Trump: Why Can't We Use Nukes???

When you make a monster, were they monsters all along or were your actions responsible?

 

You clearly do NOT understand what a nuclear weapon is...what it does...or what the reaction to it's use would be.

And neither does Trump

 

You do understand that "The Muslims" are not a homogenous, centrally controlled group but rather more than a billion people scattered across 6 continents, yes?

Why would a Muslim in Mindinao, or Urumqi, or Cartagena, or Dar es Salaam, or Dearborn react to us nuking some place in the Middle East with anything other than outrage and fury?

 

What country are we at war with that you want to drop this weapon on? What country are we at war with that the killing of their innocents is justified?
It is ridiculous that someone that could be President would ask the question.

 

Trump is such a bloody idiot. Also, I think the US should no longer be a democracy, for the american people have clearly showed they are not mature enough. Ffs, this clown might become president. It's disagraceful. At this point, I actually support a military coup or whatever. Seriously, Trump can't be president, it's really too dangerous.

 

Exactly. Who would you drop this horrific weapon ON?

And what would be the response?

The very idea is either insane or so incredibly stupid that it should disqualify anyone asking such a question

 

MAD!

Mutually Assured Destruction!

Everyone is a loser if we use nukes, everyone includes Americans.

 

There is no nation, or even any combination of nations, capable of doing that by conventional means.

 

i actually have more faith in muslims than you. I think that if the ISIS scenario comes where they are forced to "apostosize (convert) or join ISIS" most of them will leave Islam and join us in a 21st century religion.

I truly believe this will only end when Islam is dead.

- - - Updated - - -

i actually have more faith in muslims than you. I think that if the ISIS scenario comes where they are forced to "apostosize (convert) or join ISIS" most of them will leave Islam and join us in a 21st century religion.

I truly believe this will only end when Islam is dead.

 

mark my words. With the volume of islamic terror attacks happening at the rate it is happening there will be a time SOON when the world will be ok nuking them.

 

That scenario is not realistic and is predicated on a false dichotomy.

 

Nuking who?

Where would you drop these bombs?

 

I have said this repeatedly, there are certain circumstances under which nuclear weapons could be used in a first strike. The US defense strategy says as much.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no false dichotomy and the point is that the question is a good one for someone who is actually going to have to be President, and take the responsibility for insuring the safety of the country, to ask.

 

Name them!

 

No, the false dichotomy is that all Muslims must either reconvert or join ISIS. It's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid.

Let me give just one of the many examples of why: ISIS is a Sunni group. Why would Shia Muslims join it?

 

I have gone over it. But for the sake of discussion, if the very existence of the US government were threatened do to a conventional attack, and the ONLY way to prevent the destruction of the government was to use nuclear weapons, then under those circumstances a nuclear strike would be justified. Of course, there is nuance to that as well, but that is a general case.

 

What does a first strike with nuclear weapons have to do with Muslims converting to ISIS??????

 

Did you read Tsuke's post that I was commenting on that you jumped in to defend?

 

Just a drive by during a well earned hiatus....

Anyone that would even inquire about use of thermonuclear weapons as a first strike weapon should be immediately disqualified from any position of authority. Our national policy of MAD has restrained the other nuclear powers in check for over 50 years but only because the Soviets and now the Russians have the same policy. And just as a nuclear attack on our allies would require a nuclear response, the Russians would consider such a first strike as justification for release, (the "Mutual" part).

Until we rid ourselves of these terrible weapons we must live with the prospect of total destruction not just of our country, but the entire planet. If you don't understand that, you don't need to be anywhere near them.

 

I am so sorry!!! Somehow or another I got lost. I meant to respond to another post that you made.

Please forgive me!

 

Its hypothetical, but it is something to consider IF you are going to be president, REGARDLESS of whether an advisor brings it up or not.

You don't know if that is what he asked in the context of the said discussion.

 

That's fair. I was really curious how you could say his post was not a false dichotomy when it blatantly is.

 

I've been on security briefings. The speakers don't bring up u realistic hypotheticals. They talk about real security issues. The only major ones we have at the moment are the Russians in the Baltic (who Trump wants to hand over to the Russians without a fight unless they pay us protection money, also Russian nukes ensure MAD), the Spratley Island dispute (Chinese nukes prevent us from using nukes lest retaliation), and ISIS/Islamic terrorism.

There's really only one context in which he could have asked about nukes.

 

Did you miss my response when I pointed out that no single nation nor any combination of nations is capable of mounting a conventional attack capable of destroying this nation?

Since that threat does not exist there is no valid reason to use nukes.

Most certainly there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Tr(oll)mp to launch nuke strikes against ISIS.

Tr(oll)mp is way too dullwitted to be anywhere near the nuclear codes. The military would probably refuse to obey any such orders from him to use nukes and the GOP House would probably impeach him for issuing such orders.

 

OK! We are on the same page now! Let's go!

Why do you feel that he would have to be constrained by what the speakers bring up? If I were going to be president, especially if I were in the position that Trump is in of having never been in such discussions, or really having any idea what actually was taking place in the world, I would be asking all sorts of questions. I'm not kidding about that. I'm just doing stuff off the top of my head here in this forum. But if I were actually in a position where that is a job that I might have, you could bet I would spend many, many days preparing for such a discussion. I would go over such things as to the details of when it might be suitable to use nuclear weapons and would be hoping to hear robust, detailed responses. But that's me. I would hope that Trump, and Hillary Clinton for that matter would do the same. However, I think Clinton probably has a better idea of what is actually going on, having been secretary of state. So she might not have as much ground to cover as Trump initially.