So this is where our discourse is, debating how many nuclear bombs being dropped is actually bad?
One then. I think one is bad. If you’re ok with a certain amount of nuclear bombs being dropped as long as they are dropped on the correct people and your party gets to be in charge, then I think deplorable is pretty apt.
Good. See, we have a shared understanding here.
So tough talk from Clinton against a nuclear superpower is no big deal, nothing to worry about, but tough talk from Trump against a nation with a fairly infantile nuclear capability is a cause for alarm?
I was concerned Clinton ordering the USAF to shoot down Russian jets in the skies over one of their client states would upset the Russians. I’m not suggesting that we “make our national decisions based on what Russia wants”, but I AM suggesting that not starting a war with them ought to be somewhere fairly high on our list of national priorities.
That strikes me as 80s thinking. MAD has been proven successful, IMO. No matter the rhetoric from either side, a large nuclear exchange won’t happen aside from technical glitches that have been technologically eliminated as possibilities.
A small nuclear exchange is nigh-infinitely more likely, even if its likelihood is still relatively low, IMO. The motivation of the leadership of North Korea is primarily to maintain power and the status quo. If North Korea starts to feel that they have no other choice to avoid a regime-change military action, they may well lash out with nuclear weapons (probably at SK or Japan). I think it’s ludicrous not to consider that Trump’s reckless and undisciplined rhetoric have made the North Korean leadership feel more backed into a corner than they were before.
It shouldn’t be much of a debate. I agree with you that one is bad. Thousands is … well … thousands of times worse.
I submit that they laugh it off because they know that the vast majority of them are not racists and that the left has so far overplayed it’s hand with false/exaggerated accusations of racism that the word no longer carries any import.
So instead we elect a guy in Putin’s pocket that won’t even enforce duly passed sanctions? He’s already missed one deadline and is still slow walking it.
A sanctions bill passed overwhemingly by both houses of congress, by the way.
So you were so scared to elect someone that might not do exactly what Russia wants that you elected someone that won’t dare cross Putin? Even by implementing sanctions that were voted for almost unanimously by our representatives and senators? This does not give you any pause? Not one fleeting moment that maybe you got this one wrong?
Given our new “clean bomb” technology, the radioactive effects of hydrogen bombs are not nearly so terrible. Besides, maybe “nuclear winter” cancels out global warming, and all the coal miners get their jobs back! Hey, that’ll get Al Gore on board!
That’s a pretty poor summary of what she said.
It would be far more accurate to say that she said that half of trump’s voters are racist, bigot, et al, and that those traits are deplorable. So the idea is, if you are supporting trump, there’s a 50% chance that you are a racists, bigot, et al. That is the claim she was making there. I don’t know if I would extend that to the general, but in the primaries, I would agree.
She also says that being a racist, bigot et al, is a deplorable thing to be.
Which part are you personally disagreeing with? That half the people who supported trump in the primaries did so for bigoted reasons, or that being a bigot is deplorable?
I can see room on disagreeing on the first, maybe it was only 33% or so, it’s hard to tell exactly. She did later admit that she may have overestimated. I don’t know that I can see much disagreement on the second, if you are a racist, you are deplorable, and you do not reflect american values.
Was it when she asked why we don’t use nukes in combat?
I don’t believe that Russia would initiate global thermonuclear war, so I don’t think the thousands would have been even remotely possible. I do not believe that Putin would actually launch first strike nukes against us, and I know that we would not launch the first strike either.
The few used against our allies Japan and South Korea are much more likely because Kim Jong Un is a madman, and now we have our very own madman calling him rocket man as some deranged form of foreign diplomacy.
“I have today authorized the creation of the Presidential Chip, which I hereby place upon my shoulder! See it, Dim Dong Un? What are you, a Pusan Pussy? You chicken? No, wait, you guys ate the last one already, didn’t you…”
So your guesstimates are that a nuclear exchange with Russia is definitely not going to happen? You think the situation merits that kind of certitude? Even with Trump and Putin leading the two respective countries? Well, at least if you’re wrong, none of us will be around to tell you we told you so.
I don’t disagree with any of your post (edited, here)–except the use of the past tense. (I realize you were using it in the context of discussing a past event, namely the 2016 election).
But just so we all keep it front-of-mind: Active Measures are still very much underway. The troll-factory trolls are still at it, arguing here that Al Franken should resign, and there that Congressional GOP leaders are enemies of America, and the other place that either Hillary or Joe Biden is a shoo-in in 2020.
Leave us not kid ourselves.
Do you HurricaneDitka believe that Putin would launch a first nuclear strike against the USA? Knowing that means that both his and our countries would be totally destroyed. I’m asking for a yes or no answer here. Do you really believe that Clinton as president would have caused Putin to actually push the doomsday button? Or are you saying that Clinton would have ordered the launch on Moscow first? How do you envision the mutually assured destruction scenario actually playing out. I want to know how you actually imagine this.
Also, it would have been Putin and Clinton leading the two countries in this scenario. Trump would be out of the picture as he should be right now.
To contrast this, N Korea has actually been firing rockets over Japan. Literal shots across the bow that have actually happened.
Where did you get “in the primaries” from? She made the statement on September 9th. Both parties’ conventions had been held in July. The primaries had been over many weeks. It was said in the general election. Is there some additional context that you think should fairly limit the statement to the primaries and Trump primary voters? That seems like wishful thinking on your part.
And I thought it was obvious, but apparently not: I am disagreeing with the claim that half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable and irredeemable racists / sexist / homophobic / xenophobic / Islamophobic / etc.
Well, yeah. She was trying to be nice.
No, wait, hear him out! Fair’s fair! If adherence to any of those deplorable standards makes one deplorable, roughly how many Trump supporters fit that standard, Hurr? Just roughly. Twenty percent, thirty? Instead of telling us why we’re wrong, tell us why you’re right.
I would say that their comments are pre-election, as that is what it is in reference to.
I do not think that Russia would fire first. They have too much to lose. We have at least as many nukes as they do actively deployed, and we have more population centers. We would “win” a nuclear exchange. (By win, I mean a relative win, cause more damage to the enemy than the enemy causes us, it really would be a lose-lose overall.) I give that a 99.9993141592657% chance that Putin does not launch first.
I put about the same chances on Clinton, maybe slightly higher, 99.99993141592657%.
Trump, I dunno. I think there is a very good chance that if he servers out his term, that a nuclear weapon will be used. Probably a small one, maybe in the middle east, maybe in korea. Less than 10kt as a bunker buster or anti-materiel weapon.
Problem is, is that once that door is open, it is hard to shut. Next one is 25kt. Then China or Russia feel justified dropping one of their little ones on someone that is causing them problems.
There is a much bigger line between no nuclear and nuclear, and between 25kt to 100kt.
I’m not all that concerned about Trump starting an all out nuclear war, I am concerned about him opening the door and setting the precedent that will eventually lead to an all out nuclear war.
Under certain circumstances, I think it’s a possibility, yes. One possible such circumstance goes something like this: President Clinton (shit, just typing this reminds me how grateful I am that this is only a hypothetical) orders a no-fly zone over Syria. Putin, not one to allow a woman to brow-beat him, orders his air force to ignore it. Clinton, in response, tells the USAF to shoot down Russian jets. Russians and Americans have a lovely little air war over Syria. Things escalate. Perhaps they bomb Incirlik or torpedo a destroyer in the Mediterranean. Things escalate further. Significant portions of the Russian military are destroyed in the process. Faced with losing a war, Putin decides to push the big red button. We respond in kind. Shitloads of people die.
I really believe something like this would have been possible if Clinton had won the election. To claim that such a thing is impossible strikes me as deeply ignorant.
Putin is sane. Kim is not.
Putin would not risk a Nuclear war, especially as it is known his arsenal is old and ureliable.
Kim would launch.
I am not sure if Trump is sane.
I didn’t say that she said in the primaries, I said that it was my opinion that those in the primaries were about 50% racist bigot, et al. I said that I don’t know if I would extend that to the general (which she was in at the time). She did back up her estimated percentage, which I personally think is because she meant to be referring to the primaries, as that is where people came out to support trump at the polls, but realized that many would take it to mean in the general, as that was the time frame in which she made the comment.
What percentage would you put it at?
Personally, I divide trump supporters from trump voters. People voted for trump because he was the person that the party nominated, and people vote on party lines. I disagree with their vote, but think that they did it for other reasons than racism et al. Trump supporters, people out stumping for him, especially those during the primary had a much higher percentage.