General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(101,322 posts) Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:18 AM Dec 2015

Trump campaign: "What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?"

Yesterday, a Trump campaign spokeswoman advocated using nuclear weapons, to end 'perpetual wars'.

On The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson attacked Republicans for pushing endless war and talking tough. And then she asked, “What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-spox-asks-what-the-purpose-is-of-nuclear-triad-if-youre-afraid-to-use-it/

Another right wing guest did tell her that the point of nuclear weapons is to be afraid to use them, but this seemed to fly over her head.

I fear that a Trump presidency would end up using nuclear weapons, just because they're there. It's like the Fed and the interest rate rise - there's no sign of inflation, employment is still not that high, but they went ahead and raised the interest rate, just because they have the power to do so, and haven't done it for some time. Trump, and the kind of people he surrounds himself with, would nuke somewhere just to show that he's not 'afraid' to. The consequences for others of his actions don't enter into his brain.

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump campaign: "What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?" (Original Post) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2015 OP

That woman is nuts! N-V-T-S nuts! Scootaloo Dec 2015 #1

Nope. She is speaking to many who feel that way. Hortensis Dec 2015 #5

What is the rational for building weapons Downwinder Dec 2015 #2

Dunno. But its a Second Amendment right for citizens to bear arms progree Dec 2015 #8

Deterrence. Chan790 Dec 2015 #9

it's like having a gun! Enrique Dec 2015 #3

And his poll numbers probably went up. beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #4

I have always thought he would get us murielm99 Dec 2015 #6

Wow - that's not just WWIII talk, it's end-of-the-world talk. Vinca Dec 2015 #7

Go Trump! He will be the Last President we ever need. Katashi_itto Dec 2015 #10

the Cheney administration wanted to nuke irag... lame54 Dec 2015 #11

So Trump doesn't know about MAD, why am I not surprised. Rex Dec 2015 #12

We're saving them to bomb Agrabah ThoughtCriminal Dec 2015 #13

"What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you don't know what one is?" L. Coyote Dec 2015 #14

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)

1. That woman is nuts! N-V-T-S nuts!

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:25 AM

Dec 2015

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)

5. Nope. She is speaking to many who feel that way.

Reply to Scootaloo (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:10 AM

Dec 2015

They don't just include the sort of typical militant right wingers who start spouting off after the second drink but very notably our right-wing religious extremists. Pew estimated that a good 30 million Christians not only believe we are at the end of end-times but are looking forward to Armageddon. (Romney is one of them.)

And there is a political angle to this -- If they can't win at the polls, they are assured they will still "win." The ultimate bad losers.

We have to keep the White House out of their hands.

Downwinder

(12,869 posts)

2. What is the rational for building weapons

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 07:26 AM

Dec 2015

that will kill you if you use them?

progree

(10,909 posts)

8. Dunno. But its a Second Amendment right for citizens to bear arms

Reply to Downwinder (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 09:43 AM

Dec 2015

and the Founding Fathers chose not to place any limitations on the kind of arms. That would be a form of infringement.

[font size = 1]{sarcasm}[/font]

Chan790

(20,176 posts)

9. Deterrence.

Reply to Downwinder (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 10:35 AM

Dec 2015

It would have made the most sense to never build any in the first place, but we did so we could end WW II with less casualties. Then it made sense to build them because it gave us a strategic advantage in the Cold War as we had them and the Soviets did not. Then the Soviets built them to have a deterrent against our use of them against them. Then we built better ones as they built bigger ones for mutual deterrence purposes. Then they proposed to get rid of all of theirs if we got rid of ours at Reykjavik in 1987, but we didn't agree to that because we found them untrustworthy and thought they'd hold back weapons so we would have held back weapons which they didn't trust us to not hold back so they wanted site inspections so we wanted site inspections and in the end...it all turned into cold shoulders between Reagan's negotiators and Gorbachev's negotiators and everybody kept their weapons in order to deter the other from using them. Then the Soviets collapsed and lost control of most of their nuclear weapons which they had to buy back from Ukraine in exchange for promises that they would never assert a claim that Crimea or Eastern Ukraine were parts of Russia rather than Ukraine despite being predominantly ethnically, culturally and linguistically Russian--promises they broke within 20 years.

...and that is the summary of the history of the Cold War viewed through a brief explanation of "why build nuclear weapons" from someone whose family business is defense contracting and manufacturing, including making components of the US nuclear stockpile and ballistic missiles. (We also invest in real estate and mass transit manufacturing and restaurants and the stock market...diversification is key in a modern economy.)

We made a lot of money off politicians being stupid about the need for weapons of mutual annihilation for purposes of keeping "bad guys" from using their own nuclear weapons they only built to deter us from using ours against them.

(...and at this point, I have to throw out a shout-out to Dr. Wallace Thies, one of my professors at The Catholic University of America. Large parts of this summary are the result of thinking from coursework I performed in his Politics 447: War and Peace in the Nuclear Age class and discussion-group in 2001.)