23 Dec 16
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38410027
Donald Trump has called for the US to "greatly strengthen and expand" its nuclear capabilities.
The president-elect, who takes office next month, said the US must take such action "until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes".
Damn yes!
And I don't know what's funnier:
Trump thinking that the world will become more stabler with the US having more nukes or his aids scrambling to try to make sense of whatever the hell he's jibbering on about.
His spokesman later said that he was referring to the need to prevent nuclear proliferation.
YES!!!
Jason Miller, the communications manager for the Trump transition team, explained he "was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it - particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes".
Mr Miller also added that the president-elect "emphasised the need to improve and modernize our deterrent capability as a vital way to pursue peace through strength".
And this:
During Mr Trump's campaign he referred to nuclear proliferation as the "single biggest problem" facing the world, but also said he could not rule out using nuclear weapons against Europe.
Oh yes Donald! Where have you been all my life??
You go man, you go!!!
Originally posted by shavixmirThis has the potential to become seriously not funny.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38410027
Donald Trump has called for the US to "greatly strengthen and expand" its nuclear capabilities.
The president-elect, who takes office next month, said the US must take such action "until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes".
Damn yes!
And I don't know what's funnier:
T ...[text shortened]... against Europe. [/i]
Oh yes Donald! Where have you been all my life??
You go man, you go!!!
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by shavixmirYes, we should just get rid of all weapons, nukes, guns, ban the military and maybe Russia and China will leave us alone. Oh yeah, and the middle east, N. Korea, etc.
Yeah... that's really what you should be spending money on.
And maybe if we get rid of Christians and kill all the gays, islamic terrorists will leave us alone too. Hell yeah! Way to go!
🙄😵
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by shavixmirNo idea why he felt the need to qualify it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38410027
Donald Trump has called for the US to "greatly strengthen and expand" its nuclear capabilities.
The president-elect, who takes office next month, said the US must take such action "until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes".
Damn yes!
And I don't know what's funnier:
T ...[text shortened]... against Europe. [/i]
Oh yes Donald! Where have you been all my life??
You go man, you go!!!
To quote Eowyn: "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two...and those who have not swords can still die upon them."
Pursuit of nuclear weapons is considered a hall-mark of wannabe world powers, and achievement of the technology is considered to place one in a stronger position on the world stage. Try all you want, but those up-and-coming industrial nations of the second world will all eventually seek the tech, and not all of them will be friendly. We see the same mind-set in the second world when it comes to industrialization and its' threats to the climate. China and India don't understand why we should be allowed to go through an industrial phase which massively boosts economic power while pumping harmful emissions and chemicals into the environment, but the minute they try to do it, they are vilified. If you think that sentiment will be any less powerful when it comes to something as versatile and influential as nuclear power and weapons, you're fooling yourself.
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492Okay, seriously, is there any scenario you can imagine when it's actually justified to murder 25.000 children in a nuclear blast?
No idea why he felt the need to qualify it.
To quote Eowyn: "It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two...and those who have not swords can still die upon them."
Pursuit of nuclear weapons is considered a hall-mark of wannabe world powers, and achievement of the technology is considered to place one in a stronger position on the world stage. Try a ...[text shortened]... to something as versatile and influential as nuclear power and weapons, you're fooling yourself.
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by shavixmirI can think of one obvious, historical example:
Okay, seriously, is there any scenario you can imagine when it's actually justified to murder 25.000 children in a nuclear blast?
When the tradeoff is that, or over 1 million civilian and military deaths via an invasion, and the enemy is arming it's civilians and forming a "Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps" with which to kill as many enemies as possible, and is actively re-directing 21 divisions to the theorized invasion point in an effort to fight to the last.
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492Is it justified to kill 25.000 children?
I can think of one obvious, historical example:
When the tradeoff is that, or over 1 million civilian and military deaths via an invasion, and the enemy is arming it's civilians and forming a "Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps" with which to kill as many enemies as possible, and is actively re-directing 21 divisions to the theorized invasion point in an effort to fight to the last.
Really?
And you probably won't ecen get the guilty party...
You'd still murder 25.000 kids?
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are aware that the Japanese (the historical example I referred to being Hiroshima and Nagasaki) armed children for combat and trained them to kill as many Americans as possible, right? And that they released so much propaganda for the civilians in Okinawa that the Japanese citizens committed suicide by throwing themselves and their families off cliffs because they thought Americans would torture them?
Is it justified to kill 25.000 children?
Really?
And you probably won't ecen get the guilty party...
You'd still murder 25.000 kids?
When the choice is death either way, the fewest deaths is a) the most utilitarian choice, and b) represents the duty of the commanders to their soldiers to keep as many of them alive as possible.
Try and tell me that in a conflict where children are combatants, you would allow one to stab you multiple times in the chest.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
23 Dec 16
Originally posted by Suziannehttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-trump-idUSKBN14C0WE
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicly-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.pmwqrpti4
Good job, America. You've elected a madman.