Sunday, 4 December 2016
quote [ The people who set up the current command-and-control system did believe there was a check in place: elections. Don’t want an insane president to have nuclear weapons? Don’t put one in office. ]
I remember the nuclear war nightmares I had during the Cold War. Now I'm waiting for them to return.
|
SnappyNipples said @ 10:50am GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:1 Insightful]
I bet 50 quatloos that Trump gets impeached on the first term and Pence takes over giving the GOP their win.
|
bbqkink said @ 4:36pm GMT on 4th Dec
No bet.
|
Taleweaver said @ 1:13pm GMT on 6th Dec
50 quid* against it.
*Yeah, that's fifty British pounds. And yeah, I'm serious. |
XregnaR said @ 12:36pm GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:1 Underrated]
I'm sorry, but this is some of the worst chicken little scaremongering I've seen so far.
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said[1] @ 3:29pm GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:1 Underrated]
Did you not live through the Reagan administration? Ronald Reagan really didn't get that nukes were a bad thing and that nuclear war was unwinnable until he saw the made-for-TV movie, "The Day After." It's why he was so willing to saber-rattle with the Soviets before seeing it and so eager to start negotiations afterwards. Trump seems even more oblivious to the realities of what he's saying than Ronnie did, and Ron had Alzheimer's.
Tell me you honestly think Trump understands what would happen if he launched even a single ICBM. |
bbqkink said @ 6:01pm GMT on 4th Dec
Trump Asks, 'If We Have [Nuclear Weapons], Why Can't We Use Them?'
|
taeyn said @ 2:40pm GMT on 4th Dec
I agree, but still found it interesting for some of the chain-of-command details i didn't know.
|
XregnaR said @ 3:08pm GMT on 4th Dec
We still don't know them all, and never will. Neither will this journalist.
|
sanepride said @ 10:35pm GMT on 4th Dec
Alex Wellerstein is a historian of nuclear weapons at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. He runs the website Restricted Data: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog
Dr. Wellerstein's full CV I think he probably knows a lot more than any of us. |
bbqkink said @ 5:45pm GMT on 4th Dec
Because the fact that a person of questionable mental fitness who's understanding of the workings of government let alone the nuances of diplomacy are very much in doubt has control over a system that is designed to destroy the entire planet?
All Trump needs to launch a nuclear attack is 30 min. and the nod of an ex-general called "Mad Dog" who has said on the record that killing "certain" people is fun....no reason to worry at all. |
sanepride said @ 7:42pm GMT on 4th Dec
Granted the title and tone are a little dramatic, but also accurate. I'd argue it's not scaremongering to point out the dated, Cold War era policy that gives the president incredibly wide latitude in employing nuclear weapons (due to the obviously short time span a retaliatory strike would have to be authorized in the event of attack) and the fact that we've elected a president with a clearly limited grasp or interest in the complexities of global relations and security (well illustrated with the Taiwan phone call). But it's also pointed out that this is fixable via Congressional action. In the current global environment, there's no need to put world-ending power in the hands of one individual.
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 8:25pm GMT on 4th Dec
Look, it's not like it's as bad as snow in Hawaii, right?
|
XregnaR said @ 8:36pm GMT on 4th Dec
Don't eat the snow in Hawaii.
|
GordonGuano said @ 5:53pm GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:-4 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold |
papango said @ 5:47am GMT on 5th Dec
[Score:1 Insightful]
Why should anybody be able to stop him? He's the president. This is what America voted for (or weren't bothered enough to vote against). He's the Commander in Chief; he gets the nuclear codes.
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 2:48am GMT on 4th Dec
And he's already getting the Chinese pissed at him by talking to Taiwan and violating the One China policy.
Naturally, Trump thinks he did nothing wrong and is grousing back. That bully-ego of his is what's going to get us all nuked, if anything does. He'll just see no other way to "win" an argument and rather than be seen as a low-energy pathetic small-hands, he'll do the only obvious thing he can think of. Is this all still Hillary's fault and everything? We're still letting the people who voted for him off the hook, are we? |
sanepride said @ 5:31am GMT on 4th Dec
Still isn't even clear if that phone call was out of defiance of the One China policy or shear ignorance of the One China policy.
Either way, not exactly a reassuring start. |
Ankylosaur said @ 5:41am GMT on 4th Dec
Or sheer indifference to either of those since he was just doing it to grease the wheels of a local government as part of a hotel development bid.
Nuclear deterrent used to be about either getting nukes of your own or entering in defensive agreements with nuke-possessors. Now countries will seek to have Trump hotels to protect themselves. |
bbqkink said @ 5:52pm GMT on 4th Dec
I would actually feel better if the call was done out of defiance and not like I fear because of a hotel deal and ignorance of the sensitivity.
|
bbqkink said @ 7:22pm GMT on 4th Dec
Whether it says it or not, China will regard this as a deeply destabilizing event not because the call materially changes U.S. support for Taiwan—it does not—but because it reveals the incoming Presidency to be volatile and unpredictable. In that sense, the Taiwan call is the latest indicator that Trump the President will be largely indistinguishable from Trump the candidate.
Trump has also shown himself to be highly exploitable on subjects that he does not grasp. He is surrounding himself with ideologically committed advisers who will seek to use those opportunities when they can. We should expect similar moments of exploitation to come on issues that Trump will regard as esoteric, such as the Middle East, health care, immigration, and entitlements. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-risk-behind-trumps-taiwan-call |
sanepride said @ 7:45pm GMT on 4th Dec
Somehow I'd be more reassured knowing that it was out of old-fashioned corrupt cronyism. At least we'd know there was a tangible motivation.
|
bbqkink said[3] @ 8:29pm GMT on 4th Dec
Well if he knew enough not to take that call no mater the motivation. But instead shows complete ignorance by saying "He called me"...Who the hell is advising him?
I am also wondering what all of those farmers around here where I live will think when the trade war starts and those Chinese grain orders are canceled. ++++UPDATE+++ It seems he didn't tell his advisors until after the call... Senator Chris Murphy talks with Rachel Maddow about the complicated relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan and how Donald Trump's phone call with the Taiwanese president has upset 40 years of careful U.S.-China diplomacy. Duration: 21:23 |
HoZay said @ 10:20pm GMT on 4th Dec
China might well decide this is a good time to bring Taiwan back into the fold. That way Trump wouldn't be confused about how many Chinas there are.
|
Fish said @ 3:56am GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:-5 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold |
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 4:21am GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:2 Underrated]
Oh, good. We're back to the juvenile dick-waving of the Bush II years. Thanks for 6+ trillion dollars and thousands of deaths proving you weren't "pussies."
God, you Trump cultists need to grow up. |
cb361 said @ 4:38am GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:1 Insightful]
The only comfort is that at least they'll wind up just as radioactive as the rest of us.
|
Ankylosaur said @ 5:11am GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:1 Underrated]
Even as they're glowing in the dark and sprouting a third arm they'll insufferably insist that "anthropogenic radiation" is a liberal hoax.
|
sanepride said @ 5:29am GMT on 4th Dec
No comfort in the knowledge that they'll still have a gun for each arm.
|
cb361 said @ 6:16am GMT on 4th Dec
And matchless aim, with their six eyes.
|
midden said[2] @ 6:18am GMT on 4th Dec
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 3:20pm GMT on 4th Dec
And yet overall gun ownership is down. Maybe the NRA-ites think they can make up for it with volume?
|
midden said @ 7:35am GMT on 5th Dec
[Score:1 Informative]
Yeah, pretty much.
"The average gun-owning household now owns an estimated 8.1 guns, compared with 4.1 guns in 1994. But, at the same time, less households actually own guns. The ownership estimates come from the Post’s Wonkblog, which analyzed results from surveys and data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." http://www.chron.com/national/article/A-new-estimate-on-how-many-guns-the-average-gun-6584060.php |
Fish said @ 4:41am GMT on 5th Dec
[Score:-2 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold |
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 5:43am GMT on 5th Dec
Ah, the obsession with penises. No wonder guns are so important to you.
|
Fish said @ 5:03am GMT on 8th Dec
Whatever.
Get the fuck off my lawn. |
arrowhen said @ 3:23pm GMT on 4th Dec
Those mutations could be explained by simple inbreeding!
|
foobar said @ 6:23am GMT on 4th Dec
Except they won't. Nukes are expensive; they only get aimed at important places.
|
satanspenis666 said @ 4:06pm GMT on 4th Dec
They are cheap, when you get other people to pay for them. i.e. the American tax payers.
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 4:10pm GMT on 4th Dec
They're even cheaper when no one is left to collect on what you owe for them.
|
gendo666 said @ 9:02am GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:-2]
filtered comment under your threshold |
eidolon said @ 3:54pm GMT on 4th Dec
Really takes the punch out of it that we have to say we're afraid he'll use the football and the biscuit.
|
the circus said @ 3:54pm GMT on 4th Dec
The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!
|
Ussmak said @ 5:06pm GMT on 4th Dec
This exact same article would've been written if Hillary had won the election.
|
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 5:11pm GMT on 4th Dec
Except it would've been on a site with either spinning skull GIFs or ads for prepper equipment and how colloidal silver will cure chemtrail infections.
|
Ussmak said @ 6:14pm GMT on 4th Dec
[Score:-1 Flamebait]
filtered comment under your threshold |
sanepride said @ 7:53pm GMT on 4th Dec
So are you suggesting that former Secretary of State Clinton is somehow less qualified than real estate mogul and reality TV star Trump in the area of international policy and global security?
|
yasha said @ 8:20pm GMT on 4th Dec
WWI was started by a bunch of super qualified folks who had no idea they were about to start an epoch ending apocalyptic war.
Could be that she'd a been less likely to start nuclear holocaust because her experience within the system taught her the right lessons. Could be that she'd a been more likely to start nuclear holocaust because her experience taught her the wrong lessons. It's essentially unknowable. The nuclear holocaust, if it comes, will be a shocking outcome from a chain of decisions that seemed perfectly reasonable to almost all players at the time. Trump v Clinton doesn't enter into the equation at all. |
sanepride said[1] @ 8:44pm GMT on 4th Dec
Actually WWI was started by a bunch of inbred monarchs having essentially an epic family quarrel. Their only qualifications were their lineage.
And when you consider that the president alone has such unchecked authority on unilateral nuclear weapons use, the qualifications, temperament, and ultimate judgement of the holder of that office is everything. Essentially unknowable, perhaps. But easily educated-guessable. |
Fish said @ 4:46am GMT on 5th Dec
[Score:-3 Troll]
filtered comment under your threshold |
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 5:44am GMT on 5th Dec
[Score:0 Underrated]
"...had it been about popular vote he'd have beat her there too."
Except he didn't win the popular vote, no matter how many times he tries to convince himself of it. |
sanepride said @ 6:47am GMT on 5th Dec
Any reasonable person knows this, which is why it's pointless to explain it to an odious troll like Fish. Even numbers is more agreeable than this worthless twat.
|
Fish said @ 5:03am GMT on 8th Dec
This worthless twat runs circles around you.
Kiss kiss, lovey! |
Fish said @ 5:01am GMT on 8th Dec
"Except he didn't win the popular vote"
He didn't win the popular vote because the rules of engagement were to win the electoral college. So that's what he focused his campaign on. Had the rules called for the winner to be decided by popular vote, he'd have geared his campaign that way. The problem with dipshit condescending progs– the reason they lose– is because they believe that their enemies are idiots. Which they clearly are not. |
bbqkink said @ 6:31pm GMT on 4th Dec
What would the danger be if a Pres. Trump had nuclear codes? MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains in detail the logistics of how a president would declare nuclear war https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=371ppiYpk1U |
HoZay said @ 8:18am GMT on 5th Dec
Looks like the Taiwan phone call/insult to China was deliberate. Now he's making it worse.
Trump attacks China in Twitter outburst |
sanepride said @ 4:13pm GMT on 5th Dec
Yup.
Trump’s Taiwan phone call was long planned, say people who were involved Seems like this is meant to be a big warning shot that he intends to 'get tough' with China. What exactly this is supposed to accomplish is unclear. Maybe it's something like 'that'll teach 'em for steaiin' our jerbs and dumpin' cheap goods in our Walmarts'. I think we'll be seeing some very nervous Asian allies. It's a good bet China has well-laid out contingency plans for just such provocations. |
HoZay said @ 5:41pm GMT on 5th Dec
They can take Taiwan any time they choose to. What would we do about it? Close Walmart?
|
sanepride said @ 5:56pm GMT on 5th Dec
...which brings us back to the original point of this post.
Despite our lack of official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we are paradoxically pledged to defend them from attack or invasion from the PRC. Realistically it's utter madness for either the US or China to risk direct military conflict with their biggest trading partner. So why deliberately poke China over this? Welcome to the new, unpredictable normal of the Trump era. We can only hope that at leas one side will continue to act in a relatively measured, rational manner. |
HoZay said @ 6:01pm GMT on 5th Dec
Trump doesn't seem to care about treaties. They're like contracts, made to be broken.
|
sanepride said @ 6:36pm GMT on 5th Dec
Maybe he thinks he can just sue China if they invade Taiwan.
|