The risk of nuclear war under Trump
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2026 16:28
VIEWED: 18293
PAGE 5 of 16
Quote:But what about the nukes? While you are hurling bombs at WishIMay, we have lost track of Trump.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.
It would be a worrying development if any president announced, with little debate or discussion, a plan to build more tactical nuclear weapons and use them in response to non-nuclear attacks; a nuclear strategy that makes the use of nukes more, not less, likely. But when that president is Donald J. Trump . . . Lest we forget, this is a president who, during his election campaign, displayed complete ignorance about the “nuclear triad”; called for an “unpredictable” nuclear weapons policy, while refusing to rule out using nukes against the Islamic State or even in Europe (because “it is a big place”); and asked a foreign policy adviser three times, during a single hourlong briefing, “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” This is a commander-in-chief, who since coming to office a year ago, has demanded a tenfold increase in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons; and casually threatened North Korea “with fire and fury like the world has never seen”.
Giving Trump new nukes and new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump Aide Boasted He Was A Kremlin Adviser 3 Years Before Dossier
Donald Trump’s campaign aide Carter Page boasted he was a “Kremlin adviser” in 2013, years before a dossier about Trump’s Russian connections was prepared during the presidential campaign, Time magazine reported.
Page, a key figure in the Republican-authored memo released Friday that Trump allies claim shows FBI bias against the president, bragged about his Kremlin connections in an Aug. 13, 2013, letter to an academic publication about a manuscript he had submitted, according to Time.
“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their presidency of the G-20 Summit next month,” Page wrote in the letter.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carter-page-kremlin-letter_us_5a7
7bc5de4b01ce33eb43d3a
T 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was going to get back to that.
But what about the nukes?- SECOND
It would be comforting to think that the desire for "tactical" nukes was just a money-grab, because THAT can be satisfied just by throwing money at the MIC; which is a far less dangerous posture than thinking that you're acutally going to ... yanno ... use them.
So, is our military really going to threaten other nuclear powers with nuclear weapons?
I see that there is rivalry between the CIA/State and Pentagon. Obama especially relied on a CIA/State "war on the cheap" approach (via NGOs, internal splinter groups, AID/NED, proxies, drones, spec ops/ contractors, and satraps) because of the bad optics and potential losses of "boots on the ground" invasions, but that approach failed in Syria, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, and (partially) Ukraine after decades of success.
Trump has reversed course on that: It's no secret that he's selected the military over the CIA/ State as his force. My hope is that military leadership has a more sober and realistic assessment on the limits of use of force. My fear is that the current military leadership so politicized that they will continue to forward the neocon goal of "full spectrum dominance". Full spectrum dominance, IMHO, is not only unethical and costly, it is extremely DANGEROUS to American security.
Clouding the interpretation of the situation is that Trump quite often doesn't mean what he says, and will often say things to force events in the opposite direction. For example: "You want hostility to Russia? YOU GOT IT!" Sometimes, nothing makes your butt pucker more than getting what you SAY you want, in spades.
So shortly before the US military attacked a Syrian Army affiliate east of the Euphrates, and Lavrov pulled the pin on a political grenade by formally accusing the United States of attempting to "partition" Syria, Russian intelligence officials were here in the USA meeting with other intelligence officials. What was the content of the meeting? We'll attack your guys east of the Euphrates, and we understand that you have to say a lot of bad things about it, but I gotta get these neocons off my back"?
The only definitive evidence as to what this all "means" .... bluster versus judo versus reality ... is WHERE THOSE WARHEADS ARE EVENTUALLY PLACED. Putting them on missiles right on the Russian border, within minutes of Moscow, is a supremely destabilizing action.
It's possible that, after having voted for Trump to reduce our footprint around the world, we're right back with the more "kinetic" approach in Syria that Hillary promised; possibly Trump has been out-maneuvered by neocons, who have packed both the secrecy-state and the MIC. OTOH, there may be negotiations going on in the background that we know nothing about. So for me, this is still a case of "watchful waiting" to see how things shake out.
Your thoughts?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, do you get cheated in life because you are waiting for proof, the kind used in court rooms, before you will take action? We are in the middle of a $80 billion dollar per year scam and you are acting as if you need more evidence. The Pentagon’s boost for new nukes shows what Congress does when it cares. The budget deal provides a $160 billion boost to military spending over two years on top of a $549 billion annual baseline. I am not in a position to say whether spending $629 billion this year and $709 billion next year and, maybe, $789 billion the year after on the military rather than “only” $549 billion is going to solve any major social problems in American life, though I will admit I am skeptical by instinct. But I’m struck by the logic used by key congressional leaders to justify the $80 billion-per-year increase. Roughly speaking, they are saying this is what military leaders say the military needs to meet its strategic goals of buying more nukes.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
. . . possibly Trump has been out-maneuvered by neocons, who have packed both the secrecy-state and the MIC. OTOH, there may be negotiations going on in the background that we know nothing about. So for me, this is still a case of "watchful waiting" to see how things shake out.
Your thoughts?
Paul Ryan @SpeakerRyan
With today’s vote, we’re finally going to get the military the budget they need to fulfill Secretary Mattis’ national defense strategy. That is by far the biggest achievement in this bill. http://spkrryan.us/2EasIXR 10:10 AM - Feb 8, 2018
Everything is driven by the Pentagon. The Pentagon says it needs $80 billion more this year, and the old Budget Control Act bargain was that increases in defense spending should be matched by increases in non-defense spending. Republicans never liked that bargain, and they run the show in Washington so they are now demanding that the non-defense boost be smaller than the defense boost. I am familiar with fast talking Texans trying to cheat, which is dangerous for them to do around me. I stop them by grabbing them, squeezing hard, and breathing in their face. (Halitosis as a negotiating tool.) Somebody, not me, should do that to Trump, his Defense Secretary, and Paul Ryan.
The huge swindle continues, all wrapped in the American flag and honoring the troops for sacrificing their lives for the country (a soldier died, so give Trump $80 billion for nukes to honor that soldier, whatever his name was; it's a patriotic thing to buy nukes; with his last breath the soldier said, "The troops need low-yield atom bombs so that they won't die like I did."):
President Trump delivers huge win for military - February 9, 2018
https://web.archive.org/web/20180209173729/www.whitehouse.gov/1600dail
y/
President Donald J. Trump signed a two-year, bipartisan budget bill this morning that ends Congress’ brief overnight shutdown of the federal government.
“Just signed Bill. Our Military will now be stronger than ever before,” President Trump tweeted this morning. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more. First time this has happened in a long time.”
The President then laid out what must be accomplished in 2018. “Costs on non-military lines will never come down if we do not elect more Republicans in the 2018 Election, and beyond,” he tweeted. “This Bill is a BIG VICTORY for our Military, but much waste in order to get Dem votes.”
Read more: Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Defense Secretary James Mattis explain the budget deal.
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary
-sarah-sanders-secretary-defense-james-mattis-02072018
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okie dokie! No links from WISHY!
WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.
Yeah, you were being so nice, you only used "bitch" every other line.
You and 6ix and Niki have been picking on my kid and my husband/not saying anything when the others did... for a while now. Turnabout feels nice.
And I know you are dense, but I posted I wouldn't be home most of the day today or last night...so yeah.
Why should I do YOUR JOB researching what I'm saying, it takes all of five minutes to type in "Russian attacks on the US" or any variant thereof???
Here's from TWO days ago...
Russian cyberspies have tricked employees at US defence companies into exposing their emails.
The security companies targeted were working on sensitive defence contracts, including weaponised drones, missiles and stealth fighter jets.
It is unclear what has been stolen but both large and small companies including Boeing Co, Airbus Group, Lockheed Martin Corp, Raytheon Co and General Atomics, were targetted.
The hackers are associated with the cyberespionage group known as Fancy Bears.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-attack-cuba-officials-649546
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-denies-simulate-attack-on-u-s-navy
-destroyer-uss-donald-cook/
But Evelyn Farkas, a former Russian policy expert for the Pentagon, told CBS News the fly-bys were undeniably "dangerous behavior."
"They're playing with fire here," she said. "I'm sure that U.S. ships and other non-Russian ships have been just as close in the past. And even if they haven't, again, they're in international waters; there's nothing provocative about what we're doing. Unlike the Russians, we actually telegraph very transparently what we're doing."
A pair of Russian attack jets flew 20 passes on the ship Monday, coming as close as 1,000 yards at an altitude of 100 feet, ignoring radio calls from the Cook and forcing the ship to cancel flight operations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-never-stopped-its-cyber
attacks-on-the-united-states/2017/12/25/83076f2e-e676-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.ef0f1ed1a841
There is a perception among the media and general public that Russia ended its social-media operations following last year’s election and that we need worry only about future elections. But that perception is wrong. Russia’s information operations in the United States continued after the election and they continue to this day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers
-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b168b4a7e3ff
A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials.
While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation’s electrical grid. And it raises fears in the U.S. government that Russian government hackers are actively trying to penetrate the grid to carry out potential attacks.
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2017/09/06/russian-hackers-suspec
ted-targeting-us-utilities-nuclear-plants
Symantec said the new wave of attacks is being carried out by a group called Dragonfly 2.0 -- believed to be sophisticated Russian hackers -- which targeted dozens of energy companies in the spring and summer o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217577/outlays-for-defense-and-for
ecast-in-the-us/
Graph shows US military outlays rising steeply between 2002 and 2011, where it peaked. GWB was president 2001 through 2008. Between 2001-2003 control of congress was split, 2003-2006 it was under control of republicans, 2007-2008 control was split again. Obama was president 2009 through 2016. Congress was under democratic control 2009 through 2010, with split control 2011 through 2014.
Military spending dropped continuously 2012 through 2015 and leveled off through 2017. Obama was president 2009 through 2016. Congress was under democratic control 2009 through 2010, split control 2011 through 2014, and under republican control 2015-2016.
I'm not seeing that either the president OR congress has control over military spending, and neither party seems more or less capable of blowing large chunks of money on our bloated military.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No US president, of EITHER party, has EVER disavowed the 'first-strike' option.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already. His nuclear posture was to be in a position of a successful first strike ...
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already.
Quote:But Hillary would have been equally bad, if not worse. All you needed to do to know that was read the party platform
Originally posted by second:
And with all his strength, Trump will take us the rest of the way ...
Oh.
That's right.
You couldn't be bothered.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You were for Hillary? Then yes, you did.
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Yeah, (read this in a Valley Girl accent) we all like TOTALLY want to go to war with Russia. That would be *SWEET*.
Quote:Followed by the ever-clueless Wishi troll-fest.
NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Followed by the ever-clueless SECOND.
Quote:American Troops "Roll Into Poland" In Largest Deployment Since The Cold War 2017
Originally posted by second:
Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory
US Tanks, Troops Arrive In Estonia As Part Of NATO Anti-Russia Build Up 2017
NATO General Threatens "Consequences" For Turkey Buying Russian Air Defense System 2017
And who was president at that time?
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME