Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nukes Against ISIS

I did not say we should use Nukes, I said there is nothing wrong with threatening to use them.

 

What value has a threat if you don't follow through?

 

I do t know what's all the astonishment is about - no Commander-in-Chief should rule out use of nukes. None knows the future circumstances.

 

There is no need to follow through right now, there is no strategic need. But letting the world know that Nukes are always on the table is vital. Otherwise it is a waste of our greatest source of power.

 

You should never rule out an option until you are in the situation that requires you to make the call. That he won't rule it out, doesn't mean he would use them.

 

Why would anybody commit to not using some form of defense against an enemy?

That would just be absolutely stupid for a couple of different reasons.

1. It tells the enemy, no matter what, we don't plan on using weapons at our disposal. That would be like telling a criminal, no matter what, I'm ruling out capital punishment. Maybe he wouldn't have killed somebody if he knew that, maybe he would... but why would you say that?

2. If ISIS was to get their hands on nukes and start attacking NATO countries dropping the bomb on them, of course a retaliatory strike to squelch the attack would be in order. Who knows what would happen in the future.


So... whats the logical point of making absolute statements other than political bodies trying to use cannon fodder and entrampment to make a politician look bad?

In my opinion, anybody asking the question is a friggen moron.

 

Threatening to use nukes and then not using them damages credibility.

If we have no intention of using nukes to attack ISIS, simply say that. It costs us nothing.

 

So if a city had 500 ISIS fighters in it....and a civilian population of 500,000 men, women, children...

would you nuke that city?

 

Unless you also consider that one of his major campaign advisor said of nukes "what's the point in having them if we don't use them?"

 

If it is Obama who threatens - no value, just a good laugh. If it was Reagan or Kennedy - holy (*)(*)(*)(*), better run for the bunker!

 

That must be because we are stupid compared to the oh-so-intellectually superior Trump lovers. Because we do not agree with you, in your mind, we are the intellectual inferiors. Got it. I am sure that some day you will look back and see what a mistake you've made salivating after this compulsive liar.

 

Like when Reagan threatened the insurgents in Lebanon but cut and ran the instant it got difficult?

 

He must be the reincarnation of General Curtis Lemay.

 

So if I had two choices which road to travel, short but boring and longer but scenic, which road would I take?

 

breathe is wasted trying to explain this to you...good day.

 

As a general rule, the American military, when ordered into battle, fights hard without hate, gets the job done, and retreats back into civilian life. After World War II, with so much devastation, and the new powerful Soviet military threat, and communism taking over China, we discovered that policy of retreating back into the comfort of civilian life for our military wasn't totally in the cards. That's why we maintained thousands of troops and aircraft in Germany; combat troops on the 38th parallel in South Korea to protect them, and Japan, and the U.S. Navy to control the Formosa Straights between mainland China and Taiwan. It is also why we maintain a nuclear force of LSA (Land; Sea and Air), with the navy traveling the world's ocean's in mega carrier groups to various hot spots on the globe. Although it doesn't stop local or territorial wars it does prevent the major nuclear war from occurring at the hands of Russia, China, or anybody else who hates America using nukes on us. Also, they know the United States nuclear submarine service still holds the trump card in any hot war, with the capability of taking out most countries with nukes, without use of our Air Force or the land based ICBM's. Heck, the Fast Attack subs can crawl up off of anybody's coast and launch missiles, conventional, which would create devastation in any country. Strengthening our military - one of the major themes of any Trump presidency.

ISIS; PLO; Hamas; Hezbollah; Cuba; Al Quida, and any other number of terrorist military forces in existence today or in the past, or future, are dangerous enough, and financed sufficiently, with countries like North Korea and Iran holding nuclear capability (we gave the latter it, and paid em under Obama), have the ability to purchase the necessary components for such a nuclear "dirty bomb" and they wouldn't hesitate one bit to use it on the NYC Subway or Washington Metro Station's to destroy our two largest cities. Would do it in a heartbeat. If such a thing occurs - their "families" and civilians who cover and support them, (those that don't are part of that major refugee problem fleeing the Middle East), become targets for retaliation, and if nuclear is used on us, or biological or chemical, American policy has always maintained that the response would be nuclear. Any President refusing to do so would be impeached - fast............

 

THey didn't ask him about strategy, they asked him if he would take nukes off the table.

He answered, an obvious and resounding "no". Its a very different question to ask HOW he would deploy them. They didn't ask that.

 

She.

Same chick who said "So what? They're just Muslims" when asked if Trump's policies could result in civil rights violations.

 

Using nuclear weapons would be completely idiotic and counterproductive for fighting Islamic terrorists over the long-term. Nuclears weapons = mass civilian casualties = lots of people who will want revenge. That's why you rule it out.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) my friend - Reagan did not run, he implemented new rules of engagement following deterioration of cituation, somethng like that.

 

He didn't say that either.

Some of you all's reading comprehension is absolutely atrocious.

 

Except he did run. The US withdrew from Lebanon the instant casualties started hearing up. Your Conservative hero cut and ran.

 

And started naval bombardment unseen from Vietnam... From the safe distance...

 

Reagan apologists say "Yeah, he ...withdrew...but then he bombed them."

- - - Updated - - -

See? Ask for details on how long it lasted.

 

Why would anybody publicly rule out anything for dealing with our enemies? And if he had, what effect would such a statement have, and who would benefit most from it? I would think it would benefit us for our enemies to believe we're about to unleash a 36,000 gallon train car of whoop-ass on them, even if we're really not.