Vote Clinton and face Nuclear Armageddon!

[HamburgerBoy]

In all seriousness, I do not think Trump is anymore likely to start a nuclear war than Clinton is. The chain of command will prevent Trump from initiating a nuclear attack from rash tantrum. What is more likely to happen is more nations will try to arm themselves with nuclear weapons during his presidency and that will over time get us closer to nuclear confrontations in the long run.

And now the dodging. Nuclear proliferation is not in our interests or in the interests of stability & peace. We'd be fools not to stand against it when practicable to do so. That's beyond obvious.

And then there's Donald, the shit talking fool.

Curious what evidence there is to support this when the closest we were ever to nuclear war was when there was a nuclear duopoly. Violence between Pakistan and India dropped drastically after they both developed nukes. MAD kills not through nuclear warfare, but through proxy war.

Unless you mean nuclear terrorist attacks/rogue nations

 

[feralkid]

Trump's wording is nihilistic and not great to hear, but can you say he's wrong? The fact of the matter is that we "let" both Pakistan and North Korea have nukes. You can't pretend that nations won't want to adopt nuclear arsenals when their next-door neighbors have them. The only other solution is a movement towards total disarmament, which no one is proposing.

Actually, that is exactly what most of the world is proposing for the long-run.

 

[DrDoug]

If you're referring to me excluding India and Pakistan in that list, it's because by Asian I meant specifically nations in that specific sphere of influence, and ethnically "Asian"/Mongoloid. I mean, I guess India and Pakistan could easily get involved if they wanted to, but they are kind of their own pocket of nuclear tension, and have no reason to support Japan or South Korea.

Otherwise, if South Korea decided they wanted to undergo a nuclear weapons research project of their own accord, would you support military action to stop them?

Sorry for not being clear but the idea that you think just letting nations develop nuclear weapons is the answer. You're either not serious or you're a blithering idiot, I'll let you decide. Regarding the rest of your spiel, I'm not wasting my time on the worthless speculation that you thrive on.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Actually, that is exactly what most of the world is proposing for the long-run.

Cool, so where were Bill, George, and Barack for all the time you had a crazy rogue state like North Korea going nuclear? Where has Hillary made it a priority? On her website she mentions preventing Iran from getting nukes as well as reducing American and Russian arsenals to their lowest size in 50 years (what will that be? a mere 5000 or so each?), but nothing about North Korea.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Sorry for not being clear but the idea that you think just letting nations develop nuclear weapons is the answer. You're either not serious or you're a blithering idiot, I'll let you decide. Regarding the rest of your spiel, I'm not wasting my time on the worthless speculation that you thrive on.

The answer to what? I'm saying it's something more nations would do were they so allowed. Not an answer, at least to any problem America has, just a reality.

 

[MrPickins]

Cool, so where were Bill, George, and Barack for all the time you had a crazy rogue state like North Korea going nuclear? Where has Hillary made it a priority? On her website she mentions preventing Iran from getting nukes as well as reducing American and Russian arsenals to their lowest size in 50 years (what will that be? a mere 5000 or so each?), but nothing about North Korea.

You realize that North Korea has been under sanctions for many years, right?

 

[DrDoug]

The answer to what? I'm saying it's something more nations would do were they so allowed. Not an answer, at least to any problem America has, just a reality.

No again, let's stick to what I quoted. You said you don't see what's so bad about letting SK and Japan have their own nukes. Take it from there with my original response and if you miss this time I'll know you're playing word games.

At that point I will do nothing more than laugh at your fool ass from then on.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Hillary all in for Syrian no-fly zone

Her response in the debate when pressed on if we shoot down Russian planes that violate it was a non-answer, then she doubles down. It would have to be negotiated? When the Russians say Fock off then what? Almost certain she'll be elected and almost certain we'll have more fun in the Middle East. And unfortunately we are looking at full on engagement with Russia as well. For what? Is getting rid of Assad really worth that?

 

[Jhhnn]

Curious what evidence there is to support this when the closest we were ever to nuclear war was when there was a nuclear duopoly. Violence between Pakistan and India dropped drastically after they both developed nukes. MAD kills not through nuclear warfare, but through proxy war.

Unless you mean nuclear terrorist attacks/rogue nations

Perhaps you've forgotten the law of unintended consequences? Perhaps Murphy's Law, as well?

Perhaps you've forgotten how twitchy KSA got about it all when Iran was on the cusp of weapons development? Just what we need- a nuclear armed feudal monarchy holding down the lid on their own religious radicals. What a great idea! A nuclear armed Libya would have been peachy, too, I'm sure.

The world simply does not need further nuclear weapons proliferation which is why we & our allies have gone to great lengths to prevent it.

But Donald, he ain't skeered. He doesn't have the sense to be skeered.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You realize that North Korea has been under sanctions for many years, right?

How effective have those been?

No again, let's stick to what I quoted. You said you don't see what's so bad about letting SK and Japan have their own nukes. Take it from there with my original response and if you miss this time I'll know you're playing word games.

At that point I will do nothing more than laugh at your fool ass from then on.

Correct, I don't see what's so bad about that. The rest of the world has gone 70 years without use of nuclear weapons. Why can't South Korea or Japan be trusted?

Perhaps you've forgotten the law of unintended consequences? Perhaps Murphy's Law, as well?

Perhaps you've forgotten how twitchy KSA got about it all when Iran was on the cusp of weapons development? Just what we need- a nuclear armed feudal monarchy holding down the lid on their own religious radicals. What a great idea! A nuclear armed Libya would have been peachy, too, I'm sure.

The world simply does not need further nuclear weapons proliferation which is why we & our allies have gone to great lengths to prevent it.

But Donald, he ain't skeered. He doesn't have the sense to be skeered.

What unintended consequences would those be?

We don't need the rest of the world possessing nukes because we don't want the rest of the world to threaten our power. Sure is easy when you always hold an ace and you get to make all the rules. I mean, what's tens of millions dead in proxy wars supported by nuclear powers? Nothing compared to a few hundred thousand dying in a nuclear blast, that much is certain.

 

[DrDoug]

Correct, I don't see what's so bad about that. The rest of the world has gone 70 years without use of nuclear weapons. Why can't South Korea or Japan be trusted?

OK, you're just stupid. As far as your question, I quit answering them when I figured out that your forte is asking them. Lots of them, most of them wastes of time for anyone dumb enough to answer them. Deliberately so, if I may add.

Engaging in a conversation with you is like stepping in tar, a person is wise to get out of the crap because it would be really stupid to wade into it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Are you just racist against Asian people or something?

 

[Meghan54]

Are you just racist against Asian people or something?

No, he's just "racist" against petulant 4 y.o. children who ask nonsense questions.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, he's just "racist" against petulant 4 y.o. children who ask nonsense questions.

Give me a rational reason to be opposed to nuclear proliferation of two peaceful allies.

 

[woolfe9998]

Because no one has accused Trump of wanting to start nuclear war.

(No, second/third-hand unverified comments like "Why can't we use nukes?" don't count.)

People have made allegations that he has a cavalier attitude about other countries getting them, and have suggested that his temperament makes the prospect of him having his finger on the button scary. Both observations are reasonable concerns. These statements are undoubtedly why Trump is now saying this about Clinton. It's like when Clinton said he'd be a puppet of Putin in the last debate, and he responded by saying, "you're the puppet!" He probably takes pleasure in sticking it right back to her on the "nuclear" issue the way she did to him. It's all very middle school, yet this is what Trump is really about.

 

[Jhhnn]

Give me a rational reason to be opposed to nuclear proliferation of two peaceful allies.

If they can depend on us as allies they don't need to do so.

With Donald as Prez, they might not be able to do that, creating a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. That's when they'd have reason to want such weapons.

 

[glenn1]

In all seriousness, I do not think Trump is anymore likely to start a nuclear war than Clinton is. The chain of command will prevent Trump from initiating a nuclear attack from rash tantrum. What is more likely to happen is more nations will try to arm themselves with nuclear weapons during his presidency and that will over time get us closer to nuclear confrontations in the long run.

Nobody who is against Trump believes it either aside from some possible exceptions for true believers like Jhhnn. It's a shopworn tactic that's been routinely trotted out for most GOP hopefuls from Goldwater to Reagan and now Trump. It's only purpose is to scare a handful of folks who might be considering voting 3rd party back towards the establishment Democratic candidate. The right does the same thing with the "Democrats are going to turn over to the United Nations _____ (insert scary thing here, e.g. climate policy, foreign policy, criminal justice, the entire government)" and it's the same tired bullsh!t that no one believes but gets rolled out anyway.

 

[glenn1]

Perhaps you've forgotten the law of unintended consequences? Perhaps Murphy's Law, as well?

Perhaps you've forgotten how twitchy KSA got about it all when Iran was on the cusp of weapons development? Just what we need- a nuclear armed feudal monarchy holding down the lid on their own religious radicals. What a great idea! A nuclear armed Libya would have been peachy, too, I'm sure.

The world simply does not need further nuclear weapons proliferation which is why we & our allies have gone to great lengths to prevent it.

But Donald, he ain't skeered. He doesn't have the sense to be skeered.

Libya probably isn't the best example since they were working on nuclear weapons then halted their program in 2003 because after the Iraq invasion Qaddafi thought "I'm next." And what did he get for his trouble? Being deposed and killed by the next administration. Meanwhile NK developed their capability and that regime is at lower risk of U.S. intervention than perhaps anytime in their history. So if anything I think the message the rest of the world is getting is if you're even thinking about developing nukes then keep it quiet and don't stop until you have them. I really wouldn't be particularly surprised if South Korea is already an undeclared nuclear power, and there's no question that Japan could be in a few days if they cared to.

 

[Jhhnn]

Libya probably isn't the best example since they were working on nuclear weapons then halted their program in 2003 because after the Iraq invasion Qaddafi thought "I'm next." And what did he get for his trouble? Being deposed and killed by the next administration. Meanwhile NK developed their capability and that regime is at lower risk of U.S. intervention than perhaps anytime in their history. So if anything I think the message the rest of the world is getting is if you're even thinking about developing nukes then keep it quiet and don't stop until you have them. I really wouldn't be particularly surprised if South Korea is already an undeclared nuclear power, and there's no question that Japan could be in a few days if they cared to.

Libya just shows that nuclear non-proliferation isn't a partisan issue in this country.

Except Trump, of course. He's special.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nobody who is against Trump believes it either aside from some possible exceptions for true believers like Jhhnn. It's a shopworn tactic that's been routinely trotted out for most GOP hopefuls from Goldwater to Reagan and now Trump. It's only purpose is to scare a handful of folks who might be considering voting 3rd party back towards the establishment Democratic candidate. The right does the same thing with the "Democrats are going to turn over to the United Nations _____ (insert scary thing here, e.g. climate policy, foreign policy, criminal justice, the entire government)" and it's the same tired bullsh!t that no one believes but gets rolled out anyway.

Please. I don't think Trump will drop the big one, never said I thought he might. His trash talking certainly doesn't engender trust in the ROTW nor does it project an image of moral leadership. The same is true of his ravings about Muslims.

 

[feralkid]

Give me a rational reason to be opposed to nuclear proliferation of two peaceful allies.

Sure, I'll bite.

The Philippines was long a peaceful ally of the U.S. and a central player in the security of the South Pacific.

Now look at their current leadership.

Need I explain further?

Do you remember when Iran was our ally? Perhaps second in the region only to Israel; we lovingly referred to it as "an island of stability in a sea of chaos".

Two peaceful allies at the time...would you like to see either of them armed with nuclear weapons?

 

[MongGrel]

Please. I don't think Trump will drop the big one, never said I thought he might. His trash talking certainly doesn't engender trust in the ROTW nor does it project an image of moral leadership. The same is true of his ravings about Muslims.

I'm a bit worried Trump might be ignorant enough he would drop the big one.

He's too ignorant in general to be the CIC at any rate.

 

[MongGrel]

Nobody who is against Trump believes it either aside from some possible exceptions for true believers like Jhhnn. It's a shopworn tactic that's been routinely trotted out for most GOP hopefuls from Goldwater to Reagan and now Trump. It's only purpose is to scare a handful of folks who might be considering voting 3rd party back towards the establishment Democratic candidate. The right does the same thing with the "Democrats are going to turn over to the United Nations _____ (insert scary thing here, e.g. climate policy, foreign policy, criminal justice, the entire government)" and it's the same tired bullsh!t that no one believes but gets rolled out anyway.

Give me a break.