Rear Admiral... why you should NOT vote for the Donald.

[swamplizard]

Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett lays out a no nonsense, reasoned approach for not voting Trump into the WH:

http://m.richmond.com/opinion/their...ba6-b6a1-5456-8de0-f49afe03120b.html?mode=jqm

 

[Fern]

A no nonsense argument?

Really?

I find the whole 'start a nuclear war' thingy to be nonsense.

There are plenty of reasons to not vote for Trump, but that one is silly.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

That guy's not the real military, he doesn't even have the best hair, or the best smarts, and not really a good brain, let me tell you.

I know good brains, and those aren't really good brains.

 

[zinfamous]

A no nonsense argument?

Really?

I find the whole 'start a nuclear war' thingy to be nonsense.

There are plenty of reasons to not vote for Trump, but that one is silly.

Fern

Well, that was one of his dozen+ points, but whatever.

 

[buckshot24]

Trump will also skin alive anybody who lost on the Apprentice and put their skinless bodies in gitmo.

 

[fskimospy]

A no nonsense argument?

Really?

I find the whole 'start a nuclear war' thingy to be nonsense.

There are plenty of reasons to not vote for Trump, but that one is silly.

Fern

Can you explain why that's silly? His argument is pretty simple:

1. The US has come reasonably close to a nuclear exchange in the past and might do so again in the future.
2. If that does happen, having an unstable person as the president makes a bad outcome more likely.
3. Considering the catastrophic nature of that outcome it's not worth the risk to have someone so tempermentally unfit.

That doesn't seem particularly silly at all to me.

 

[Fern]

Because something almost happened 6 decades ago I should give that high priority in a voting decision? I don't think so. I consider it far too hypothetical and unlikely. It's like panicking when a candidate wants to ban all abortions or all guns; ain't gonna happen - SCOTUS has ruled.

Too many existent problems. Those demand a high priority.

Fern

 

[zinfamous]

Because something almost happened 6 decades ago I should give that high priority in a voting decision? I don't think so. I consider it far too hypothetical and unlikely. It's like panicking when a candidate wants to ban all abortions or all guns; ain't gonna happen - SCOTUS has ruled.

Too many existent problems. Those demand a high priority.

Fern

Do you like, read or watch the news? Know anything about that fatty over in North Korea, or maybe that Putin fellow?

Are you familiar with Pakistan? What about the declaration that Al-Qaeda/ISIL/whomever really freaking want some nukes?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Because something almost happened 6 decades ago I should give that high priority in a voting decision? I don't think so. I consider it far too hypothetical and unlikely. It's like panicking when a candidate wants to ban all abortions or all guns; ain't gonna happen - SCOTUS has ruled.

Too many existent problems. Those demand a high priority.

Fern

Almost is too easy of a word if one man wasn't there very likely may have seen a disaster. I watched a history channel show about this years ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...verted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html

Otherwise I agree the Rear Admiral is overreacting.

 

[fskimospy]

Because something almost happened 6 decades ago I should give that high priority in a voting decision? I don't think so. I consider it far too hypothetical and unlikely. It's like panicking when a candidate wants to ban all abortions or all guns; ain't gonna happen - SCOTUS has ruled.

Too many existent problems. Those demand a high priority.

Fern

You're free to assign it whatever value seems right to you! You claimed it was 'silly' though which seems unfounded, especially considering that 'something' was nuclear war. It's something that a president stands a nontrivial chance of encountering in their time in office and having an unstable and erratic person as the president during that time sounds really really bad, no?

 

[Subyman]

Fern may not rank the nuclear arsenal very high on his list of concerns. As for me, pretty much the first test is if you'd trust someone with command of the military and the nuclear weapon stockpile. I wouldn't trust Trump to sell me real estate, so it's a no go for me.

As for Clinton, at least I trust her to be very careful with our nuclear capability. trump obviously doesn't understand the power of nuclear weapons since he so easily would give Japan and South Korea the go ahead to start their own program. If he can't get nuclear non-proliferation right then that should end the discussion right there.

 

[Fern]

Do you like, read or watch the news? Know anything about that fatty over in North Korea, or maybe that Putin fellow?

Are you familiar with Pakistan? What about the declaration that Al-Qaeda/ISIL/whomever really freaking want some nukes?

What does that have to do with Trump?

Those threats have more to do with past administrations' ability or willingness to stop proliferation. And I am reminded of this administration's ill-advised deal with Iran.

As for Trump's willingness to consider allow Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes I'm not yet convinced it's an unreasonable idea.

Let's see we're allowing Iran to get them, might that need to be counter balanced by S.A. having them to protect themselves? I hear many on the Left claiming that Iran should be allowed to have them because they have a reasonable fear of us attacking Iran. Does not S.A. have a reasonable fear of their mortal enemy Iran? Many on the Left also claim to want us out of the policing business and turn that over to our allies, that they need to step up etc. If Iran uses, or threaten to use nukes in that region wouldn't the Left's argument suggest that S.A. steps up to counter that threat and not us?

So Japan, which has a pretty damn good record as a good global citizen the last 60 or so yrs, is next to China who is belligerent, aggressive and is rapidly building up its military. Should they able to protect themselves? Or does the Left now switch direction and say we should be the 'police' for them?

Now, back to threats you mention: If NK etc uses nukes do you fear Trump would retaliate with nukes? Do you prefer a President who would instead decide we should just absorb such an attack? If not, what is it you want?

I've read the Left's arguments here for years about how an ideologically/religious fanatic like the Ayatollah is too rational to use nukes, yet you would have us tremble in fear over Trump using them? Yeah, I used the word "silly" for a reason.

Fern

 

[swamplizard]

A no nonsense argument?

Really?

I find the whole 'start a nuclear war' thingy to be nonsense.

There are plenty of reasons to not vote for Trump, but that one is silly.

Fern

Yes.

Yes.

I find it to be the most important.

Yes, there are a lot of reasons, this one leads the pack.

 

[swamplizard]

What does that have to do with Trump?

Those threats have more to do with past administrations' ability or willingness to stop proliferation. And I am reminded of this administration's ill-advised deal with Iran.

As for Trump's willingness to consider allow Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes I'm not yet convinced it's an unreasonable idea.

Let's see we're allowing Iran to get them, might that need to be counter balanced by S.A. having them to protect themselves? I hear many on the Left claiming that Iran should be allowed to have them because they have a reasonable fear of us attacking Iran. Does not S.A. have a reasonable fear of their mortal enemy Iran? Many on the Left also claim to want us out of the policing business and turn that over to our allies, that they need to step up etc. If Iran uses, or threaten to use nukes in that region wouldn't the Left's argument suggest that S.A. steps up to counter that threat and not us?

So Japan, which has a pretty damn good record as a good global citizen the last 60 or so yrs, is next to China who is belligerent, aggressive and is rapidly building up its military. Should they able to protect themselves? Or does the Left now switch direction and say we should be the 'police' for them?

Now, back to threats you mention: If NK etc uses nukes do you fear Trump would retaliate with nukes? Do you prefer a President who would instead decide we should just absorb such an attack? If not, what is it you want?

I've read the Left's arguments here for years about how an ideologically/religious fanatic like the Ayatollah is too rational to use nukes, yet you would have us tremble in fear over Trump using them? Yeah, I used the word "silly" for a reason.

Fern

You'll excuse me if I take the advice of a rear admiral over your highly logical argument.

 

[Subyman]

What does that have to do with Trump?

Those threats have more to do with past administrations' ability or willingness to stop proliferation. And I am reminded of this administration's ill-advised deal with Iran.

As for Trump's willingness to consider allow Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes I'm not yet convinced it's an unreasonable idea.

Let's see we're allowing Iran to get them, might that need to be counter balanced by S.A. having them to protect themselves? I hear many on the Left claiming that Iran should be allowed to have them because they have a reasonable fear of us attacking Iran. Does not S.A. have a reasonable fear of their mortal enemy Iran? Many on the Left also claim to want us out of the policing business and turn that over to our allies, that they need to step up etc. If Iran uses, or threaten to use nukes in that region wouldn't the Left's argument suggest that S.A. steps up to counter that threat and not us?

So Japan, which has a pretty damn good record as a good global citizen the last 60 or so yrs, is next to China who is belligerent, aggressive and is rapidly building up its military. Should they able to protect themselves? Or does the Left now switch direction and say we should be the 'police' for them?

Now, back to threats you mention: If NK etc uses nukes do you fear Trump would retaliate with nukes? Do you prefer a President who would instead decide we should just absorb such an attack? If not, what is it you want?

I've read the Left's arguments here for years about how an ideologically/religious fanatic like the Ayatollah is too rational to use nukes, yet you would have us tremble in fear over Trump using them? Yeah, I used the word "silly" for a reason.

Fern

I'm not sure about the "lefts" idea of spreading nukes to the world. I'll always be on the side of nuclear non proliferation and instead use alliances to empower smaller countries. The less nukes the better. The "more nukes makes us safer" crowd has always baffled me.

 

[Moonbeam]

You're free to assign it whatever value seems right to you! You claimed it was 'silly' though which seems unfounded, especially considering that 'something' was nuclear war. It's something that a president stands a nontrivial chance of encountering in their time in office and having an unstable and erratic person as the president during that time sounds really really bad, no?

But what is the reality of this kind of logical thinking. It could mean to some that with somebody like Trump in office we are safe. Who would fuck with somebody as psychotic as he is. It would be like hitting a bomb with a hammer to see if it goes off.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not sure about the "lefts" idea of spreading nukes to the world. I'll always be on the side of nuclear non proliferation and instead use alliances to empower smaller countries. The less nukes the better. The "more nukes makes us safer" crowd has always baffled me.

Yeah, nuclear non-proliferation has worked so well that we aren't allowing Iran to test better missiles and we are checking on every nuclear site they own. Further, it's been so good that NK doesn't have nukes.

Saudi already said they're likely to get them if Iran goes any further. They apparently have an agreement with beloved patriot to get them.

Japan and SK are unlikely to do it provided we protect them.

 

[Perknose]

As for Trump's willingness to consider allow Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes I'm not yet convinced it's an unreasonable idea.

Let's see we're allowing Iran to get them, might that need to be counter balanced by S.A. having them to protect themselves?

Give the Wahhabis nukes? The people mortally opposed to Israel? Your basic lack of understanding blows my mind.

I'll bet, back in the day, you'd have been all for giving the Shah nukes. Think about that. Please. Think.

The royals in SA have been buying off the clerics and the populace for years with their oil money. You don't think what happened in Iran couldn't happen in SA? Just how clueless are you? What happens when the oil money runs out?

 

[KMFJD]

Because something almost happened 6 decades ago I should give that high priority in a voting decision? I don't think so. I consider it far too hypothetical and unlikely. It's like panicking when a candidate wants to ban all abortions or all guns; ain't gonna happen - SCOTUS has ruled.

Too many existent problems. Those demand a high priority.

Fern

smh

 

[LegendKiller]

Give the Wahhabis nukes? The people mortally opposed to Israel? Your basic lack of understanding blows my mind.

I'll bet, back in the day, you'd have been all for giving the Shah nukes. Think about that. Please. Think.

The royals in SA have been buying off the clerics and the populace for years with their oil money. You don't think what happened in Iran couldn't happen in SA? Just how clueless are you? What happens when the oil money runs out?

Give? lol - surely you must be mistaken. Who do you think is going to stop them?

 

[KMFJD]

Give the Wahhabis nukes? The people mortally opposed to Israel? Your basic lack of understanding blows my mind.

I'll bet, back in the day, you'd have been all for giving the Shah nukes. Think about that. Please. Think.

The royals in SA have been buying off the clerics and the populace for years with their oil money. You don't think what happened in Iran couldn't happen in SA? Just how clueless are you? What happens when the oil money runs out?

Giving nukes to that ticking time bomb in Saudi Arabia is suicidal...wow

 

[Subyman]

Yeah, nuclear non-proliferation has worked so well that we aren't allowing Iran to test better missiles and we are checking on every nuclear site they own. Further, it's been so good that NK doesn't have nukes.

So because nuclear non-proliferation has been a complicated and hard issue for us over the years we should do what? Drop it? You seem to be attacking nuclear non-proliferation by stating the very thing non-proliferation strives to do. You are saying NK and Iran have advanced under nuclear non-proliferation policy as a dig at those very policies, but the opposite of those policies would let them freely advance.

Saudi already said they're likely to get them if Iran goes any further. They apparently have an agreement with beloved patriot to get them.

Which is why I agree with nuclear non-proliferation.

Japan and SK are unlikely to do it provided we protect them.

Good!

Trump is directly calling for more countries to get nuclear arms and even proposed helping them do it. No thanks!

 

[x26]

Rear Admiral Jamie Barnett lays out a no nonsense, reasoned approach for not voting Trump into the WH:

http://m.richmond.com/opinion/their...ba6-b6a1-5456-8de0-f49afe03120b.html?mode=jqm

Another Retarded Post by Swamplizard--What a Surprise.

 

[Brainonska511]

As for Trump's willingness to consider allow Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes I'm not yet convinced it's an unreasonable idea.

You may want to get your head checked.

Let's see we're allowing Iran to get them, might that need to be counter balanced by S.A. having them to protect themselves? I hear many on the Left claiming that Iran should be allowed to have them because they have a reasonable fear of us attacking Iran. Does not S.A. have a reasonable fear of their mortal enemy Iran? Many on the Left also claim to want us out of the policing business and turn that over to our allies, that they need to step up etc. If Iran uses, or threaten to use nukes in that region wouldn't the Left's argument suggest that S.A. steps up to counter that threat and not us?

Who in any real power "on the left" is advocating for a nuclear armed Iran? I know some people have spoken to how they understand why Iran would want nuclear weapons (after all, history has shown that nuclear armed countries are rarely attacked/invaded). That doesn't translate to sympathizing with and advocating for their cause.

And on a related note, we're not "allowing Iran to get them". Did you miss the whole crippling sanctions and global agreement that forced them to basically dismantle their program?

So Japan, which has a pretty damn good record as a good global citizen the last 60 or so yrs, is next to China who is belligerent, aggressive and is rapidly building up its military. Should they able to protect themselves? Or does the Left now switch direction and say we should be the 'police' for them?

Sounds like a great way to start a new arms race in east Asia. The South Koreans aren't really keen on seeing a re-armed Japan after what happened the last time they decided to have a little party.

I'd rather we hold the keys to nuclear weapons than allow the technology to proliferate to our allies and our "allies".

 

[evident]

As for Trump's willingness to consider allow Japan and Saudi Arabia to have nukes I'm not yet convinced it's an unreasonable idea.

WHAT?!

saudi arabia... nukes... saudi arabia... nukes...
WHAT?!

lets take a step back

Japan... nukes, WHY?! I fail to understand how this would strengthen US foreign policy in Asia. Dont you want to make america fucking great again? why wouldnt you want the US to maintain its current status with Japan and SK? and don't give me the it costs too much bullshit. it's a drop in the bucket and money well spent to defend our allies and defend against a belligerent china.