Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
peteblue said:
I used to be a senior Director with one of those companies (EVP in your parlance), so I do understand some of the issues. However, I can only assume that Trump has been told by his military advisors that the USA is being disadvantaged with the current arrangement. Sometimes it’s fine to just rip up an agreement and start again. Putin unfortunately is the one who took Russia on its current path of ignoring the agreement, so not much chance of negotiating a path back to normality, as he only understands strength. Throw in the China conundrum and he’s probably right. This is not a Trump gut reaction nor tweet, this is serious policy. We have enough nuclear arms to kill us all anyway, what this is about is short range tactical nuclear to threaten near states and maritime naval forces....
.
Click to expand...
We disagree, I would only think that is a good idea if a) all other avenues have failed and/or b) there was a realistic chance of improvement. I see no reason to think that either is the case here.

We do agree on “We have enough nuclear arms to kill us all anyway” which is why I’m concerned with building up even more of them - perhaps you can direct me to some articles that explain how we are being disadvantaged by the agreements and why we need to build up a greater short range nuclear arsenal.
 
LinekersLegs said:
We disagree, I would only think that is a good idea if a) all other avenues have failed and/or b) there was a realistic chance of improvement. I see no reason to think that either is the case here.

We do agree on “We have enough nuclear arms to kill us all anyway” which is why I’m concerned with building up even more of them - perhaps you can direct me to some articles that explain how we are being disadvantaged by the agreements and why we need to build up a greater short range nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...

I can’t think of any articles, though I’m sure there are many. My own thoughts are that with ICBM’s, what you are doing is threatening each other, USA V Russia, U.K. V Russia etc. With the newer short range (300km) missiles or cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, what Russia can do is to have tactical force, and threaten the Baltic states or Poland without employing conventional forces. It reminds me of the time we were all talking about neutron bombs. It’s similar to that out in the South China Sea where China has dug in on its newly created military islands and wants to threaten anyone who interferes. Short range nuclear devices to take out America’s aircraft carriers and escorts would be perfect. Obviously all sides have been developing these anyway, but by pulling out it may help to restart the negotiation. The same happened when Reagan threatened ‘Star Wars’ technology and brought Russia back to the table......

What you have to remember is that if Russia or China destroyed Poland or even US ships, the USA populace would not support nuclear action unless New York was wiped out......
 
peteblue said:
What you have to remember is that if Russia or China destroyed Poland or even US ships, the USA populace would not support nuclear action unless New York was wiped out......
Click to expand...
Err, I’m not sure what you base that assumption on. But even if it was why would we invest in more nuclear weapons then if there is no chance we would use those new weapons unless New York was wiped out in which case we could use our existing 4000 warheads? Perhaps you can explain a scenario where you think these new weapons would be used and be beneficial as I’m clearly missing the point you are trying to make.
 
LinekersLegs said:
Err, I’m not sure what you base that assumption on. But even if it was why would we invest in more nuclear weapons then if there is no chance we would use those new weapons unless New York was wiped out in which case we could use our existing 4000 warheads? Perhaps you can explain a scenario where you think these new weapons would be used and be beneficial as I’m clearly missing the point you are trying to make.
Click to expand...

It’s the delivery mechanisms that’s the point. The USA and Russia could fight a localised war, say in Ukraine, where any nuclear use was limited to that particular area, without threatening each other. Russia could threaten Poland or wherever without setting off USA retaliation. It’s not the nuclear bomb that’s the issue but the range of the vehicle delivering it. A 300 Km range nuclear vehicle does not threaten the USA directly, a nuclear bomb incorporated into an ICBM could set off a response because of the trajectory of the vehicle.......
 
peteblue said:
It’s the delivery mechanisms that’s the point. The USA and Russia could fight a localised war, say in Ukraine, where any nuclear use was limited to that particular area, without threatening each other. Russia could threaten Poland or wherever without setting off USA retaliation. It’s not the nuclear bomb that’s the issue but the range of the vehicle delivering it. A 300 Km range nuclear vehicle does not threaten the USA directly, a nuclear bomb incorporated into an ICBM could set off a response because of the trajectory of the vehicle.......
Click to expand...
Thanks, think I understand more where you are coming from now even though I still disagree with the solution.
 
He's come out today and said something to the effect "we are working around the clock to work on a tax plan that [actually] saves money for the middle class. It'll be huge, believe me."

Meanwhile, Congress is not in session, and won't be until after the elections in early November.

And they can't cut any more taxes. They already did this.

The guy will literally say anything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top