Do Republicans not think of mutually-assured destruction?

Post Reply New Topic

I can only assume those who would vote for their nominee either doesn't know of his stance on nuclear weapons, or thinks 'MAD' just won't apply to them... and regardless of which country has more, once they start flying the logic of war takes over and deterrence would obviously be a non-starter with a president who wouldn't hesitate to even nuke Europe... does he, or any in his cult, honestly think they won't be similarly incinerated?

WWII is, of course, an entirely historic era, and the logic of deterrence claims that as long as no one uses them then presumably deterrence is working, but even with its quantity, does anyone doubt countries will react to a rogue state? It is, by definition of deterrence, the only thing they could do, whether it's NK, Pakistan, or US, surely...

Well many repuublicans I see are old bitter people and they don't seem to care one way or the other...and certainly aren't concerned with the younger generation not wanting to get blown up by nukes. We should probably all be working 12 hours a day 7 days a week and forget about everything except work and how great 'merica is.

No really if america is so great why do companies think they can treat employees like s**t...unless of course its some old right winger baby boomer, that was willing to work all day every single day and have a life that consists of work, sleep, work, sleep and thinks all us younger people ought to do the same because 'merica. I am sick of older right wingers b*tching at us for wanting something better...I mean I imagine they'd rather the world be nuked as is than have to see any dreaded progress in society, government or economic systems.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 01 Aug 2016, 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I'm fairly sure Trump understands MAD.

MAD falls apart if you publicly admit that you wouldn't launch a strike.

Trump didn't say "if Europe doesn't do this (build a wall/keep Muslims out/pay more into NATO) then we will nuke them", he said something like "there are circumstances in which I would not rule out nuking Europe". That's bad diplomacy, but I'm sure it's true of most post-war Presidents. If France or the UK nuked America, then Trump would be justified in firing back.

It's not like a president can just wake up one day and decide to lob a nuke at someone, there's a whole chain of command, with multiple opportunities to remove a rogue president in the case of a frivolous launch order. I'd be much more concerned about the legal doctrine Obama has created around drones.

Who cares, once multiple nukes are going off everything living for the most part will die or get radiation sickness. fighting nukes with nukes would probably be a bad idea regardless of how 'justified' one might see it as.

Every generation fears some form of annihilation.

Your fear keeps you reading the news.


We'll likely all die of natural causes before blowing up due to a global-warming triggered islamic nuclear meltdown virus-ridden racist bacteria particle entering our bloodstream.


I say: turn your tv off, stop reading the news, and your head will be filled with less crap.


You'll probably also start noticing things like sunsets, grass, people being nice to you etc.


Alternatively, keep watching the idiot box until you're scared to move. Then when you are having your last breath, you can look back on your life and say 'I lived a full life in front of a screen'.

I watch a lot of Trump but never heard this, can someone fill me in on what he said about nuking europe, I've heard him say he'd use nuclear weapons but that's a given, Theresa May said that in her first pmq's.

Trump opens his mouth without thinking, constantly. He said he'd nuke Europe under certain circumstances because he put zero thought into the subject. His fanclub cheer talk like that because they think he looks like a tough guy who is unconcerned about "politically correct talk" about NATO allies and innocent people, without considering the lack of intellectual muscle behind such talk.

With Trump we may actually be able to negotiate a lasting peace with Russia which could mean a real reduction in nuclear arms of which the US and Russia own over 90% of. Hillary wants brinkmanship with Russia and to aggressively push the antiquated NATO even further east in the pursuit of global US hegemony. This is the most important bilateral relationship in the world, the US and Russia need to be allies for the ever to be semblance of peace in this world and to triumph over the evil of Islamic extremism.

The truth is, Putin sees Trump as a malleable buffoon he can manipulate through playing up to Trump's inflated ego. And there might be something more to the Trump/Putin relationship - as American banks won't lend money to Mr. Bankruptcy any more, it's a strong possibility that he's going to oligarchs and dictators around the globe, such as Putin, for money. That would make Trump financially beholden to Putin, and would put America in a perilous situation in regard to Russia, if Trump were to win the election.

You are literally writing fiction, the Clinton's have far more questionable foreign(including Russian) connections than Trump has and are totally beholden to the special interests. To try to somehow say that Trump is any way even remotely close to being comparable to the Clinton's in this regard is absolutely laughable.

Hillary's malleable buffoonery was on perfect display during her time as Secretary of State where she let the foreign donors to the Clinton foundation dictate her decisions with some good old fashioned quid pro quo. She was led astray by the neocons and the MIC. Every decision and opinion Hillary has had on foreign policy has been wrong wrong wrong. Hillary's bad decisions gave rise to ISIS, Hillary does the bidding of the Saudi dictators who run the original Islamic State.

Well, hopefully we will never know if I'm "writing fiction," if Trump loses the election, and disappears into the dustbin of history. Because if I'm right, then we're all in trouble should he win.

He didn't say he'd nuke Europe, he talked down the possibility of using them at all but said he couldn't take his cards off the table.

You can see a video and read a transcript here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 61101.html

It's VERY troubling, to me, that Trump would not follow the lead of NATO. That he would selectively not follow the precepts of the treaty--which, after all, could very well have saved us from a nuclear war in the 1950s.

Maintaining alliances is important in international relations. Isolationism has always been a failed policy.

It's also very troubling that he is courting Putin. If he courted Gorbachev back in the 1980s, I would have had less objection to it; Gorbachev was a reasonable man; Putin is ex-KGB, and maintains much of its ethos.

I think he's going to put his foot in his mouth one time too many....and I think he's going to do this soon.

Gorbachev was a communist, he is only thought as a good man now in retrospect in the west because of the part he played in bringing down the Soviet Union. Gorbachev is not held in very high esteem in Russia, neither is Boris Yeltsin.

It's very TROUBLING that Trump is talking about either having our so called allies in NATO pay their fair share? It's very TROUBLING that Trump doesn't want to start WWIII over some country that should of never been allowed in NATO? We've absorbed almost the entire Warsaw Pact, this is as aggressive of an expansionist agenda as anybody ever has had because it is not about protecting anything besides US geopolitical interests. NATO didn't save us from anything, they may of saved western Europe from being overrun by the communists but it provides very little benefit to the US. We don't need to worry about Russian tanks coming over our border, that's not our problem and I would not die to defend almost any of these countries.

If you don't want nuclear war then Trump is the candidate, Hillary keeps us on the path of brinkmanship. You are much too concerned about being popular at the climate conferences in Europe if you think we are risking anything, Obama and Hillary are two of the most incompetent and weak leaders we've ever had as far as foreign policy goes, I am troubled by the state of the Middle East and how they've made us poorer/less safe/and less free. Trump is the peace candidate, Hillary is the candidate of the neocons and MIC.

I think we have to discuss, with our allies, a more equitably-funded NATO.

But we can't just back out of NATO selectively. We can't do that.