trying to set him up for a sound bite to be used by the left that is all nothing more
Good launch em all. We can play Fallout for real
Grand58742
06-06-19, 06:59
Agree, that was kind of a no-brainer.
Well, he was dealing with Piers Morgan.
I don't think Pres. Trump is threatening anybody. I think he was asked about them, and said the only thing a President should say: "We don't want to, but if it comes down to it, and we must, I am capable of doing so." As has been mentioned, it was basically the best thing he could have said. You can't say you'd never use them as they then become worthless and no longer a deterrent.
Oh yeah, you think so?
Well, let me ask you then, how do you think he would respond if asked about using nukes on Saudi Arabia or Israel?
Obviously that question would never be asked by any network owned by one/both of the above mentioned groups, but let's say just hypothetically.
Do you think he would say "We don't want to, but if it comes down to it, and we must, I am capable of doing so." ?
Mmmmmmmmm, I doubt it.
Btw Saudi Arabia and Israel have, and continue to, do orders of magnitude far more egregious and insidious acts against the interests of the American people (as well as Canadians, Europeans, Australians, etc. you get the picture) than Iran.
also piers morgan is a moron trying to set him up for a sound bite to be used by the left that is all nothing more
He and Piers are buddies, actually.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/30/piers-morgan-defends-friendship-with-donald-trump
Adrenaline_6
06-06-19, 13:12
Oh yeah, you think so?
Well, let me ask you then, how do you think he would respond if asked about using nukes on Saudi Arabia or Israel?
Obviously that question would never be asked by any network owned by one/both of the above mentioned groups, but let's say just hypothetically.
Do you think he would say "We don't want to, but if it comes down to it, and we must, I am capable of doing so." ?
Mmmmmmmmm, I doubt it.
Btw Saudi Arabia and Israel have, and continue to, do orders of magnitude far more egregious and insidious acts against the interests of the American people (as well as Canadians, Europeans, Australians, etc. you get the picture) than Iran.
...but they won't ask that, because we are not in an official "conflict" with them at the moment. If we were, the answer would be exactly the same - as well it should be. You don't narrow your options as small as that narrowing may be.
WickedWillis
06-06-19, 13:38
We will (most likely) never be the first to use them against another Country. To be blatantly honest though, I hope no one uses them again in my lifetime. To threaten it is just posturing. He is doing a dick measuring flash to see what the response will be.
He gave the obvious answer, bravo I guess. The problem is given his thin skin, reactionary nature & fits of rage I don't know that he'd "think about it" at all before doing it.
The_War_Wagon
06-06-19, 15:48
Taking in to consideration bump stocks and now suppressors, has he been meeting with Eric Swalwell?
I was gonna nominate him to Trump, as a, "calibrating target." :jester:
Grand58742
06-07-19, 07:00
He gave the obvious answer, bravo I guess. The problem is given his thin skin, reactionary nature & fits of rage I don't know that he'd "think about it" at all before doing it.
And how many nukes has he slung around the globe since being elected because of his thin skinned, reactionary nature?
That's the same Democrat talking point was used prior to the election along with a bunch of mouthbreathing Democrats in Congress trying to take away the President's authority to use nuclear weapons. Guess what? Just more fear mongering from the liberal idiots on the left you've bought into.
Congrats and give yourself a piece of cake.
And how many nukes has he slung around the globe since being elected because of his thin skinned, reactionary nature?
That's the same Democrat talking point was used prior to the election along with a bunch of mouthbreathing Democrats in Congress trying to take away the President's authority to use nuclear weapons. Guess what? Just more fear mongering from the liberal idiots on the left you've bought into.
Congrats and give yourself a piece of cake.
No nukes yet, just dumb trade wars and unguided diplomacy bombs. Not confidence inspiring. I haven't bought into anyone's talking points. I've had an extremely low opinion of Trump for at least a decade before he ran for President. It baffles me what the draw to the guy is, he's a hustler ( and not in a good way). I do love cake though.
I am against EVER using them first. However, I believe that using them in retaliation is a MUST. I don't give a shit what our "conventional" capabilities are, if one is sent our way the offender gets canned sunshine in return. And if it is our civilian population that is targeted, then theirs is too but ten-fold.
I agree, but nuclear winters also aren't fun... even a small nuclear exchange between a couple countries would have seriously bad global impacts on the eco system.
My take on it is, I guess it just depends on what and how many they hit us with first...
LOL
Yeah way to make America great again, bruh!
Openly threatening (with nukes, no less) a nation half the world away that:
a) isn't flagrantly violating your territorial sovereignty by pumping "immigrants" across your vast unprotected./shoddily protected border
b) isn't actively building mosques, training and sending the most rabid Jihadist imams to said mosques to further agitate and wage Jihad (of both the legal and illegal variety)
Meanwhile Mexico and Saudi Arabia, respectively, are doing both those things.
But I guess Mexico and Saudi Arabia aren't rivals and ancient hated tribal enemies of Our Greatest Ally, so policy will be tailored accordingly.
#MIGA
Those are valid points, however, one also needs to look at what Iran is doing globally, and, from what little I know, it does seem that they are behind fomenting a lot of terrorism and unrest in the ME and elsewhere, so...There's more than enough reason for us to be antagonistic with them. Although I also think half of this constant Iran-oriented saber rattling is us just looking to find an excuse to invade them on top of everything else... :rolleyes:
But I also think, as you've said, that there are FAR more threatening countries and events for us to focus on, both for national security and global stability.
also piers morgan is a moron trying to set him up for a sound bite to be used by the left that is all nothing more
This.
It's funny, because PM has had some good shit to say against the lunacy going on in recent years, but then as soon as Trump gets in the room he goes right back to his old lefty self...
I think Trump is just acknowledging that there are lots of nukes in the world today, and that if ' Anyone '
were to use one on us, kiss your ass good bye !
And how many nukes has he slung around the globe since being elected because of his thin skinned, reactionary nature?
That's the same Democrat talking point was used prior to the election along with a bunch of mouthbreathing Democrats in Congress trying to take away the President's authority to use nuclear weapons. Guess what? Just more fear mongering from the liberal idiots on the left you've bought into.
Congrats and give yourself a piece of cake.
Anyone old enough to remember Reagan being labeled as such by the libtards? He was referred to as a "cowboy".
I agree, but nuclear winters also aren't fun... even a small nuclear exchange between a couple countries would have seriously bad global impacts on the eco system.
My take on it is, I guess it just depends on what and how many they hit us with first...
So you would absorb a nuclear strike on the U.S. without retaliating in kind, even one-for one? You would be impeached or have a coup. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans dead but "We need to suck it up for the environment?" :rolleyes:
Grand58742
06-08-19, 00:28
Anyone old enough to remember Reagan being labeled as such by the libtards? He was referred to as a "cowboy".
Yeah, I don't remember Congress making statements that his authority under law to use nuclear weapons should be removed.
Of course, Congress wasn't so unhinged back then that I remember.
Yeah, I don't remember Congress making statements that his authority under law to use nuclear weapons should be removed.
Of course, Congress wasn't so unhinged back then that I remember.
No, not specifically, but they were terrified of Ronnie, convinced his "cowboy" swashbuckling ways were gonna land us smack in the middle of a nuclear war with the Soviets.
No, not specifically, but they were terrified of Ronnie, convinced his "cowboy" swashbuckling ways were gonna land us smack in the middle of a nuclear war with the Soviets.
Was congress as big of communist sympathizers back then as they are today?
It was before my time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Was congress as big of communist sympathizers back then as they are today?
It was before my time.
Well both houses of Congress had been in Democrat hands pretty much for decades. While they were still leftists they weren't as extreme as they have been in recent years. Talk about "The Swamp"! There were no new up-and-comers to shake things up (i.e. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, et al). This was the era of Tip O'Neill and his cronies on one side and Bob Dole and company on the other.
Grand58742
06-08-19, 13:30
Well both houses of Congress had been in Democrat hands pretty much for decades. While they were still leftists they weren't as extreme as they have been in recent years. Talk about "The Swamp"! There were no new up-and-comers to shake things up (i.e. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, et al). This was the era of Tip O'Neill and his cronies on one side and Bob Dole and company on the other.
They'd fight like cats and dogs during session, but then invite each other over for dinner in the evening.
Politics was civil back then. Or as civil as it could be.
I agree, but nuclear winters also aren't fun... even a small nuclear exchange between a couple countries would have seriously bad global impacts on the eco system.
My take on it is, I guess it just depends on what and how many they hit us with first...
Honestly, once they send theirs, concerns about "environment" are a bottom priority. The real question is will anyone come out alive. Our enemies need to understand there is no such thing as a limited exchange, it's a buy one get ten free situation.
Everyone needs to be one the same page that it's "all or nothing." Every President needs to understand that reality and as much as I disliked Obama and hated Clinton I think even they understood that reality. The only one who may not have fully gotten it is Carter and even then I can't say for sure, he was in the Navy so he should have grasped certain realities.
Grand58742
06-08-19, 20:37
Honestly, once they send theirs, concerns about "environment" are a bottom priority. The real question is will anyone come out alive. Our enemies need to understand there is no such thing as a limited exchange, it's a buy one get ten free situation.
Everyone needs to be one the same page that it's "all or nothing." Every President needs to understand that reality and as much as I disliked Obama and hated Clinton I think even they understood that reality. The only one who may not have fully gotten it is Carter and even then I can't say for sure, he was in the Navy so he should have grasped certain realities.
The thing is, I'm not sure all Presidents have "got it" in regards to the reality of an exchange. Say we had a rogue state or even a terrorist group use a nuclear device in a major city. Would we retaliate against their population (or in the case of a terrorist group, the country they are based from) especially after having time to think about it? An outright exchange with China or Russia is easy. They aren't going to send over a single nuke at us. It will come with overwhelming force and we'll counter. Because the President won't have time to think it over.
On the other hand, a single North Korean nuke? Say it's targeted against a city within range of their missiles. Would we overwhelmingly attack them in a 10:1 ratio? Especially knowing the fallout portion would be heading straight over Japan and eventually over the US? Would our allies support such an overwhelming response? Emotion will play a part in such a retaliation after having the time to think it over. I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't turn highly political on the home front in the aftermath. "We didn't have to use nuclear weapons! Orange Man Bad/Kenyan Man for destroying a helpless country!"
This won't sound right the way I'm about to say it, but the Cold War was easy. They light us up, we light them up. MAD at its finest. Today, the nuclear paradigm is not so clear in regards to third party actors. I'm not sure any President would be so quick to strike back after having time to think it over. I'm not saying they won't, but there would be a serious pause with some before sending out those codes.
The thing is, I'm not sure all Presidents have "got it" in regards to the reality of an exchange. Say we had a rogue state or even a terrorist group use a nuclear device in a major city. Would we retaliate against their population (or in the case of a terrorist group, the country they are based from) especially after having time to think about it? An outright exchange with China or Russia is easy. They aren't going to send over a single nuke at us. It will come with overwhelming force and we'll counter. Because the President won't have time to think it over.
On the other hand, a single North Korean nuke? Say it's targeted against a city within range of their missiles. Would we overwhelmingly attack them in a 10:1 ratio? Especially knowing the fallout portion would be heading straight over Japan and eventually over the US? Would our allies support such an overwhelming response? Emotion will play a part in such a retaliation after having the time to think it over. I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't turn highly political on the home front in the aftermath. "We didn't have to use nuclear weapons! Orange Man Bad/Kenyan Man for destroying a helpless country!"
This won't sound right the way I'm about to say it, but the Cold War was easy. They light us up, we light them up. MAD at its finest. Today, the nuclear paradigm is not so clear in regards to third party actors. I'm not sure any President would be so quick to strike back after having time to think it over. I'm not saying they won't, but there would be a serious pause with some before sending out those codes.
So with respect to your scenarios.
Terrorist group. Hard call. We can't light up Moscow because some Chechen radicals brought a suitcase or improvised nuke to the US. Really comes down to delivery system. You pretty much need state support to send a nuke to us and we can pretty well determine where it came from. So if a missile is launched from Pakistan, even if they officially deny having anything to do with it, we still nuke em hard. If it turns out the a radical Islamic group gained control of a missile launch site, then that is still Pakistan's problem the same as it would be ours if a bunch of Tim McVeigh types somehow took over a US ICBM site and targeted Pakistan, which is why we do everything we can to make sure that never happens.
Rogue state. Doesn't matter if North Korea sends a single missile in the 1 kiloton range. Complete and total retaliation is the response with the only consideration being South Korea and other bordering countries. We can't expect China to choke on nuclear exhaust because it was time to smack pork chop kid so obviously it will be more of a Hiroshima yield device than a dozen in the megaton range. And honestly we only have to obliterate Pyongyang and selected military targets, we don't have to kill every man, woman and child, especially since we will probably roll in, occupy and rebuild.
As for what Presidents understand, like I said I'd hope they all realize the nature of the game. From Truman forward the only one I'd have wondered about is Carter. Even Clinton realized DC would be in the Top 10 list and in any nuclear exchange he started with a 50/50 chance of personal survival at best.
Dr. Bullseye
06-08-19, 23:30
Haven't we learned anything since 2002? Iran has no nukes. Further, even if they did, Iran has no delivery system capable of hitting the US mainland. If Trump is afraid of Iranians in Western Asia, remove our troops. If Trump is afraid Iran will bully "our allies in the region", meaning Israel, well, that's Israel's problem. Screw them. Israel certainly didn't help us as much with ISIS as Iran did.
Get back to the real issue---Mexico.
Grand58742
06-09-19, 08:10
So with respect to your scenarios.
Terrorist group. Hard call. We can't light up Moscow because some Chechen radicals brought a suitcase or improvised nuke to the US. Really comes down to delivery system. You pretty much need state support to send a nuke to us and we can pretty well determine where it came from. So if a missile is launched from Pakistan, even if they officially deny having anything to do with it, we still nuke em hard. If it turns out the a radical Islamic group gained control of a missile launch site, then that is still Pakistan's problem the same as it would be ours if a bunch of Tim McVeigh types somehow took over a US ICBM site and targeted Pakistan, which is why we do everything we can to make sure that never happens.
Rogue state. Doesn't matter if North Korea sends a single missile in the 1 kiloton range. Complete and total retaliation is the response with the only consideration being South Korea and other bordering countries. We can't expect China to choke on nuclear exhaust because it was time to smack pork chop kid so obviously it will be more of a Hiroshima yield device than a dozen in the megaton range. And honestly we only have to obliterate Pyongyang and selected military targets, we don't have to kill every man, woman and child, especially since we will probably roll in, occupy and rebuild.
As for what Presidents understand, like I said I'd hope they all realize the nature of the game. From Truman forward the only one I'd have wondered about is Carter. Even Clinton realized DC would be in the Top 10 list and in any nuclear exchange he started with a 50/50 chance of personal survival at best.
The game of nuclear brinkmanship has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War and the efforts at proliferation by other nation states and rogue groups. Your North Korea scenario makes sense, but again, swapping city for city will become a political matter rather than a military one. I wouldn't expect immediate retaliation with such a thing and even then, the opposing party will damn all the actions (or inactions) taken by the sitting POTUS. The days of national unity seen after 9/11 are gone forever in my opinion. Even in a nuclear attack, I feel politicians will do their normal thing and second guess and Monday morning quarterback each and every decision made by the POTUS in regards to what happens next.
Haven't we learned anything since 2002? Iran has no nukes. Further, even if they did, Iran has no delivery system capable of hitting the US mainland. If Trump is afraid of Iranians in Western Asia, remove our troops. If Trump is afraid Iran will bully "our allies in the region", meaning Israel, well, that's Israel's problem. Screw them. Israel certainly didn't help us as much with ISIS as Iran did.
Get back to the real issue---Mexico.
Iran doesn't have to hit the US to start a global conflict.
Haven't we learned anything since 2002? Iran has no nukes. Further, even if they did, Iran has no delivery system capable of hitting the US mainland. If Trump is afraid of Iranians in Western Asia, remove our troops. If Trump is afraid Iran will bully "our allies in the region", meaning Israel, well, that's Israel's problem. Screw them. Israel certainly didn't help us as much with ISIS as Iran did.
Get back to the real issue---Mexico.
The main reason we are worked up about Iran is because the Saudis are. Our politicians are desperate to continue the spending spree that the Petro Dollar makes possible, so they jump when the Saudis say “go attack so-and-so cuz we scared and we want to rule Islam!”
I think Trump’s answer was about nuke policy in general and any country should consider if the shoe fits then wear it. If they have no plans to attack us or our allies then no worries. I think the grey area for the US is what would our response be to a nuke attack on an ally since we have a wide range of allies. To me the list of allies that we would respond for with nukes is very short. Many nominal allies have criticized our nuke policy and worked hard to disarm.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.