Trump ‘Let It Be An Arms Race’

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Dec 23, 2016.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    Can some of our esteemed trump supporters explain why this is good policy.

    Thanks for voting the orange Kim Jong-un into the White House.

    Buckle up.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    I couldn't see what jkcerda posted.

    But I can only hope that the term, "warmonger" was included in his post.
     
  4. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #4
    My question would be can anyone explain why this is a bad policy?
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    Because arms races run up huge deficits for little to no economic benefit. That is one of the factors that brought down the USSR. also we already have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out life on earth, so why spend more money on them. I couldn't read the full article because of a paywall, but if it is talking about allowing more countries to be involved and gain nuclear weapons, the more weapons out there the more likely it is that an unstable leader chooses to use one.
     
  6. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #6
    Blowing up the deficit or blowing up cities. Take your pick.

    An arms race isn't good for anyone. It only causes countries to enter a war mentality and spend money on weapons even if they cannot afford it. Just for the hell of it.
     
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    if you are NOT side by side in the "race", then HOW can the other side even KNOW if you are actually building anything?
     
  8. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #8
    Wasting money on redundant nuclear arms when we already have enough to blow up the world 120x? I could see updating what we currently have and decommissioning a couple thousand, adding more? Why bother
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    You were alive for Reagan right? You know, when we pissed away billions closing a missile "gap" that was fictitious in the first place?
     
  10. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #10
    Where's the evidence that Hillary Clinton would not have done the same thing. I don't support it, but either administration would do this.
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    got here in 86. the race itself can be "fictitious" ;)
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    Seeing as the the incoming administration (just like the current one) is crawling with defense contractors in official positions, don't count on it.

    We JUST authorized ~$1trillion to rebuild and add to our nuclear inventory (including what may be the death of us all, conventional battlefield nukes), what in the **** is Trump talking about? Is this his way of just continuing the Obama legacy (surely his supporters won't get the irony) or is he talking about adding to that plan.

    Either way, as the head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain stated explicitly on December 6th he's seeking $100 billion more for the military....then listened to a bunch of Generals (who happen to sit on the boards of General Dynamics) AND ROBERT KAGAN basically pitch defense systems to piss money away on.
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    John McCain needs to be in the loony home, along with many others. hope trump is just talk here as we do have better things to spend money on.
     
  14. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #14
    The Cold War did cripple the USSR financially for decades. The USA did not suffer the same financial fate. Many people prospered under the increased military buildup. Another arms race could potentially do the same.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    what stops them from faking being in the race? the only ones who might prosper are contractors.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Trump doesn't write spending authorizations.
     
  17. MadeTheSwitch, Dec 23, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2016

    MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #17
    So all the people that call for the deficit to be reduced are okay with increasing it for nukes that we don't even need?
    --- Post Merged, Dec 23, 2016 ---
    Where's the evidence that she would have? You say either administration would do this, but without any proof. And why do people keep bringing up Hillary over and over? The election is over. It seems the ones who can't move on aren't Hillary supporters, but rather Trump and his supporters that are having issues with the past still.

    Is this what is going to be like for four years? "Bu bu but Hillary would have done it too! Only 10x worse!"
     
  18. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #18
    We just had trump supporters argue about how great it was that trump was trying to save money with the F-35 and Air Force One programs. If cutting government costs and striving to reduce the debt and deficit are priorities, then an arms race is the wrong direction to take.

    Additionally, there isn't a reason to escalate an arms race right now. There is no country that we don't already deter with our arms, and the our greatest current threat, terrorism, isn't effectively countered by an arms race, as they aren't in the race to begin with. We would be racing with ourselves, wasting money that could be spent more wisely in other sectors.
     
  19. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #19
    Wait...doesn't Trump want better relations with Russia? How is this going to help?
     
  20. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    And this brings up the question, who are we supposed to be in an arms race with?

    Is he trying to rekindle the Cold War or start a new one with China?

    Or does one just engage in an arms race on one's own?
     
  21. Pootmatoot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    #21
    Because it runs counter to her words and actions as SoS? And zero Western politicians with a IQ above a grapefruit wants to reignite the 1960s-90s nuclear arms race?
    --- Post Merged, Dec 23, 2016 ---
    There's a very strong argument for Western European countries to do so, as the US is widely viewed as becoming an unreliable semi-rogue agent.

    It's already being used widely as a justification here in the UK to accelerate the Trident nuclear submarine renewal program.
     
  22. juanm, Dec 23, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2016

    juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #22
    Wow. I can't say that I had very high expectations from you (after all you're just a criminal Mexican midget), but you've never come across as a hypocrite... until now.

    It took decades of diplomacy to stop the nuclear arms race and to start reducing their numbers, and now this elephant in a china shop is about to reduce all that to nothing out of ignorance and his pathological need for attention.
    Numbers of Nuclear warheads:
    [​IMG]

    In response to your question the other side (whoever that is) already knows that the US can reduce all earth to rubble many times over, by air, land or sea. It takes just ONE successful nuclear weapon strike to potentially deter any kind of threat. The US has thousands and so far it's the only one who has actually used nuclear weapons in a conflict.

    During the sixties there was a permanent fear of nuclear war but at least the middle class was thriving. Today, that's not even the case.
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    perhaps your reading comprehension is a bit off tocallo. try post 13 to maybe clear things up a bit. I am NOT advocating for being in the race , simply pointing out you can pretend to "Race" & not do a damn thing about it. see post 15.
     
  24. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #24
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25

Share This Page