Reagan's BR said:

Some of Trump's statements alarm me (specifically those dealing with the environment), this tweet however does not.

For what it is worth, I was thumbing through the news earlier and heard someone on transition team say that he was talking about our missile defense system...

Regardless, I'm not worried. Creating more or having quicker deployment methods does not heighten the chances of nuclear war.

When I think of capability, the term used in the tweet, I think of our ability to deploy. For example it sounds like he means the number that we able to deploy in our Submarines. At the moment Russia actually has more deployed warheads than we do.

Also-not really concerned if the US builds more warheads. We already have right around 4K. It is not like more of them will make in difference. One could argue that more would be a waste of money, but we spend more on less. Anyways, our current stockpile is a far cry from the 30K that we had in the 1960's or the 20K in the 1980's-we were fine then and will be fine now. In the long run if something absolutely terrible did happen it won't make a difference if we have 4K or 400K.

Moreover one cannot make the argument that Trump is a corrupt business man and argue that he wants to create nuclear war at the same time; that would be very bad for his business.

Finally, to those that want to eliminate our stock pile: Russia, China, and N. Korea aren't getting rid of theirs.

Click to expand...

Reagan's BR said:

Some of Trump's statements alarm me (specifically those dealing with the environment), this tweet however does not.

For what it is worth, I was thumbing through the news earlier and heard someone on transition team say that he was talking about our missile defense system...

Regardless, I'm not worried. Creating more or having quicker deployment methods does not heighten the chances of nuclear war.

When I think of capability, the term used in the tweet, I think of our ability to deploy. For example it sounds like he means the number that we able to deploy in our Submarines. At the moment Russia actually has more deployed warheads than we do.

Also-not really concerned if the US builds more warheads. We already have right around 4K. It is not like more of them will make in difference. One could argue that more would be a waste of money, but we spend more on less. Anyways, our current stockpile is a far cry from the 30K that we had in the 1960's or the 20K in the 1980's-we were fine then and will be fine now. In the long run if something absolutely terrible did happen it won't make a difference if we have 4K or 400K.

Moreover one cannot make the argument that Trump is a corrupt business man and argue that he wants to create nuclear war at the same time; that would be very bad for his business.

Finally, to those that want to eliminate our stock pile: Russia, China, and N. Korea aren't getting rid of theirs.

Click to expand...

Byakuya769 said:

"Umm. and I put them at... ummm. I'm sorry."

-end earth-

Click to expand...

The Chosen One said:

So it was even more ironic (and horrific) when I woke up this morning to Trump indicating that he wanted to restart the nuclear arms race with Russia...!

Click to expand...

We order drinks, a Heineken for me, a prim Virgin Mary for Trump, and he continues on the blindness of U.S. policymakers.

“I believe they’re sort of fools,” Trump says. “They only think about Russia. Russian and U.S. weapons. But the summit is a joke. It’s not about the real nuclear problem. You have countries like France that are openly and blatantly selling nuclear technology.”

Trump is very down on the French.

“They’ve got an arrogant head of the country, who I think is a total fool, and he’s trying to make up for his losses by selling this technology to anyone, and it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace.”

So what’s the solution? I ask him. How do you get the French to stop, how do you get French technology out of the hands of the Pakistanis at this point?

“I think you have to come down on them very hard economically or whatever way,” Trump says. “I think the solution is largely economic. Because there are so many of these countries that are so fragile and we have a vast power that’s never been used. They depend on us for food, for medical supplies. And I would never even suggest using it except on this issue. But this issue supersedes all other things.”

He pauses.

“I guess the easy thing would be to say you go in and clean it out.”

Click to expand...

But the thrills and perils of deal making no longer have the same excitement for Trump these days. Not compared with The Subject [nuclear proliferation].

“Nothing matters as much to me now,” Trump says.

He’s been “spending so much time on this other thing,” he says, meaning The Subject, that he’s hardly had time to think of conventional deals. Because he’s on the track of a much bigger kind of deal, his Ultimate Deal. The Trump Plan.

Of course, he doesn’t call it the Trump Plan. And he denies that he wants to be the one to make the deal. But he’s convinced there’s a deal there to be made, that it’s now or never, and that the people down in Washington are not doing anything to get the deal done.

Click to expand...

“I don’t think I have to be the one. I’m not saying this to promote myself. But it has to be somebody of only a few people. Somebody who has the ability to make a deal. Because there’s a deal there to be done absolutely. But not by the present players,” he says, referring to current American negotiators and Reagan negotiators. “They have no smiles, no warmth; there’s no sense of them as people. Who the hell wants to talk to them? They don’t have the ability to go into a room and sell a deal. They’re not sellers in the positive sense.”

So what is the deal Trump thinks can be done? What is the Trump Plan?

It’s a deal with the Soviets. We approach them on this basis: We both recognize the nonproliferation treaty’s not working, that half a dozen countries are on the brink of getting a bomb. Which can only cause trouble for the two of us. The deterrence of mutual assured destruction that prevents the United States and the USSR from nuking each other won’t work on the level of an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange. Or a madman dictator with a briefcase-bomb team. The only answer is for the Big Two to make a deal now to step in and prevent the next generation of nations about to go nuclear from doing so. By whatever means necessary.

“Most of those [pre-nuclear] countries are in one form or another dominated by the U.S. and the Soviet Union,” Trump says. “Between those two nations you have the power to dominate any of those countries. So we should use our power of economic retaliation and they use their powers of retaliation and between the two of us we will prevent the problem from happening. It would have been better having done something five years ago,” he says. “But I believe even a country such as Pakistan would have to do something now. Five years from now they’ll laugh.”

“You think Pakistan would just fold? We wouldn’t have to offer them anything in return?”

“Maybe we should offer them something. I’m saying you start off as nicely as possible. You apply as much pressure as necessary until you achieve the goal. You start off telling them, ‘Let’s get rid of it.’ If that doesn’t work you then start cutting off aid. And more aid and then more. You do whatever is necessary so these people will have riots in the street, so they can’t get water. So they can’t get Band-Aids, so they can’t get food. Because that’s the only thing that’s going to do it—the people, the riots.”

“But what about the French?” I ask Trump. “They—”

“I’d come down on them so hard,” he says. “Because I think they’ve been the worst example of—”

“But they already have the bomb. Do you think they’ll give it up?”

“Well, I tell you if they didn’t give it up—”

“Look, they blew up the Greenpeace ship—”

“They’ve got the bomb, but they don’t have it now with the delivery capability they will have in five years. I f they didn’t give it up—and I don’t mean reduce it, and I don’t mean stop, because stopping doesn’t mean anything. I mean get it out. If they didn’t, I would bring sanctions against that country that would be so strong, so unbelievable... ”

Click to expand...

Skyzard said:

UK is also spending 100 billion on nuke weaponry too.

Click to expand...

The Chosen One said:

Re-posting what I wrote in PoliGAF

Last night I did a re-watch of Thirteen Days and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

It was already frightening just thinking about if Donald Trump and his team were in the shoes of JFK and his inner circle. I don't think people, especially the younger generations, realize just how close we came to a nuclear World War III. There were people on both sides (USSR and the US) that were antsy for a conflict. In particular, the US generals kept pushing for airstrikes in Cuba that would have lead to all out war and possibly a nuclear winter.

Click to expand...

giga said:

Yeah, just a casual conversation over pajamas.

Click to expand...

giga said:

Yeah, just a casual conversation over pajamas.

Click to expand...

KDR_11k said:

Does he even realize that each nuke also costs money to maintain? These aren't just "buy a few more just in case".

Click to expand...

giga said:

Yeah, just a casual conversation over pajamas.

Click to expand...

Odrion said:

we chose hillary :\

Click to expand...

Volimar said:

Click to expand...