If I Were President

What if I had an agreeable congress? House and Senate?

 

Sure ABMs will work against submarine launched missiles. And neither Russia or China has many of those nowadays anyway.

Cruise missiles can be intercepted by any weapon that can shoot down an aircraft.

 

I'm sure the U.S. could ride out 10 or so nuclear weapons striking the continental United States.

 

That’s just not realistic, because you would need not just republicans, you’d need strong conservatives who don’t need to worry about risking reelection for being too far to the right.
It seems to me you think you can grow economy by 50% in 8 years. That’s just unreal. President doesn’t really have that much influence on the economy. You can’t just tell the economy “grow” and expect it to obey.
I’d increase the number of nukes in the US and would truly weaponize space while we are still ahead.
Cutting expenditures drastically, especially social safety nets might cause shock to the economy, which would work against your plan for 50%.
I think having state funded TV channel makes sense (at least one station).
You can’t do much about abortions and they are the law of the land now, I think cons should really let it go. I’d only go after rules that allow late term abortions after 20 weeks (which are extremely rare anyway).
As for morality - who are you to judge? I don’t think it’s governments business to even get involved.
Also, I’d legalize all drugs - it’s better to deal with drug addicts than deal with gangs. Drug taxes would pay for free rehab facilities.

Ohh, and what’s your beef with porn? Jeezus, man, if it was up to me I’d legalize prostitution - two consenting adults should be within their right to do anything they want, whether it’s for love or money is none of our business.

 

Not cruse missiles they can't .. and doubtful on the ballistic - proof of claim.

and your comparison of a cruise missile to an aircraft is laughable.

 

Of course we could .. rebuilding would take years and the cost astronomical. Time to do some EMP research..... never mind the 10 cities wiped off the map and the 30,000 square miles of fallout zones.

What do you figure that would cost ? .. Fact of the matter is that we would be hit by hundreds if not thousands.

You also forgot the Massive Tidal waves .. produced from a 100 megaton undersea explosion .. and failed to even consider the biological weapon factor.

Get out of dreamland and wake up to reality - no security in your lifetime from nukes .. so lets try not to have such a war .. and stop wasting money on the arms race and pretending that Russia/China are conventional threats to the homeland....

 

That is basically what they are. Small, unmanned aircraft.

 

If cities are targeted then they would be hit by air bursts which means very little fallout.

And why do you talk about some superweapon the Russians like to claim they built when no evidence of it actually exists. The supposed 100 megaton warhead to create tsunamis. ?

Another weapon that would be easily interceptable even if it existed.

 

The entire Russian strategic nuclear arsenal available for use is about 1,500 warheads. Hardly "thousands". And if you figure an average 30% failure rate that means 1,050 that would work correctly.

Target them with 3,000 ABMs and you would thin out that immensely.

 

Cruise missile is pretty much a drone - it has wings and uses jet or turboprop engines to propel itself.
Most of surface to air and air to air missiles can intercept a cruise missile.
Though they are relatively slow, they are still widely used because they can be guided and they can flow at low altitudes which makes them harder to see on the radar.

 

It is true that a cruise missiles are more similar to drones these day - really sophisticated ones. Not all cruise missiles are slow - not the some of the ones produced by China, Russia, and India. In some ways the slower ones can be harder because they can fly lower and are super hard to detect. Some of the cruise missiles will vary the speed based on altitude.

While some of the air defense products could possibly intercept a cruise missile - it is an extremely difficult task.

Keep in mind we are talking nukes here - being able to hit the thing a few miles from impact doesn't do you much good.

 

No, you are wrong.
All modern nukes have protective mechanisms. It’s nearly impossible to get the nuke to detonate when the system does not want it to detonate.
I read somewhere once that they are so hardy that you can blow up a nuke and you won’t have nuclear explosion. Everyone must do that because all nukes sit there for many years and no one wants them to accidentally blow up.
So, yes, blowing up a warhead even 1 mile before it’s intended target will save the day.

 

come on ... we are talking smart technology here .. you are talking ancient history. They can set it to do what ever they like.. and if it is a nuclear cruise missile with the intent on taking out an ABM battery prior to launch ... the Russians are going to do what it takes.

Seriously - you are talking like the Russian military has not had the conversation we are having ?

These are special missiles - the newest of the new - whose main intent is to take out ABM's

Russia has been at the forefront of missile technology for decades. When the cold war ended ..after the wall fell ... Russia realized it could not compete ship for ship, plane for plane. Russia has a total of 1 (one) aircraft carrier- and we are not even sure if that one ready for the Sea.

What they did was focus their resources on niche technologies. Missiles being a big one. You can build a whole lot of missiles (at 1 million a pop) for the price of a 13 Billion dollar aircraft carrier + cost of operation and battle group.

In the mid 90's Russia came out with the Sunburn anti ship cruise missile. The first super sonic cruise missile of its class. A sea skimming missile which is not detected (sans an AWAC nearby on heightened alert) until it breaches the horizon at which point the ship has roughly 40-50 seconds to react.

At the time we had no defence and were a decade behind in having such a weapon ourselves.

Since then - India and Russia have worked together on this technology - India's version is called the Brahmos. Later innovations on this technology such as the oniks class were both smart and stealthy - taking evasive maneuvers prior to hitting the target .

The increased speed reduced detection time from 20-30 seconds. not hypersonic but really fast. And many innovations since then.

Then China joined in - can't recall when that was but was long ago... 3 Nation States - working on the same technology....whose intent - is to take out those ABM sites.

If you think that the conversation - "well gosh - if the missile has safety features enabled and gets hit - it will not explode " has not happened once or twice over the table - you would be wrong.

As you stated earlier - These missiles are drones - they see - they react - and they think - and who knows what else these 3 major nation states - representing roughly 1/3 of the worlds population are coming up with.

Did you think the stuff that hit Saudi Arabia was fancy ? I was impressed - technologically speaking. No so much impressed with the air defenses .. thats for sure.

As I have been stating ad nauseum .. Missile technology has advanced - and is advancing - at a rate that is greater than the ability to defend -

But this impressive technology was not from the 3 nation consortia. It was home made stuff from Iran. Mind you .. Iran picked up on this idea as well and has greatly advanced technologically with respect to making missiles and drone technology.

What we saw from Iran - is nothing in comparison to the stuff the consortia is putting out.

Don't kid yourself - we know this is a huge threat - and we know we are behind. Hopefully we can get to the space station in 2020 when our contract with the Russians ends.

Our hope is in the hands of Elon Musk .. and there are concerns that his product will not be ready. The Russians ( and partners) have never stopped working on Rocket technology. - China has recently been to the moon and .. who else .. thinking thinking .. India .. right.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/science/india-moon-landing-chandrayaan-2.html

There were some hiccups with India's first attempt ... but that is not the point.

So lets break the ABM treaty Bush-2002, and then put ABM's on Russia's border - (plan announced 2007)

This action threatened to destabilize nuclear detente - Russia was then forced to take counter measures. "Nukes in Space" were brought up as a contender. Fortunately it did not get to that.

Russia made moves to revamp its Sub fleet - and anti ABM technology - cruse missiles - the tactical nuclear kind.

and the Consortia has been working on this technology at a fevered pitch .. while we rely on Elon Musk.

So far I have limited the technological advancement convo to below hypersonic.

Hypersonic is a game changer .. this is fancy rocket/missile technology at its finest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_(missile)

but .. the anti ship hypersonic technology - incorporated into the Brahmos - was a year or two ago.

The Russian's were the first to introduce hypersonic anti ship missiles - first with the Kinzhal and now the Zircon.

So lets have an arms race ... yeah .. lets provoke Russia by putting ABM's on their boarder and ideas of anti missile defense from space.

How are you going to stop a hypersonic missile launched from a sub - 500 miles off our coast - from hitting the homeland - a missile you may not know is coming .. that is travelling at 6000 mph. And even if you do see it coming you have 5 minute reaction window .

You have no idea what the missile is targeting ... the missile can fly where it wants .. on what ever path it wants.

And lets not forget

The battle cruisers will carry 72 of these things 2020 deployment date - and we don't know how we would defend against one - never mind numerous waves of these missiles.

and they keep working - this 3 nation consortia .. Unfortunately - we and the Israeli's have been the only ones to field drone technology on missions to kill people - so we have not gotten to see some of the Consortia's product in action.

but don't kid yourself .. they are better than we are in the missile department at the moment -and better in missile defense .. S-300 - 400 - 500 , ------ the consortia's drone technology is not going to be second rate.

And the Consortia can make that tactical nuclear cruise missile detonate when ever - and wherever they want it to .. and at the end of the day ..even if you were not incorrect ... it matters not - because we can't shoot these things down.

 

The faster a missile travels the less maneuverable it is.

But beyond a pointless argument when the other side is basically arguing that the "Russians are ten feet tall and bullet proof".

Note for those of you who say "It's impossible to reduce the federal budget deficit by 50% in one year".

Please note 1996 to 1997.

U.S. Deficit by Year Compared to GDP, Debt, and Events

The U.S. federal budget deficit was reduced by 80% in a single year.
And 2012 to 2013, federal budget deficit reduced by 38% in a single year.
And this was despite the presidency and Congress being held by opposing parties.

So it is doable. It has been done within the memory of many of us.

 

Obviously my ideas (actually not mine, others formulated them, I just collected them) for reducing the U.S. federal budget deficit are more relevant than ever.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ses-26-to-984-billion-for-fiscal-2019.563435/

 

Some general campaign themes I've written down that I wanted try out:

Note all of them long predate the Trump campaign so they have no relation to Make America Great Again.

"America is great but we shall be greater still."

"Great nations do great things."

"I promise not to steal too much or lie too often".

"We as a people are more than what we've become".

 

21) Reduce the infant mortality rate of black infants in the U.S. by 50%

 

There's nothing in your list that isn't feasible, if it were up to me I would have a hard time choosing which ones to do first. This is the kind of stuff we should be doing, should choose to do instead of the inexplicable things our government blows our money on. No single proposal that requires government financing should be approved without iron clad proof of it's benefit. If someone in congress wants to push some pork for their state the onus is on them to show the need and the benefit. Of course nothing in your platform squares with the surreal twilight zone that America has become. Still I'd vote for you in a heartbeat.

 

Thank you. I appreciate your support and hope I can bring it to pass. Of course I would need a lot of support. Public support from hundreds of millions of Americans and cooperation from the Senate and House.

 

I would issue no executive orders or signing statements.

 

If I were president I would avoid appointing anyone who was an Ivy League graduate to a government position. I'm against what I see as a growing trend of "elitism" in much of American government so I would declare a four year or eight year moratorium on appointing anyone who graduated from an Ivy League school.


While some will say that "means you are not appointing the best people" there are dozens of institutions of higher learning in the U.S. considered to be the equal of any of the Ivy League (Duke, University of Chicago, USC, Notre Dame to name just four off hand). so there is no lack of people with outstanding educations available.

 

Rebooted upon request at another board.

 

9. Create an advanced armored regiment of no more than 6,500 troops with integral air support that can be easily air or sea lifted to a trouble spot within 48 hours that is fully capable of defeating a conventional military force numbering up to 50,000 troops in size.

why not create 65 super soldiers with flying capability able to defeat conventional forces up to 500,000? if we had that we would not need 12 groups of aircraft carrying targets and could easily meet your budget requirements.

 

Sweet f**king Jesus, are you serious? Really? REALLY???

 

of course you would. your people would explain why the orders are necessary. i agree on the signing statements.