The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
In this world of fake news click bait I don't know if this is true... partially true or bullshit...
But if it is true it's going to be an interesting few years... and by interesting I mean terrifying

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE
Trump and Putin: The worst case scenario
Sarah Kendzior
December 23, 2016
rtx2w4en.jpg
rtx2w4en.jpg

A penny for your thoughts, president-elect. (Reuters/Lucas Jackson)
On Dec. 22, president-elect Donald Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin both announced that they intend to increase their respective countries’ nuclear arsenals. Their use of languageeerily paralleled each other. “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” Trump tweeted. “Russia should fortify its military nuclear potential and develop missiles that can penetrate any missile-defense system,” Putin said at a defense ministry meeting.

The joint statements set off speculation that the United States and Russia are planning an increase in nuclear capacity that is in stark contrast to standard anti-proliferation policy.

This is an erroneous interpretation. Trump and Putin aren’t heading to war with each other—they’re heading to war together. Trump is a vociferous defender and admirer of Putin and is suspected by multiple intelligence experts of being assisted and even co-opted by the Kremlin. Russian interference in the US election has been affirmed by multiple US intelligence agencies and has led to calls for a congressional investigation. Rather than engaging in an arms race against each other, Trump and Putin are possibly teaming up as nuclear partners against shared targets.

Sound fantastical? It’s not: Trump has been obsessed with nuclear weapons for several decades, and has expressed his desire to coordinate with Russia on nuclear policy since the 1980s. In 1984 Trump, backed by Roy Cohn, the political operative who advised Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon, proclaimed his goal of negotiating nuclear deals with the Soviets: “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles,” Trump said. “I think I know most of it anyway. You’re talking about just getting updated on a situation… You know who really wants me to do this? Roy… I’d do it in a second.”

This rhetoric mirrors Trump’s current rejection of expert advice and conviction that his instinct is enough to guide policy. (“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things,” he said in March 2016 when asked whom he consults on foreign affairs.) During the 2016 US presidential campaign, Trump refused to look at intelligence briefings or collaborate with anyone outside his inner circle. This advisory team is comprised of corporate raiders, warmongers, and white supremacists, some of whom—like his nominee for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, or national security advisor, Michael Flynn—are personally tied to Putin as well.

In 1987, Trump made his goal of Russian collaboration on nuclear power explicit: The Soviet Union and the US should partner to form a nuclear superpower with the intention of intimidating other countries into dropping their own nuclear plans.

“Most of those [pre-nuclear] countries are in one form or another dominated by the US and the Soviet Union,” Trump told journalist Roy Rosenbaum. “Between those two nations you have the power to dominate any of those countries. So we should use our power of economic retaliation and they use their powers of retaliation, and between the two of us we will prevent the problem from happening. It would have been better having done something five years ago. But I believe even a country such as Pakistan would have to do something now. Five years from now they’ll laugh.”


When Rosenbaum suggested Pakistan would not respond favorably to this policy, Trump laughed:

“Maybe we should offer them something. I’m saying you start off as nicely as possible. You apply as much pressure as necessary until you achieve the goal. You start off telling them, ‘Let’s get rid of it.’ If that doesn’t work you then start cutting off aid. And more aid and then more. You do whatever is necessary so these people will have riots in the street, so they can’t get water. So they can’t get Band-Aids, so they can’t get food. Because that’s the only thing that’s going to do it—the people, the riots.”

Trump then suggested that the US and Russia jointly apply the same policy of brutal sanctions on US allies like France.

1987 was also the first year Trump visited Russia, which was then part of the Soviet Union. In 1988, he attempted to meet with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, reportedly to sell him on his nuclear plan. This meeting never happened. At this time, Trump also began proclaiming his presidential ambitions and taking out newspaper advertisements harshly criticizing US foreign policy.


While Trump’s obsession with nuclear weapons, calls for riots, rejection of expert advice, and deference to Russian leaders has remained consistent since the 1980s, his position on the use of nuclear weapons has changed. Originally, Trump proposed his nuclear partnership with Russia as an unusual form of deterrence. In 2016, however, he repeatedly stated his goal to use nuclear weapons on other countries.

In an interview with Chris Matthews in April, Trump said the use of nuclear weapons may be necessary under certain circumstances. When pressed to elaborate by a startled Matthews, Trump continued: “Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?” He went on to say he would consider using nuclear weapons on Europe and the Middle East.

On Aug. 3, after a week marked by a series of scandals including Trump asking Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails during what would be his final press conference, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough expressed his own belief that that Trump was obsessed with using nuclear weapons in an exchange with Mike Barnacle:

Scarborough: I’ll be careful here. Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, “If we have them, why can’t we use them?”

Barnicle: Wow.

Scarborough: That’s one of the reasons why he has—he just doesn’t have foreign policy experts around him.

Barnicle: Trump? Trump asked three times whether we can use nuclear weapons?

Scarborough: Three times in an hour briefing, “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?”

At the time, Scarborough seemed deeply alarmed by Trump’s plans. On Aug 22, Trump threatened to reveal secret information about Scarborough and his co-host Mika Brzezinski. A few weeks later, the hosts met with Trump and have since providing flattering coverage of the president-elect. Scarborough appears to be the sole media figure Trump informed on his new nuclear policy, which Scarborough paraphrased on Dec. 23 as “Let it be an arms race because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”


It is unclear who “them” is in this situation—and the phrasing is likely very alarming for countries around the world. But given Trump’s affection for and connection to the Kremlin—one the Kremlin itself has confirmed—and the fact that the US and Russia have now promoted nearly identical foreign policies (and also appear to be pursuing a series of financial arrangements in the gas and oil industry that benefit billionaires of both states), it is unlikely that the US is preparing to engage in a nuclear arms race against Russia.

Trump may have found the nuclear partner in Putin he has been seeking for decades. In Trump, Putin may have found a willing accomplice who will back Russian imperialistic ambitions and drop sanctions, among other benefits.

This is the new mutually assured destruction: the two states with the most nuclear weapons in the world, both backed by authoritarian leaders, may be partnering against as-yet unknown shared enemies. Their rhetoric alone is dangerous, and an actual increase in nuclear arsenals more so. In a worst case scenario, the end target of Trump and Putin’s destructive ambitions could ultimately be the entire world.

You can follow Sarah on Twitter at @sarahkendzior.

http://qz.com/871436/donald-trump-n...ents-that-hint-at-increased-nuclear-armament/
 
This is the funniest thread I've read here in quite some time. Some posters probably forgot to take their medication, because the level of absurdity is way off the charts.

Trump shouldn't tweet stuff like that, he has to remind himself this is big politics now and not show business anymore. The whole Putin love-in is overblown by the media that went to unprecedented lengths to make him look bad and The Donald being a spiteful man and remembering all the shit written/said about him by these people just can't keep his mouth shut, or should I say, his Twitter account inactive.

This whole hysteria is the sign of a deep crisis of American society and its political system. Does anyone really believe Putin or Russian intelligence are capable of having such effect on the most powerful country on the planet? It's preposterous. This reminds of the time following the September 11 terrorist attacks when the American society was in a state of a deep shock and the media played on those feelings of fear and anger and that eventually led to the disaster of massive proportions which was the invasion of Iraq with most of the country fully supporting it at the time.

Dear Clinton supporters! You've lost, so deal with it. It's not Putin and Russia, it's American people who voted for Trump. And no, he's not Putin's puppet, I seriously doubt his politics will favor Russia at all in which case all the people making this outlandish claims about him being Russia's agent/Putin's buddy will look like even bigger fools than they already are.

While I don't agree with down-playing the role the Russians may have played in this election, I also overall agree with a lot of the points there. Russia's secret services may well have hacked the DNC. They may be spreading 'fake news'. They may have stuff on Trump that makes it difficult for him to deal with them on an even keel.

However, none of this gets away from the fact that the American people voted this man in. They voted him in during the Republican primaries, when they had a full range of Republican views to choose from. There was no Clinton then. And they chose to elect him after that too. Putin wasn't sitting there holding the hands of American voters as they went to vote.

Regarding the leaks, would they necessarily have made any difference if there had been leaks against Trump too? A lot of stuff was said about Trump during the election campaign. He's not releasing his tax returns, he feels up women, he's seemingly attracted to his own daughter, amongst a whole host of other things. The American public knew all this and yet still voted him in, either because they didn't believe it, didn't care or thought that Clinton was so bad/ a paedophile/ a traitor, that his things paled in comparison to hers.

And even if Russia was propagating fake news on a wide scale (the Americans have been doing that recently just fine by themselves), nobody forced Americans to believe all that. They have been believing all of this shite for years without any need for help from outside.

It does seem like there was some tampering with the election but not in the way that a lot of people seem to think. And more importantly, I don't think that was the swaying factor for it. It seems like a convenient excuse to cover up the fact that the American public have voted in this terrible man?
 


If he's been compromised by the Russians or whatever, he's being way too obvious. Probably just genuinely admires them or else plans to team up with them against China.

He has completely lost the plot! Image him tweeting this shit from the White House!
 
Christ on a fecking bicycle that's grim. "If we have them, why can't we use them?" He's got the mental age of a child.

It's tiresome repeating all this but he has no clue, no care, is thick as pigshit and suffers from severe narcissistic and sociopathic personality disorders AND has an attention span of around 5 seconds.

Here's the infamous Morning Joe show where most of the Nuke stuff comes from.

 
Christ on a fecking bicycle that's grim. "If we have them, why can't we use them?" He's got the mental age of a child.
Yeah though the bit that jumped out to me was:

Take water away from people in pakiatan so they rise up agains the government and Force the government to give up nukes...

I suspect there are several armed groups in Pakistan who would welcome the opportunity to overthrow the government and would happily send their nukes to the usa
 
In this world of fake news click bait I don't know if this is true... partially true or bullshit...
But if it is true it's going to be an interesting few years... and by interesting I mean terrifying



http://qz.com/871436/donald-trump-n...ents-that-hint-at-increased-nuclear-armament/

It's in Trump's interest to blur the lines between truth and fiction, this "fake news" thing is by no means as simplistic or one dimensional as it's being made out by both parties.

Clickbait is not even the right term, click bait is an online monetisation strategy, what these fake news stories like Pizzagate have is a political purpose, which is to reduce support or reduce the integrity of your opponent.

It's political propaganda, and it needs to be taken seriously as such.
 
300 is still well enough to saturate every state in the union.
Well it would be if they were on missiles that could reach the states... less than a hundred are I believe

China simply put has a minimal deterrant policy... enough nukes so it's not worth the risk of anybody fecking with them but not an overwhelming first strike capability

Backed up with a conventional army of such a size that simply put nobody can realistically expect to successfully invade in a traditional sense

This pivot towards China seems based on hegemony and wanting to maintain an economic dominance rather than anything real or tangable
 
I think their fecking about and building artificial islands all over the place is real and tangible

Well yes it will allow them to place missile defence systems and keep air craft carriers at bay so nobody can attack them... how dare they?

But it's hardly a threat or an aggressive move... perhaps they should lease a big fek off airbase and naval facility in Mexico instead?
 
Well yes it will allow them to place missile defence systems and keep air craft carriers at bay so nobody can attack them... how dare they?
And extend their claims for territorial waters and give them permanent positions for offensive weapons as well. They've put ports and airstrips on these things.

Also, I thought you were just saying that their nuclear capability and massive standing army were their deterrent against attack?
 
And extend their claims for territorial waters and give them permanent positions for offensive weapons as well. They've put ports and airstrips on these things.
And extend their claims for territorial waters and give them permanent positions for offensive weapons as well. They've put ports and airstrips on these things.

Also, I thought you were just saying that their nuclear capability and massive standing army were their deterrent against attack?


I said to deter invasion... they are currently vunerable to a (rogue?) Nation launching attacks by air from aircraft carriers (cruise missiles / stealth type multi role fighters... hence the islands and the investment in carrier killer missiles...
 
I said to deter invasion... they are currently vunerable to a (rogue?) Nation launching attacks by air from aircraft carriers (cruise missiles / stealth type multi role fighters... hence the islands and the investment in carrier killer missiles...
A rogue nation with aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles eh?

And these strategically placed islands infringing upon other nation's territorial waters has nothing to do with ongoing feuds with Japan and Taiwan and the possible existence of undersea oil?

But yeah, rogue nations with superpower military capabilities.
 
A rogue nation with aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles eh?

And these strategically placed islands infringing upon other nation's territorial waters has nothing to do with ongoing feuds with Japan and Taiwan and the possible existence of undersea oil?

But yeah, rogue nations with superpower military capabilities.

Why would there be a dispute with Taiwan... after all there is only one China?
 
So now the penny drops for many and just like the moron has been saying, Chi-na is the real enemy. One so bad and dangerous that it's worth forgetting everything that has gone on over the last 50 years or so and teaming up with your biggest and most dangerous rival since the 2nd World War? A rival who has acted above international law for years, shot down commercial planes, annexed a country and kept a war going in others because it suits him to do so? Also one that is now mocking the entire population of the USA, especially the President, on Twitter in a scarily similar manner as to the new Moron Elect, the man who countless people are saying is being controlled by the rival.

You couldn't make this shit up, you really couldn't.
 
Why would there be a dispute with Taiwan... after all there is only one China?

The people of Hongkong, Taiwan, Macau, Tianjiang and Tibet clearly don't think so.

And pretty sure that sentiment also extends to Filipinos, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans, Burmese etc...
 
300 is still well enough to saturate every state in the union.

Does any country other than Russia have the capacity to actually launch at the US? In other words, are the Chinese 300 ready in long range missiles pointed at the US? I guess at least some are pointed at Taiwan, others must be ready for some insanity from Kim, and some for the regional nuclear rival that is India.
 
Also, do they a big fleet of long range bombers like the Tu-95 and 160? I don't know much about their subs though.
 
[QUOTE="berbatrick, post: 20253795, member: 56313"]Does any country other than Russia have the capacity to actually launch at the US? In other words, are the Chinese 300 ready in long range missiles pointed at the US? I guess at least some are pointed at Taiwan, others must be ready for some insanity from Kim, and some for the regional nuclear rival that is India.[/QUOTE]j

That is a good question. Would like to know the answer. There are people in the US who think so, likely the same people who think a limited nuclear war is winable.
 
Well yes it will allow them to place missile defence systems and keep air craft carriers at bay so nobody can attack them... how dare they?

But it's hardly a threat or an aggressive move... perhaps they should lease a big fek off airbase and naval facility in Mexico instead?

They didn't have a pot to p**s in during the communist era and nobody attacked them. The idea that their activities in the South China Sea are purely defensive is ludicrous. They're throwing their weight around to position themselves as the dominant power in Asia.
 
They didn't have a pot to p**s in during the communist era and nobody attacked them. The idea that their activities in the South China Sea are purely defensive is ludicrous. They're throwing their weight around to position themselves as the dominant power in Asia.
But they are the dominant power in Asia... And dominant powers throw their weight around... See Russia in wherever it deams it's sphere of influence (Ukraine Syria) and usa all over the rest of the world
 
I said to deter invasion... they are currently vunerable to a (rogue?) Nation launching attacks by air from aircraft carriers (cruise missiles / stealth type multi role fighters... hence the islands and the investment in carrier killer missiles...
Obviously nothing to do with controlling a multi trillion dollar trade route or the oil underneath...
 
Jeff is the real threat, we don't even know who he is.

 
Actually if we are talking nuclear powered subs with ballistic missile capability it's two
One is pretty old with shorter range missiles... Their most modern has 12 tubes up to 8km range... Pretty piss poor when compared to usa Russia France and the UK...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Navy_Submarine_Force
The Type 94 JIN class was put on line in 2007. They've got 4 already delivered, with 1 more in construction. Those are the modern ones I was referring to based on this...
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/

Also, from your own source regarding the JIN type...
The Type 094 submarine (Jin-class) is believed to have been influenced by Russian assistance. It features 12 launch tubes for the longer ranged JL-2 missile, which has an 8,000 km range that can carry 3 to 4 MIRVs. The 094 would be permitted to patrol nearer Chinese waters, with the ability to launch its missiles against continental US targets.[1]
8000km is a bit more than 8.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.