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

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Why do people think the President operates like a King? The United States is not an authoritarian country, so if Trump threw a hissy fit and said nuke China, the Joint Chiefs aren't just going to go "OK Mr. President, whatever you say." There are checks and balances for a reason. There will be an impeachment before Trump is able to do any of the apocalyptic shyt his detractors constantly harp about. Hillary is the more hawkish candidate because she has intricate knowledge of the American war machine. She's actually been at its helm before and put it into action. It's far more likely that a No-Fly Zone over Syria will be enacted at her behest than a nuclear bomb will be dropped at Trump's behest because some foreign leader insulted him. Remember, the Constitution gives Congress war powers. Yes, recent history has shown the office of the Presidency encroaching on those powers and muddling the definition of war, but the President's ability to take unilateral military action is not unlimited in theory or practice.

Hope Hicks logged into her coli account and with the quickness as usual.

There are not checks and balances for a nuclear strike. The President has unilateral authority to order a nuclear strike. Of course, the military brass has to actually carry out the strike and they could refuse, but it would be an act of insubordination that would subject them to court martial. You can't be so sure the Joint Chiefs would refuse. The fact that this even has to be discussed about Trump should be enough to drive home how insane it would be to have him as Commander-in-chief.

And what makes you so sure an erratic authoritarian like Trump wouldn't launch a nuclear strike? Say the U.S. gets another 9/11-level attack. Do you really rule the possibility of him dropping nukes? This guy? Trump Says Military 'Won't Refuse' Torture Orders - NBC News We honestly don't know what the fukk he'll do.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

We need more glass parking lots in the Middle East to park our new F-35's

Air Force Declares F-35A Ready for Combat

Lmao sigh

 

[the next guy]

It's funny how the Drumpf supporters here try to make a case for him being the anti-war candidate.

We all know Hillary is a war hawk. But the notion that Donald Trump would be dovish is comically absurd.

What do you think an erratic narcissistic, authoritarian would-be strongman with a lengthy history of overt vindictiveness against all his enemies real or imagined, and who has the personality profile and all the makings of dictator would do with the most powerful military in history at his disposal?

He's not into nation-building, but he'd probably nuke a few places and walk away from the ash.

Some people have been saying that for years. Some fool named Ted Cruz wanted the sand to glow in the dark right?

Is he wrong though?

If they can't be used, the international community should dismantle them.

What purpose do they serve if they're off the table except to increase the likelihood of a terrible accident?

They are deterrents. A sane CIC wouldn't fire a nuke at another sovereign state with nukes. It would start a nuclear holocaust. It's a pretty basic and well known geopolitical theory. Do some research.

Here's the thing. Nuclear weapons have no use in today's society. The deterrent argument is fine but a world war is simply not worth the cost, and might never be again. Hell, Iraq cost as way too much and the Afgan war has been longer then Vietnam at this point.

 

[DEAD7]

#trumpset

 

[tmonster]

 

[acri1]

Be a Donald Trump supporter, brehs

 

[NZA]

It started way before the Bush 43 administration though. The last congressionally sanctioned war was WW2. Then it became congressionally sanctioned "military engagements". And now it's basically UN/NATO sanctioned "military engagements". There was a big discussion around whether or not Obama should have even notified congress about taking action in Libya, and what authority he actually had to take action there. This all speaks to my point about the type of situation where a nuclear bomb would be dropped would have to be a proper War, not a regional conflict. Hillary knows this, so her hawkish policies abide by this new piecemeal "military engagement" framework. Trump still thinks of military conflict in terms of WW2.

drumpf has shown over a protracted period of time to have the mentality of a pathological thug. anything he is empowered to do is "on the table" to him. precedent or decorum means nothing to him

 

[DonKnock]

Why do people think the President operates like a King? The United States is not an authoritarian country, so if Trump threw a hissy fit and said nuke China, the Joint Chiefs aren't just going to go "OK Mr. President, whatever you say." There are checks and balances for a reason. There will be an impeachment before Trump is able to do any of the apocalyptic shyt his detractors constantly harp about. Hillary is the more hawkish candidate because she has intricate knowledge of the American war machine. She's actually been at its helm before and put it into action. It's far more likely that a No-Fly Zone over Syria will be enacted at her behest than a nuclear bomb will be dropped at Trump's behest because some foreign leader insulted him. Remember, the Constitution gives Congress war powers. Yes, recent history has shown the office of the Presidency encroaching on those powers and muddling the definition of war, but the President's ability to take unilateral military action is not unlimited in theory or practice.

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

Hope Hicks logged into her coli account and with the quickness as usual.

There are not checks and balances for a nuclear strike. The President has unilateral authority to order a nuclear strike. Of course, the military brass has to actually carry out the strike and they could refuse, but it would be an act of insubordination that would subject them to court martial. You can't be so sure the Joint Chiefs would refuse. The fact that this even has to be discussed about Trump should be enough to drive home how insane it would be to have him as Commander-in-chief.

And what makes you so sure an erratic authoritarian like Trump wouldn't launch a nuclear strike? Say the U.S. gets another 9/11-level attack. Do you really rule the possibility of him dropping nukes? This guy? Trump Says Military 'Won't Refuse' Torture Orders - NBC News We honestly don't know what the fukk he'll do.

This idiot would authorize the use of a "tactical nuke" thinking its just a regular bomb with a bigger boom...

 

[Bawon Samedi]

As Bernie or Bust guy this damn clown is making me tempted to vote for the witch Clinton.

And it HURTS me saying this.

 

[King Kreole]

Hope Hicks logged into her coli account and with the quickness as usual.

There are not checks and balances for a nuclear strike. The President has unilateral authority to order a nuclear strike. Of course, the military brass has to actually carry out the strike and they could refuse, but it would be an act of insubordination that would subject them to court martial. You can't be so sure the Joint Chiefs would refuse. The fact that this even has to be discussed about Trump should be enough to drive home how insane it would be to have him as Commander-in-chief.

There are checks and balances. It's not like there's a big red button in the oval office that automatically launches all nukes . The president can order one, but there is a chain of command that must act it out. Even the key-turner would be second guessing a Trump ordered nuclear strike, like Stanislav Petrov or Vasili Arkhipov. I'm saying that a President Trump would be such a divisive and untrusted figure by the public and the military establishment that such a decision to launch a non-retaliatory nuclear strike would make insubordination the likely reaction. We would see a military coup before we would see a nuclear strike. There would be a public mandate for the military to take over and install Pence.

Former CIA director: Military may refuse to follow Trump’s orders if he becomes president

Will the Military Obey President Trump’s Orders?

And what makes you so sure an erratic authoritarian like Trump wouldn't launch a nuclear strike? Say the U.S. gets another 9/11-level attack. Do you really rule the possibility of him dropping nukes? This guy? Trump Says Military 'Won't Refuse' Torture Orders - NBC News We honestly don't know what the fukk he'll do.

If there is another paradigm shifting attack like 9/11 with Trump at the helm, all bets may be off because of the high levels of geopolitical tension between Russia and the US. But I don't see the response to that situation shifting much with Hillary Clinton at the helm. She pledged to use nuclear weapons if Iran attacks Israel.

 

[King Kreole]

The system this video is describing is for retaliatory strikes. Meaning if the Early Warning Systems identify an incoming strike, a retaliatory second strike can be authorized and mobilized within 30 minutes. There is obviously a difference, both in policy and in practice, between launching a pre-emptive first strike and launching a retaliatory second strike. There is more time and space for dissension to break out in the former.

Cheney said "He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in." That world would be very different with Trump at the helm. I don't think y'all are understanding just how abnormal a Trump presidency would be. Even if elected, he would be the most disliked and untrusted President in American history. His legitimacy would be questioned at every turn. To think he could take the most dramatic action a President could take without any pushback is absurd. There would literally be a military coup before a Trump ordered pre-emptive first strike is launched.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

The system this video is describing is for retaliatory strikes. Meaning if the Early Warning Systems identify an incoming strike, a retaliatory second strike can be authorized and mobilized within 30 minutes. There is obviously a difference, both in policy and in practice, between launching a pre-emptive first strike and launching a retaliatory second strike. There is more time and space for dissension to break out in the former.

Cheney said "He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in." That world would be very different with Trump at the helm. I don't think y'all are understanding just how abnormal a Trump presidency would be. Even if elected, he would be the most disliked and untrusted President in American history. His legitimacy would be questioned at every turn. To think he could take the most dramatic action a President could take without any pushback is absurd. There would literally be a military coup before a Trump ordered pre-emptive first strike is launched.

I fukking hope so!

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

There are checks and balances. It's not like there's a big red button in the oval office that automatically launches all nukes . The president can order one, but there is a chain of command that must act it out. Even the key-turner would be second guessing a Trump ordered nuclear strike, like Stanislav Petrov or Vasili Arkhipov. I'm saying that a President Trump would be such a divisive and untrusted figure by the public and the military establishment that such a decision to launch a non-retaliatory nuclear strike would make insubordination the likely reaction. We would see a military coup before we would see a nuclear strike. There would be a public mandate for the military to take over and install Pence.

Former CIA director: Military may refuse to follow Trump’s orders if he becomes president

Will the Military Obey President Trump’s Orders?


If there is another paradigm shifting attack like 9/11 with Trump at the helm, all bets may be off because of the high levels of geopolitical tension between Russia and the US. But I don't see the response to that situation shifting much with Hillary Clinton at the helm. She pledged to use nuclear weapons if Iran attacks Israel.

Stop it, Hope. There are no checks and balances on a president's nuclear authority. That is a factually incorrect statement. NO ONE has legal authority to nix a president's call for a nuclear strike. The system is designed so that the president is entrusted with making the call on nukes within a matter of minutes if need be. The nuclear football is carried by an aide--probably some Trump yesman/lackey--who is near the president at all times. What you are calling "check and balances" is merely your unsubstantiated hope in an impromptu act of patriotic insubordination by military brass who refuse to carry out the strike. And Trump seems to have a fetish for nukes.



I know Trump is paying you a lot, but please stop pretending this isn't a legitimate concern.

 

[Chipdeez]

Joe Scarborough is a known trump enabler who has sit on this angle for months. Is Joe still voting for trump?

Thom Hartmann has an odd conspiracy theory that Scarborough controls the Republican party. Based on his logic if Trump loses Scarborough he loses everything.