Donald Trump on nuclear weapons "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

[CACtain Planet]

With the threat that Trump poses to society I can't respect you if you don't vote for Hillary.

fukk your respect bytch:outtahere:

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Why can't Trump use nuclear weapons, Brehz?

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

If I'm Hillary I use this in an ad regardless is this statement can be verified or not.

Trump...Pence...Why Can't We Use Nuclear Weapons?!?

 

[无名的]

So who was the foreign policy expert, when was this conversation and is there any more context yet?

 

[Scoop]

They serve no deterrent purpose if their use is never on the table.

 

[Ghost_In_A_Shell]

Let me find out I have more money than Donald Trump tho

If he doesn't get in office, he'll be ruined. he would be lucky to even get an reality show on wb network.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

So who was the foreign policy expert, when was this conversation and is there any more context yet?

I would like to know this as well...you can't just say shyt like that without something to back it up

Scarborough knows this too...by mentioning this shyt ON HIS OWN SHOW in the morning on MSNBC, he has to know that he has now inserted himself into this shyt

 

[hayesc0]

They serve no deterrent purpose if their use is never on the table.

Lol wow.

 

[hashmander]

They serve no deterrent purpose if their use is never on the table.

the deterrent purpose isn't "if you don't act right we'll nuke you." the deterrent is in "if you bomb us we bomb you." the deterrent is that while it's a damn shame a nuclear power like russia can take territory away from a non-nuclear power like ukraine, the US would never engage in a hot war with them over it.

i don't know if you're trolling or not but honestly that comment is unbecoming of someone in law school. now i see how some right wingers who went to harvard law like cruz and did good there can come across like complete fools. when you have to twist yourself into knots to try and defend a stupid comment or position, you just end up saying dumb shyt.

 

[King Kreole]

the deterrent purpose isn't "if you don't act right we'll nuke you." the deterrent is in "if you bomb us we bomb you." the deterrent is that while it's a damn shame a nuclear power like russia can take territory away from a non-nuclear power like ukraine, the US would never engage in a hot war with them over it.

i don't know if you're trolling or not but honestly that comment is unbecoming of someone in law school. now i see how some right wingers who went to harvard law like cruz and did good there can come across like complete fools. when you have to twist yourself into knots to try and defend a stupid comment or position, you just end up saying dumb shyt.

Saying "if you bomb us, we'll bomb you" is putting their use on the table. That's what Scoop is saying, if I understand him correctly. Taking their use off the table means we'll never use them in any circumstance, which nullifies their purpose as a deterrent. No President would ever say they would never use nuclear weapons.

 

[hashmander]

Saying "if you bomb us, we'll bomb you" is putting their use on the table. That's what Scoop is saying, if I understand him correctly. Taking their use off the table means we'll never use them in any circumstance, which nullifies their purpose as a deterrent. No President would ever say they would never use nuclear weapons.

that's obviously not what this thread is about. y'all motherfukkers can be so deliberately obtuse trying to defend this idiot and his rantings. you don't need to say if you bomb us we'll bomb you is on the table because that's obvious to all parties.

 

[Scoop]

the deterrent purpose isn't "if you don't act right we'll nuke you." the deterrent is in "if you bomb us we bomb you." the deterrent is that while it's a damn shame a nuclear power like russia can take territory away from a non-nuclear power like ukraine, the US would never engage in a hot war with them over it.

i don't know if you're trolling or not but honestly that comment is unbecoming of someone in law school. now i see how some right wingers who went to harvard law like cruz and did good there can come across like complete fools. when you have to twist yourself into knots to try and defend a stupid comment or position, you just end up saying dumb shyt.

I didn't read the OP. I looked at the thread title, made a one line post that is objectively true and relates to the thread title, and left. I didn't read or watch Trump's actual comments and I didn't defend Trump's comments either.

Just because I'm in law school doesn't mean I treat everything in life like an appellate brief. If I want to dikk around on The Coli and discuss policy then so be it. It's not like my posting falls below HL's quality threshold.

And btw, you're bolded does exactly what I said, so I'm not even sure why you're disagreeing with me.

But on a side note, would you always wait to be nuked first before nuking someone else? That would be an interesting policy discussion out of this.

Lol wow.

What? You would get nuked and not nuke back?

 

[hashmander]

I didn't read the OP. I looked at the thread title, made a one line post that is objectively true and relates to the thread title, and left. I didn't read or watch Trump's actual comments and I didn't defend Trump's comments either.

Just because I'm in law school doesn't mean I treat everything in life like an appellate brief. If I want to dikk around on The Coli and discuss policy then so be it. It's not like my posting falls below HL's quality threshold.

And btw, you're bolded does exactly what I said, so I'm not even sure why you're disagreeing with me.

But on a side note, would you always wait to be nuked first before nuking someone else? That would be an interesting policy discussion out of this.



What? You would get nuked and not nuke back?

yes because i value my life (and if i'm a leader the lives of the people i lead). once you launch a nuke at a nuclear power or a friend of a nuclear power you know that one is coming back at you. it's like filling a room with propane gas and lighting a match, it's not going to end well. so if you value your own life (or country's life) you know you can't use it. the person who has a zest for living will always be the one reacting and not the aggressor. that's why even countries like russia and china don't like the idea of unstable people having access to one. china and russia know that it's all good in the hood as long as they don't use theirs first and like wise with america. that's a comforting feeling for nations to know that no one is going to be fukking with you like that. people might say we're the only country to use nuclear weapons on another, but we were the only ones who had it and no threat of someone dropping one on us. just look at the wars since WWII, small shyt by comparison. and that's why I don't worry myself about a potential WWIII because that's like worrying about a giant meteor hitting earth: if it happens who gives a shyt we're all dead anyway.

a question for you. do you believe if ukraine still had their nuclear weapons that crimea would still be a part of their country? that's one aspect of nuclear weapons I like ... it keeps shyt relatively calm. the bad is obvious to us all. you give a death cult like ISIS and other islamists a nuke and it's game over because they would love to end the world.

 

[King Kreole]

that's obviously not what this thread is about. y'all motherfukkers can be so deliberately obtuse trying to defend this idiot and his rantings. you don't need to say if you bomb us we'll bomb you is on the table because that's obvious to all parties.

This thread is about an unsubstantiated Trump rumour. We have no idea if the alleged conversation even took place, much less what the context of his questions regarding nuclear policy are.

And complete disarmament is a legitimate political movement, so it's not obvious to all parties that the existence of nuclear weapons is justifiable as a deterrence.