On MSNBC: Three times in an hour Trump asked about the use of nuclear weapons - “if we have them, why can’t we use them?”
If he decided to use them what is the timeframe between his decision and when they’re launched? “…the system is designed for speed and decisiveness - it’s not designed to debate the decision”.
Maybe that’s his plan for some of the Muslim countries…
I am starting to think he really doesn’t know what nukes are. He seems to think nukes are nothing more than extra-big (yuuuge) bombs. If you’re gonna bomb somebody, might as well bomb 'em big right?
And this is where I think that the RNC or anyone that has suitable standing would be justified in starting a court case to get Trump declared mentally incompetent against his will.
There is no current conflict we have where nukes would be any use. The US could easily completely destroy Raqqa and Dabiq with conventional weapons. Carpet bomb from B-52’s, those cities would cease to exist within 72 hours. If Trump doesn’t understand the reasons that we don’t do that, and on top of that wants to use Nukes, then he’s not sane by any stretched definition of the word.
In the unlikely event that Trump does get elected and wants to Nuke ISIS, I would hope that the 25th Amendment Article II Section IV would be invoked to remove him from office.
But if he used nukes maybe we’d win wars really quickly, like what happened with WW2… :dubious: That was when America was great…
Even after being totally briefed about the use of nuclear weapons, his response would be that the briefings were rigged, and he knows more about nukes than the generals. He has no plan at all, other than his ignorance.
Madman Theory? Frankly, I don’t think Trump is strategically minded enough to try this ploy.
In the video they said his unpredictability would “frighten your friends and tempt your enemies”.
What do you mean “WE,” Ozzie?
Shhh… 
I can’t imagine that the RNC would possibly have standing to have him declared mentally incompetent. I ain’t no law-talkin’-guy (would Bricker please pick up the white courtesy phone?), but I imagine the only people with the right to commence that kind of legal action would be Melania, his kids, or the state.
Fits completely with the irretrievable narcissist theory; ordering the use of nukes without clear justification would make him one of the most - probably the most - (in)famous people in history.
Emotionally there is only him, so the death of others does not register with him.
n/a
In most (all?) states, any adult can take any other adult who they perceive to be a threat to themselves or others to the Emergency Room and request a mental health evaluation which may, if the physician thinks it’s warranted, result in a 72 hour involuntary hold.
Just sayin’…
We could take turns…
Keep him busy…
Sorry, but I am with Trump here; I have no problem with the judicious use of nukes against non-nuclear enemies.
With all due respect; you are wrong.
Nuclear weapons are, unquestionably, the single most destructive weapon man has ever created; not only because of the sheer power of a nuclear detonation, but because of the fallout that such a detonation produces. They’re a game-changer in every sense of the word; a state that is targeted with nuclear weapons suffers not only in the moment, but for decades or centuries afterward. A superpower in possession of nuclear weapons possesses the capability to not only completely devastate an enemy, but to butcher their population en masse and render the land itself uninhabitable for centuries afterward, and cause severe lasting harm not only to the enemy, but to the entire human race and the entire ecosystem itself.
That is why, in a state of affairs where more than one power has access to nukes (i.e; 1949 until always and forever from now), the sole purpose of possessing a nuclear arsenal is to assure that they will never be used. For any state to use a nuclear weapon, even once, legitimizes their use as fair and permissible under the rules of war, and invites any other nuclear state to reply in kind, which can only ultimately lead to the complete destruction of human civilization.
You don’t have nukes so you can use them. You have nukes so the other guy won’t use his.
All-Righty-Then.
For the sake of argument, which one?
That’s not correct. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki now.
Again, this is not true. Sure a large number of people die, but people are born and fill the gap. There are millions born every day. The land area affected by a nuclear strike is trivial. What are a few square miles or even tens of square miles out of millions. And, as Nagasaki and Hiroshima show, the land can be cleaned.
The other thing you’re missing is that people will take advantage of your unwillingness to use nukes. To show restraint, you have not show restraint in some cases. How do you know if someone can kick your arse if they never actually kick anyone’s arse?
I’d have used nukes in the Korean War, Vietnam, and Iraq. Indeed, that nukes were not used against Iraq was a huge indicator that Iraq did not possess WMD.
Wow… are you not at all worried that this might greenlight the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, India, China, and Russia? Are you not horrified by the possibility that every military conflict becomes a nuclear war?
In what case would we need to use nukes against a non-nuclear enemy? I can’t think of single non-nuclear country that could shoot down more than a handful of USAF planes (and that would before we took out most of their air-defense with conventional cruise missiles).
And the potential saving of US forces lives is the only reason I think of to go nuclear.