Nuclear war? It's less likely with Trump

Cecil:

Your reference to Trump’s election raising the risk of nuclear war again shows that you are more interested in pushing the party line – in this case, the Democratic Party line – than you are in pushing the truth.

Shortly after Election Day, the Defcon alert – which categorizes the threat of nuclear war – was lowered to the “least risk” level. Most reviews I’ve seen have attributed this to Trump getting along with the Russians – and Hillary being seen as more belligerent than Trump.

So, please focus on the facts and not fanciful politicizing.

Thanks in advance

Prove it.

Whew! The OP has sure made me feel a lot better. :rolleyes:

[Editorial comment mine]

Defcon it’s own self

I saw that, but I couldn’t find any timeline of historic Defcon status. Is the OP asserting that we were at Defcon 4 recently?

Apparently the Defcon Warning System site I found and linked to above is not an official site, as per Snopes, but rather is run by people outside the government making best guess estimates. From what I’ve been able to gather elsewhere on the web, official Defcon ratings are kept secret by the government. So there’s no legitimate way for anyone outside whichever government agencies are privy to such information to know what the actual Defcon threat level is at any given time. Google shows lots of right-wing and British tabloid sites flogging claims that the Defcon level was raised because of something Obama had previously done, and/or that it was lowered after Trump was elected, and the OP seems to have gotten his information from one of them.

Once again, the link.

How would you know if a nuclear war started?

No need for nuclear war according to Sir Paul McCartney:

Someone’s knockin’ at the door
Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
Do me a favor
Open the door and let 'em in.

Does the OP have any credible cites that any of The Master’s points are in error:

“White House Assails Donald Trump Proposal to Let Asian Allies Get Nuclear Weapons” – NY Times – Mar 31st, 2016
“Trump’s Terrifying Nuke Answer at the Debate Should End His Campaign (But It Won’t)” – Rolling Stone – Dec 16th, 2015
"Russia’s New ICBM Could Wipe Out Texas" – Popular Mechanics – Oct 25th , 2016
“Easy Enchiladas (Beef or Chicken)”Food.com – n/d
“Reagan Bombing Joke” – Youtube (audio only) 0’09" – Aug 11th, 1984

Looks to me like all The Master’s snippy comments check out … wha’da’ya th’nk o’ 'dat?

First of all, I am not sure whether Cecil answered the question in this column.

Secondly, appealing to the White House and hostile media to report what Trump said is a very poor appeal to authority. I actually saw the interview, and it was very different from what was reported.

Trump said nothing that was not common knowledge: nuclear proliferation has already occurred and we are not going to stop it. Further, Obama’s behavior and others have proven that the United States is an unreliable ally to nations that depend on our nuclear umbrella. Trump may have every good intention in the world to stand by our allies, or he may not, but the next president may be even less committed.

It is, therefore, only a matter of time before Japan or Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons of their own in the face of threats from places like North Korea and Iran.

The evidence is that the only use of nuclear weapons has been by a Democratic president. Everything you cited is opinion that turned out to be wrong, utter nonsense from a clown 30 years ago that didn’t result in the use of nuclear weapons, and a true abomination, enchiladas made with canned sauce. That kind of reasoning encourages ignorance.

Yes, it is Trump’s opinion that we should use nuclear weapons, and that opinion is wrong.

I think it is a good to occasionally look at pictures to help us remember what we are actually talking about. How could anyone contemplate using these things again?

Are you suggesting that Thomas Dewey would have quickly opted to accept a conditional Japanese surrender … one that allowed the Imperial government to remain in power? You may well be right, if the American voters elected Dewey in 1944, it could well have been because of the fatigue of warfare, time to brings all our boys back home …

Cite? I was not aware that The Donald was advocating the installation of nuclear weapons on the Home Islands of Japan in 1985.

Old El Paso used to make a fairly decent canned enchilada sauce … with plenty good quality beef one can turn out a fairly “not-so-bad” enchilada … I agree chicken is problematic as well as other mild meats … but for elk, goat, mutton, gopher or venison … a good quality canned sauce is fine … and easy, my citation makes this claim … and we’re talking about the whole enchilada, not sure we care about a little barium contamination … this is about the family dinner, not quantitative radiochemistry …

My own statement was an example of the same kind of faulty reasoning you used.

You cited Reagan’s bomb joke.

YMMV

There is no circumstance where we should use nuclear weapons? Not even if we are attacked by nukes, chemical or biological weapons? Or some new weapon that we have not seen, such as kinetic bombardment?

He advocated using nuclear weapons in response to any ISIS related attack in the US.

Gotta love the column’s illustration showing Putin targeting Trump’s hair, which explodes into a mushroom cloud.

Agreed …

No, I cited The Donald’s statement from this year to verify The Master’s claim The Donald did indeed say it … I cited Reagan’s bomb joke to verify The Master’s claim that Reagan made a joke about bombing Russian … I remember that day well, we laughed our asses off you can be sure … the senile old fuck sent the wrong codes … that’s why we didn’t launch … Well, not me personally, but some very close associates of mine at the time.

Do not expect Trump to rush out and use nukes with little provocation. Just the opposite: expect him to use his “great deal-making skills” to become palsy with our enemies like Putin, Kim Jong-un, Assad, and to appease them. This will lead to a dangerous situation where these enemies are more likely to test America’s resolve or to aggress against their neighbors. In such a situation America needs a smart and firm hand at the helm, someone who will fight for the interests of the West but also avoid nuclear war. The Congress and Cabinet will be irrelevant for many critical and urgent decisions; it will all be up to POTUS and his very closest advisers.

The chance of nuclear mishap is much higher under Trump, but is still probably a low probability event. However there are many scenarios of geopolitical tragedy that do not involve nuclear weapons. This incompetent and arrogant President needs smart moderate people in positions like National Security Adviser, but his selections thus far do not inspire hope.

I think some, both D and R, hope for quick impeachment or resignation, to turn the country over to a Tea Party cabal led by Pence. Tea Party rule would be bad for domestic policies since Trump may moderate his views on issues like ACA or science.

Which is the better choice, Scylla or Charybdis?