Trump's new Missile Gap

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #1
    Hey, new Trump tweet just came over the wires. Donald Trump has now defined his solution to the nuclear problem:

    Note that he provides absolutely no mechanism for helping "the world comes to its senses regarding nukes", which makes the second half of the tweet pretty much moot. All that Trump wants to do, therefore, is greatly strengthen and expand America's nuclear capability.

    And this is coming from the guy who said "if we have them, why can't we use them?" Fun times ahead for this planet...
     
  2. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    Good. Finally.
    Nukes = prolonged peace between big powers.
     
  3. jpietrzak8 thread starter macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #3
    Actually, just 70 years ago, nukes = two cities annihilated and an eventual death toll of well over 100,000 people. A rather high cost for peace, in my opinion. Hope we don't have to annihilate too many cities to achieve peace during Trump's term.
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    You can't look into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is a different story and it actually assured peace for many years. Geopolitical world is completely different. One power with nukes = bad.
     
  5. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #5
    What would have been the cost of lives had the US been forced to invade mainland Japan?
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    well he does get to bomb every city that Obama has bombed so........
     
  7. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #7
    People focus too much on the two bombs and not enough on what the Pacific front as a whole involved.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    only fools draw red lines..........
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #9
    Depends on who you ask, and when.

    It started and tens of thousands and eventually got inflated to half a million.

    Regardless, the generals knew the war was over, the bomb was used to send a message.

    Truman's diary 7/17/45: "He'll [Stalin and Russia] be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini Japs when that comes about."

    Japan itself knew the war was over the second the soviets invaded which is why they tried to surrender (keeping the emperor in place) well before the bomb were dropped. The bomb was a message to the Soviets.
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    That's mostly speculation, and not even a good one. The fact that the soviets were capable of invading mainland Japan is to be seen. As the US, they were fighting already in a big front (or they were finishing up, depending on the moment in time you want to analyze), the country was on its knees, and Japan had no real will to surrender, although the imperial court was divided on what to do.
    The first atomic bomb actually exploded on Hiroshima before the Soviets made their moves towards directly invading Japan. The Soviets actually declared war to Japan after the second nuke exploded. It was a war, so yes. A message might've been sent (although the Soviets did not understand the true nature at first, and they kept the reason of the fall of Japan, that is the nukes, hidden to their people until after the Soviet Union developed its first bomb).
    Heck, even the Americans didn't realize that the nukes were going to change the world's asset until much later, and that's probably why they didn't use them in the period that they were the only owners of one.
     
  11. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #11
    How do you help someone come to their senses. Nothin seems to help people come to their senses here on PRSI.
     
  12. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #12
    Mythology is strong in the USA.
     
  13. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    That's your reply? Seriously? Mythology?
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Sure, but this assumes that big powers are the only ones who will have nukes. Proliferation is our biggest problem, and adding more nuclear weapons to the arsenal won't help this situation, especially against asymmetric attacks.

    Currently, we maintain around 7,000 nuclear weapons, with roughly 2,000 deployed. The Russians have around 7,300 with 1,790 deployed. And, France and the UK have another 515 deployed.

    Similarly, Pakistan and India have 250 weapons, roughly split between the two of them, while China has around 260 and Israel has roughly 80.

    North Korea has the fissile material for 10 to 12 weapons, and has tested four, so there's no real idea of how many weapons they actually have.

    As we have parity with one potential adversary and roughly 10 times as many as the next, I'm not sure that increasing the number of bombs just because does us much good.

    Instead, we need to ensure that our weapons work and can be delivered near-instanteously, so that there's never a doubt that a nuclear attack against the U.S. is mortal for any nation-state.

    This includes development of the B61-12, a highly-accurate 50-Kt bomb, which means we could use it to destroy a hardened missile silo or a bunker full of state actors (basically a bomb with Kim Jong-un's name on it) without the catastrophic destruction of larger bombs.
     
  15. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #15
    The suicide Banzi charges and the mass civilian suicides during the battle of Saipan shows the extent of Japanese were willing to do. Not to mention the single soldier that thought the war continued decades after the war had ended. Hiroo Onoda
    The casualties of a mainland invasion would have far exceeded those from the droppings of the atom bomb.
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #16
    No question about it. I think that the pacific war costed about 11,000 dead a day on average from 1937 to 1945. An invasion would've prolonged the war by many months, and once resources freed from the European theatre, the US and USSR would have found themselves in a situation not much different than post-WW2 Germany, with a divided Japan and a much strengthened China.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Japan had already been firebombed to ****.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    Leningrad teaches to never underestimate the will of your enemy. Yes, Japan wasn't in good shape but that doesn't change that they were still a very deadly, and determined people.
     
  19. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
  20. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #20
    Never mind that some of those that complain about the atomic attacks of Nagasaki and Hiroshima completely seemingly miss the fact that more were killed in the firebombing of Dresden (though disputed).
     
  21. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #21
    Well, if we want to talk about controversy how many talk about Mers-El Kebir?
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    Trump ...
    Is that like ... I must consume more alcohol until such a time that the world comes to its senses about the danger of it?

    I could use a drink.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 22, 2016 ---
    Is there anything trump has done that you've disagreed with?
     
  23. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #23
    Ah man. That's a poo sandwich.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    Yes, mythology.



    This is the netflix version of the untold history of the USA. Now, I fully expect you to ignore it due to some sort of dismissal when Oliver Stone's name is put on it, but the book version this is based and sourced on has dozens of references to the primary documents (journals, cables, diaries of the friggin president and defense leaders, direct quotes, etc).

    So yes, the mythology that allowed for the rise of the multi-billion nuclear arms industry was a concerted effort to reshape the public understanding of what exactly was the real reason the bomb was dropped. The war was over, even the military generals commanding it at the time have stated so, explicitly.

    The bomb was a way to ensure the geopolitical cementing of the USA as top dog at the end of the war and to send a message to Stalin (whom Churchill ****ed over when Stalin was a steadfast and reliable ally during the war) about how the post war world was going to look.

    Again, I can't stress this enough, if you are really interested in this I suggest you get the book and go right to the sources listed in the bibliography.
     
  25. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #25
    LOL Oliver Stone. Never met a Communist he didn't love.
     

Share This Page