Donald Trump and Nukes

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Apr 10, 2017.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    Well, Donald Trump has always said that he's unwilling to take nukes off the table in any conflict. So, the NSC has handed him some options for the North Korea issue, including sending nukes to South Korea. (They also included assassination as an option.)

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rea-include-placing-nukes-south-korea-n743571

    Brave new world.
     
  2. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #2
    I hope these are magic nukes that don't hurt civilians. They don't seem very surgical.
     
  3. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #3
    I think we need to be very careful in the way we understand news reports like this:

    In general, from a national security standpoint, all options means precisely that: All options.

    That doesn't really change from one administration to the next. Jimmy Carter had the option of sending nukes to South Korea. Ronald Reagan had the option of assassinating Kim Il-Sung.

    It is the job of our national security apparatus (ie. the military, the intelligence services, our Diplomats, etc.) to present our national command authority with as many options as possible to deal with our nation's problems.

    In general, it's difficult to rationalize the removal of an "option." Because you never really know when, and how, you might, at some far off, and unimaginable set of circumstances, need to use that "option."

    As an example: The world health community has scientifically eliminated smallpox as a disease. There have been zero documented cases of smallpox reported for several decades (ie. the 1970s.) And yet the US Government still maintains (under very tight scientific and security) stocks of smallpox viruses. The US has no intention of ever using smallpox virus as a weapon. But there still exists the possibility that some adversary, at some point in the future, might try to deploy weaponized smallpox against us or our allies. And if that were to happen, it would be very useful if we had stocks of smallpox virus from which to develop countermeasures and treatments.

    Destroying our remaining smallpox viruses would remove the possibility of that as an option.
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    Heh. From what I've read about the NK nuke-weapons site, it's way underground and heavily hardened. Only a nuke could affect it. (Or sites, so nukes plural.) SFAIK, the activity is in the northwest part of the country.

    Trouble is, where does the fallout go? Any prevailing winds from the south or southeast would put it into China and Russia.

    Not good.

    I guess that if we still have neutron bombs, an attack might succeed.

    Dunno for sure, but it might be possible that the NKs could use a missile to set off a nuke device over the west coast of the US. That would mean lights out from Vancouver to San Diego.
     
  5. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #5
    Let me disagree in one particular aspect: Of course, the people in charge of national security need to be considering all sorts of possible situations, and all sorts of measures to counteract them. Nuclear weapons have been the backbone of America's deterrence against foreign attack for decades, and so they logically must have a place in any internal discussions.

    The difference this time is not that aspect of national security. The difference is Donald Trump. We have a man who has publicly stated that he wants to keep nuclear weapons on the table as a negotiating tactic. He's said things like this:

    and

    https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrify...licly-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a

    And then, of course, Trump just up and bombed a country he said he was not interested in less than 24 hours after seeing pictures of dead babies on TV. This does not speak well for his impulse control.

    So, when news about the US considering moving nukes around the world comes out with any other president, people are of course concerned. With a guy like Trump in the White House, though? Everyone has a right to be terrified.
     
  6. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #6
    Was just about to post. No reason for any options to be off the table when they've been on the table all along.

    Besides, other than saber rattling, parking nukes in S Korea makes little difference. Even if they're not there, we have a bomber squadron in Guam that can hit them, as well as submarines with ICMBs.
     
  7. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #7
    Coincidentally, an amazing episode of Radiolab this week, discussing Nukes and presidential power: http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/

    A must-listen for anyone interested in this topic.
     
  8. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #8
    Well. I mean the point of having Nukes is to be able to use them. Why would they be off the table as an option?
     
  9. BeeGood macrumors 68000

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #9
    Nukes "move around" all the time. A squadron of B1-Bs conducted joint military operations near the DMZ just last year.

    The reality is that the hermit kingdom and their crazy leader are getting closer and closer to being able to strike us and our allies in the Far East, and that should be more terrifying than our weird POTUS, especially when he's yet to do anything out of line militarily.
     
  10. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #10
    I prefer the idea of using nukes as a deterrent against other countries launching attacks on the United States. That is, as a defensive weapon. The effects of this device are so awful, there'd better be a pretty dang good reason to ever use one!

    I dislike the idea of using nukes to try and coerce other nations to change their policies. "Do this, or face obliteration." That is, as an offensive weapon. We've got plenty of conventional weapons available for that sort of thing, if it is even necessary -- I mean, Trump doesn't even seem to think that diplomacy has any role in international relationships!

    "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." --Winston Churchill
     
  11. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #11
    But Trump=literally Hitler. Fat Kim=the definition of sanity. o_O
    --- Post Merged, Apr 10, 2017 ---
    NK has nukes. We bring nukes closer to NK as a "hey fat boy in a Nation of starving people, you aren't the only one with nuclear capabilities." It's a deterrent.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  13. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #13
    Yes, the reality is that the hermit kingdom is trying to use the threat of nuclear annihilation as its one and only card in international negotiations.

    The problem is that Trump is quickly matching them in this regard. Sure, we've got bombers, we've got subs, we've got ICBMs, all running around providing that nuclear umbrella across the world. But planting down a bunch of nuclear missiles right on your border? There's a reason that the US went kinda crazy when the USSR did that in Cuba, and the USSR similarly got a cold sweat when we placed them in Turkey.

    And hey, what do you mean when you say "anything out of line"? Was bombing Assad on the spur of the moment "in line"? He'd already said that he had no interest in Assad, and he'd said publicly back in 2013 that it'd be stupid to attack Assad for using chemical weapons. And yet, wham, Trump just turns around and starts dropping bombs on the spur of the moment...
     
  14. bbrks macrumors 65816

    bbrks

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    #14
    You people are just unreal......what the F.....are you talking about.....NUKES!!!!!!, are you completely mad!!!!!!!
     
  15. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #15
    Saber rattled like they always do. The better question is what have they done to our regional allies? They most likely have the ability to launch against obviously SK. Then you have Japan, which we sorta have to help defend with the whole unconditional surrender thing. Kim is posturing plain and simple. The thing is do you want to just take it as a typical NK temper tantrum and ignore it or realize that even their Chinese handlers are saying they can't do anything to control the regime.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 10, 2017 ---
    [​IMG]
     
  16. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #16
    Cool. We go up to a crazy man leading a nation of starving people with nuclear capabilities, and we ratchet up the pressure on him as far as we can.

    I'm sure that's gonna work out just fine.
     
  17. steve knight, Apr 10, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017

    steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #17
    assaulted the sea thats a offense against America.
     
  18. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #18
    can you source those "negotiations"?
     
  19. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #19
    The answer is, yes they are.
     
  20. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #20
    Historically, it has. See the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Do you give into the madman and let him have his way and then he will continually push limits? Or do you reject his demands and show him it's best not to act like the biggest kid on the block?
     
  21. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #21
    :confused:

    What does that mean?
     
  22. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #22
    I just added my own interpretation.
    [​IMG]
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    my best interpretation is NK assaulted sponge bob by threatening to launch nukes at the pineapple under the sea..........
     
  24. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #24
    Mutually Assured Destruction was, indeed, the form of deterrence we used against the USSR. And, to the extent that both sides were scared of being annihilated, it worked.

    But North Korea? They've been living under the threat of nuclear annihilation ever since MacArthur suggested dropping the bomb on them back in 1950. They have been furiously developing nuclear capabilities because they are under such a threat. Logically, ratcheting up pressure on them should increase their reliance on their own bomb, not decrease it.
     
  25. VulchR, Apr 10, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017

    VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #25
    And suppose once the feel safe against the US they decide they have new leverage against SK or Japan? Remember that NK and SK are still at war, but that there is an armistice. I seem to recall that didn't work too well in Europe. We mustn't let NK reach the point that they can bully neighbours. We need to apply maximum pressure now to get them to disarm. Like I have said elsewhere, I'd be happy to make this a problem of the PRC by declaring any nuke from NK will be treated as having been launched by the PRC (rather the like Cuban missile crisis). After all, it was the PRC's stubborn use of vetoes in the UN Security Council that let NK reach this point. They created this problem. It's time to make them own it, and for once to make countries on the Security Council take responsibility for their vetoes.
     

Share This Page