The risk of nuclear war under Trump

POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2026 16:28
VIEWED: 18293
PAGE 9 of 16

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE

THGRRI

Monday, February 12, 2018 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep.

What, lol. These are interceptor missiles - designed to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defence_system

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521

Hey KPO

T

KPO

Monday, February 12, 2018 4:44 PM

Hey T

EDIT: Lol, ok, that looks super seductive. I'll reserve the winky emoji for 1kiki from now on.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2018 6:05 PM

Quote:
I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep. - SIGNY
What, lol. These are interceptor missiles - designed to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky KRAPO

Yes, I know. That is why I called them a "missile defense" system, so YOU ...

Or at least learn to read with comprehension.

Now, I didn't want to explain the whole problem because it's complicated, and I figured it would be too complicated for you all (and as it turns out, I was right), but all nuclear agreements between the USA and Russia involve maintaining a "balance of power". This not only means maintaining a balance of power in OFFENSIVE weapons, but also maintaining a balance of power in DEFENSIVE weapons, because when one side increases their defensive capability it decreases the role of deterrence (mutual assured destruction) in launching an first strike.

With me so far?

The role of nuclear missiles on Russia's borders is to intercept a COUNTERstrike. In other words, the American military was counting on launching a first strike, and then negating the Russian nuclear response by intercepting missiles on the way UP.

This was well and thoroughly discussed when the missiles were placed in Europe, and if any of you had been paying the slightest attention (which I know you weren't) you'd know this already. But go look it up, if you don't believe me.

Anyway, what Russia did to maintain its deterrence was to develop a "dead man's trigger" ... nuclear weapons place in automated submarines which have been positioned off the coasts of the USA and designed to make the coasts uninhabitable for generations to come. And being automated -and with no life support functions - these submarines can remain silent and under water for decades and decades, undetectable. Somewhere in the run-up to this NPR, our military has acceded to the fact that these submarines exist and have already been deployed. I mentioned them already but I didn't fully explain their significance. Well, now you know so you can't claim ignorance (as if anyone would want to. Well, maybe you do, since that seems to be your stock-in-trade; I don't know.)

But the USA isn't the only one pushing the nuclear envelope, as the Russians have developed the "Iskander" missile system, which is a very small, highly portable, and very accurate missile/ missile launch system of intermediate range, which can be tipped with many different kinds of warheads. Unfortunately, instead of negotiating these away, the Pentagon has gotten tired of the whole nuclear chess game and has tipped over the board and gone for a full-on arms race.

That's the state of the nuclear situation today as I understand it. As I said, it's complicated. There are a lot of moving parts, with both offensive and defensive systems; and short-, medium-, and long-range weapons in play; and I was hoping to read the NPR keeping in mind that the Iskander missile system is viewed by the USA military as an abrogation of the INF treaty.

As I said, it's complicated, and there is no simple way to parse the truth. So do your research, and come back with a considered opinion.

-----------
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

KPO

Monday, February 12, 2018 6:26 PM

Sorry Sig, I can't work out if you have accepted that you were wrong yet, or if you are just kicking up dust to hide that you lied.

So,

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep. - SIGNY

This statement is 100% false. The missiles in the ABM system are NOT nuclear. You are writing things that are 100% false.

Quote:
Now, I didn't want to explain the whole problem because it's complicated, and I figured it would be too complicated for you all

Either you were ignorant, or you lied. I read this as admitting that you lied. Giving a simple lie was easier or more expedient for you than making your case in a truthful, more-complicated fashion. Not good enough. If your worldview is strong, Siggy, you shouldn't have to lie to advance it.

I'm very disappointed in you.

(Lol, j/k, I'm used to it.)

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2018 6:31 PM

Quote:
In the meantime, I'm looking this over:

Quote:
Executive Summary of the NPR
While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved
in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran has agreed to constraints on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.
MORE AT https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUM
MARY.PDF

It is salesmanship. The Pentagon is selling the idea that the US needs to buy nukes. I think it will convince most Americans, since they were sold the idea, and continue to believe, that nuking Japanese children was necessary in the past, so why not buy nukes for the future?

The grandson, Paul Tibbets IV, of the pilot and, later, general who nuked Japan was promoted to brigadier general in 2014, and became Deputy Director for Nuclear Operations at the Global Operations Directorate of the United States Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. As such, he was responsible for America's strategic nuclear forces. On 5 June 2015, he assumed command of the 509th Bomb Wing. The American business of nuking the world passes down the generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets
- SECOND

SECOND, back to your problem of the "kitchen sink" style of argument. You really need to stop using an assault rifle and spraying everything around you, and FOCUS.

You have said, at various times, that source of our problematic USA military/ foreign policy is

a) The American People, because they're too lazy, stupid, and complacent to look into the ugliness of what's done in their name
b) The Pentagon, because it has its own bureaucratic instinct for survival, dancing as it does as the partner in the MIC which sucks in a huge amount of our budget
c) Scientists, who did the amoral research as wage- and hubris-driven brainiacs
d) The Nobel Prize Committee.
e) Trump, just because.

Did I miss anything/anybody?

Working upwards thru the list

e) Trump is just the latest pimple on the ass of our foreign/ military policy. Or, maybe he's smarter than all of us, and is running a complicated game. Time will tell. But in any case, our military/ foreign policy has sucked for DECADES ... since at least the 1960s ... you can't lay all of this on Trump.
d) Irrelevant
c) Ditto
b) The Pentagon, which has it's own lizard-brain instinct for growth, and is one part of the deep state
a) The American People.

Starting at the bottom of the second list:

a) If all of the decisions are by the deep state and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, who are looking forward to lucrative positions in the various MIC boards, does it really matter what the American people think??? I mean- yeah, maybe Americans ARE lazy and stupid ... after all, look at THUGR! He's willing to give up his independence to ANY of deep state! ... but so what? If America is an oligarchy - and evidence DOES point in that direction - then mostly Americans don't get what they want anyway, so isn't it irrelevant?

Later. I have a lot of things to do today.

-----------
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

SECOND

Monday, February 12, 2018 7:55 PM

Signym. How about the alternate explanation that most Americans find burning children with A-bombs is A-OK? Two decades after Hiroshima, 70% told a Harris poll that we did the right thing, while 17% were sorry, and in 1982 Harris found those numbers at 63% and 26% respectively. By 1998, a History Channel/Roper poll found 47% said dropping the bombs was the right thing to do, 26% wrong, and 22% somewhere in between. This gives Trump tremendous latitude to do as he pleases. If he wants more nukes, the people are with him. Pentagon is always for more. Say the words "national defense" and Congress will vote yes. They always do.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-using-nuclear-weapons/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Monday, February 12, 2018 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Sorry Sig, I can't work out if you have accepted that you were wrong yet, or if you are just kicking up dust to hide that you lied.
This statement is 100% false. The missiles in the ABM system are NOT nuclear. You are writing things that are 100% false. Either you were ignorant, or you lied. I read this as admitting that you lied.

That's a toughie, the ole, "did she lie or was she just wrong and can't admit" thing. Even with all the data we have on it it's still tough! She ignored you asking her to clarify and then posted the trusty dump and run, "Later. I have a lot of things to do today," so it's definitely one or the other... but lying? Or just "whoops, I f*cked up and someone caught me!"

Yanno, I'm going to go with lying also. The history of making sh*t up and hoping no one will call her on it is so frequent it's likely a reflex at this point, like a spasm or a twitch.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2018 10:20 PM

KRAPO: In my earlier posts I called the eastern-European based system a "defensive system" and I ALSO mentioned the Russian development of a "dead man" response, both of which are consistent with the concept of an ABM system. The reason why I put quotes around "defensive" isn't because they aren't anti-missile, but because our original excuse was a defense against IRAN - not Russia. Well, now that Iran signed a nuclear deal, the question is ... what are the missiles still doing there?

You see? I SAID it was complicated. I just really didn't want to have to do all that typing. But like I said, you can look it up if you want. DO YOUR RESEARCH, as you posted!

-----------
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

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2018 10:29 PM

Quote:
Signym. How about the alternate explanation that most Americans find burning children with A-bombs is A-OK? Two decades after Hiroshima, 70% told a Harris poll that we did the right thing, while 17% were sorry, and in 1982 Harris found those numbers at 63% and 26% respectively. By 1998, a History Channel/Roper poll found 47% said dropping the bombs was the right thing to do, 26% wrong, and 22% somewhere in between. This gives Trump tremendous latitude to do as he pleases. If he wants more nukes, the people are with him. Pentagon is always for more. Say the words "national defense" and Congress will vote yes. They always do.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-using-nuclear-weapons/

That's how Americans react to a lot of things. Right after the official explanation of Kennedy's assassination came out, most people believe it. Decades later, they don't.

Right before our invasion of Iraq (Panama, Libya, Grenada) most people believed the excuses; decades later, they don't.

What causes this reaction? Is it possible that the media runs a blitz on the population, and that public opinion bends to the propaganda campaign and only slowly asserts itself after the pressure is off?

-----------
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

SECOND

Monday, February 12, 2018 11:04 PM

Signym. If Americans do NOT know today how nukes burn children to death, can that be blamed on the MSM, as you are trying to do? Is the media really misleading Americans into believing nukes do NOT kill women, as Signym is insinuating? Or will the majority of Americans never know? I think the majority of Americans don't want to know because knowing would mean not nuking whoever the President feels deserving. The U.S. obliterated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the following month, after the bombs’ power had been demonstrated, 4% of respondents in a NORC survey said they would not have used them at all, 26% only on uninhabited areas, and 44% on one city at a time. Twenty-three percent said they would have wiped out all Japan’s cities. 44% + 23% equals a majority, Signym. I'm thinking a majority of Americans in 1945 wanted all the Japs, including women and children, dead dead dead and a victory wasn't enough to cool the overheated Americans. Even until today, victory on the battlefield isn't enough. A majority of Americans also want women and children dead dead dead. This is a very helpful attitude for a Pentagon and Congress who both want nukes for their President.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

That's how Americans react to a lot of things. Right after the official explanation of Kennedy's assassination came out, most people believe it. Decades later, they don't.

Right before our invasion of Iraq (Panama, Libya, Grenada) most people believed the excuses; decades later, they don't.

What causes this reaction? Is it possible that the media runs a blitz on the population, and that public opinion bends to the propaganda campaign and only slowly asserts itself after the pressure is off?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE