Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation

The Firestarter said:
Nuclear weapons have been around for 70 years and the world has come through much more dangerous times that it is now. There was a point when politicians thought nuclear war is actually winnable and it is a matter of 'when' than 'if' . There were actually (short) periods when command and control of nuclear arsenals was given to commanders in the field. Think about that for a second . The risk today is far, far lower than 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

No, sadly it’s not far, far lower today. Now we have two bitter rivals in India and Pakistan both nuclear armed. We have a resurgent and highly nationalist and paranoid Russia targeting the West in highly provocative ways, we have a nuclear armed Israel who are becoming increasingly diplomatically isolated from the west, and to top it off we have a wildly divided America led by a President who has already questioned why the US doesn’t use its nuclear arsenal.

Oh and just in case that wasn’t enough, we have a newly expansionist China who are about to become a superpower and who are already pushing a situation in the South China Sea that will either require them or the US to back down and lose massive face in front of the world, or go to war over it. Plus there’s a very good chance that Japan might finally join the nuclear club before too long if they determine that they can’t trust America to be a reliable defense against the Chinese (and they probably can’t at the moment).

The world is seriously fecked right now.
 
Kentonio said:
No, sadly it’s not far, far lower today. Now we have two bitter rivals in India and Pakistan both nuclear armed. We have a resurgent and highly nationalist and paranoid Russia targeting the West in highly provocative ways, we have a nuclear armed Israel who are becoming increasingly diplomatically isolated from the west, and to top it off we have a wildly divided America led by a President who has already questioned why the US doesn’t use its nuclear arsenal.

Oh and just in case that wasn’t enough, we have a newly expansionist China who are about to become a superpower and who are already pushing a situation in the South China Sea that will either require them or the US to back down and lose massive face in front of the world, or go to war over it. Plus there’s a very good chance that Japan might finally join the nuclear club before too long if they determine that they can’t trust America to be a reliable defense against the Chinese (and they probably can’t at the moment).

The world is seriously fecked right now.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is fear mongering. India and Pakistan don't have anything close to the global extinction level capability that US and Russia have. You also mention China : for decades their program has been focused on a limited arsenal that is sufficient to destroy the major cities of US and Russia. Why would any superpower want to destroy the whole organised society ? Even if it is not a mutually assured destruction a third of the inhabitable world would be turned into a nuclear wasteland from which you cant take '''spoils of war" or resume trading with. It's not like you have conquered those countries.

The big difference is that the world is no longer divided into two economic blocks . Thanks to the globalisation and the interconnections resulting from it, we are a hefty bit safer.
 
The Firestarter said:
Trump only cares about acquiring large sums of money and that ability would be severely diminished by the destruction of international trade and banking.
Click to expand...

He's also indicated that he wants to use nuclear weapons and he dropped the MOAB just because he could so would he drop a nuke because he could? We've heard stories of those in the WH tempering his ideas to go to war so we know he's chomping at the leash to do it with someone, somewhere.

Trump is the type that wants a legacy and his name in the history books for more than just simply being the President, dropping a nuke would cement him there, even if the history books would all be incinerated in nuclear holocaust shortly thereafter.
 
It's believable because he's the kind of extreme narcissist who'd likely daydream about his surname replacing Ozymandias's in a future-time glassed desert.
 
matherto said:
He's also indicated that he wants to use nuclear weapons and he dropped the MOAB just because he could so would he drop a nuke because he could? We've heard stories of those in the WH tempering his ideas to go to war so we know he's chomping at the leash to do it with someone, somewhere.

Trump is the type that wants a legacy and his name in the history books for more than just simply being the President, dropping a nuke would cement him there, even if the history books would all be incinerated in nuclear holocaust shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...
First , drop a nuke on whom? Second , if it is not a retaliatory or preventing an imminent first strike toward US I don't think this order would be executed. It is not like selecting a country on his tablet and clicking ok. The actual general officers involved in the process are aware of the geopolitical situation , they are not just mindless vessels of orders. He can't override this process if stratcom refuses to carry it out.
 
The Firestarter said:
First , drop a nuke on whom? Second , if it is not a retaliatory or preventing an imminent first strike toward US I don't think this order would be executed. It is not like selecting a country on his tablet and clicking ok. The actual general officers involved in the process are aware of the geopolitical situation , they are not just mindless vessels of orders. He can't override this process if stratcom refuses to carry it out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm well aware of that, I don't think it would actually happen but that doesn't mean that Trump wouldn't want to. I don't think he cares who, he'll pick a fight and try and win it and he'll want to drop a nuke on them. Thankfully it isn't as simple as you describe and those in charge of the nukes have already mentioned that they wouldn't accept the order but given the bolshiness of the Republicans and the Trump admin and everything they've pulled over the past two years, would you put it past them finding someone who would execute that order if they tried hard enough?
 
The Firestarter said:
Sorry but this is fear mongering. India and Pakistan don't have anything close to the global extinction level capability that US and Russia have. You also mention China : for decades their program has been focused on a limited arsenal that is sufficient to destroy the major cities of US and Russia. Why would any superpower want to destroy the whole organised society ? Even if it is not a mutually assured destruction a third of the inhabitable world would be turned into a nuclear wasteland from which you cant take '''spoils of war" or resume trading with. It's not like you have conquered those countries.

The big difference is that the world is no longer divided into two economic blocks . Thanks to the globalisation and the interconnections resulting from it, we are a hefty bit safer.
Click to expand...

The world was considerably safer in two blocs, and even then it almost led to the destruction of the world. We are entering a period of gross uncertainty with the entire post WW2 order being upset dramatically. If you feel safe right now, you’re not paying attention.
 
Kentonio said:
The world was considerably safer in two blocs, and even then it almost led to the destruction of the world. We are entering a period of gross uncertainty with the entire post WW2 order being upset dramatically. If you feel safe right now, you’re not paying attention.
Click to expand...

We are in the safest time that we've ever been in statistically. I think you're overreacting due to having access to immediate information that's making you feel like things are more dangerous. If you had the internet decades earlier than we did, you'd have likely been far more terrified than you are right now.
 
Zarlak said:
We are in the safest time that we've ever been in statistically. I think you're overreacting due to having access to immediate information that's making you feel like things are more dangerous. If you had the internet decades earlier than we did, you'd have likely been far more terrified than you are right now.
Click to expand...

That's generally applicable across the board. People feel more anxious because of the waves of information they are taking in on social media on a daily basis.
 
Zarlak said:
We are in the safest time that we've ever been in statistically. I think you're overreacting due to having access to immediate information that's making you feel like things are more dangerous. If you had the internet decades earlier than we did, you'd have likely been far more terrified than you are right now.
Click to expand...
Imagine going to the cinema for a nice movie and seeing this before it:
 
Zarlak said:
We are in the safest time that we've ever been in statistically. I think you're overreacting due to having access to immediate information that's making you feel like things are more dangerous. If you had the internet decades earlier than we did, you'd have likely been far more terrified than you are right now.
Click to expand...

I’m a student of history. When you look at the geo-political situation today, we are entering a part of the cycle that we’ve been in many times in the past. If history follows its usual patterns there are dark time ahead of us.
 
Hope Stone goes down ASAP.

Hope Farage goes down for his dodgy dealings with Stone, Assange and Trump too. They're all linked.
 
Kentonio said:
This kind of thing never starts with the intention to end the world or start a world war. People always start out thinking they can gain a smaller goal and achieve quick victory. Then things start spiraling out of control, and escalate beyond what anyone originally wanted. It happened over and over again in the past, except now nuclear weapons add a whole new dimension to how bad things can potentially get.
Click to expand...

As long as people realize, nobody can actually win a nuclear war between Russia and the USA, then there should never be any doubts about the ultimate outcome. Nobody will pull the trigger first, and if that is the case, then nobody needs to retaliate.

Moreover, as a species, we should start considering, what right does any single nation have, to start a nuclear war? Forget Nazis. Forget ISIS. If you start a nuclear war, your country, your people, are the most despicable people, IN HISTORY, and your country, and your people, literally, and I mean, LITERALLY, deserve to be bombed into oblivion by the rest of the combined world.

It shouldn't even be a first strike option. No country on earth should have first strike nuclear doctrine. Period.
 
Nucks said:
As long as people realize, nobody can actually win a nuclear war between Russia and the USA, then there should never be any doubts about the ultimate outcome. Nobody will pull the trigger first, and if that is the case, then nobody needs to retaliate.

Moreover, as a species, we should start considering, what right does any single nation have, to start a nuclear war? Forget Nazis. Forget ISIS. If you start a nuclear war, your country, your people, are the most despicable people, IN HISTORY, and your country, and your people, literally, and I mean, LITERALLY, deserve to be bombed into oblivion by the rest of the combined world.

It shouldn't even be a first strike option. No country on earth should have first strike nuclear doctrine. Period.
Click to expand...
Why involve the people? The people will most likely have nothing to do with a hypothetical decision to start a nuclear war. :confused:
 
Nucks said:
As long as people realize, nobody can actually win a nuclear war between Russia and the USA, then there should never be any doubts about the ultimate outcome. Nobody will pull the trigger first, and if that is the case, then nobody needs to retaliate.

Moreover, as a species, we should start considering, what right does any single nation have, to start a nuclear war? Forget Nazis. Forget ISIS. If you start a nuclear war, your country, your people, are the most despicable people, IN HISTORY, and your country, and your people, literally, and I mean, LITERALLY, deserve to be bombed into oblivion by the rest of the combined world.

It shouldn't even be a first strike option. No country on earth should have first strike nuclear doctrine. Period.
Click to expand...

So if Kim launched a nuke every NK citizen deserves to die?

Yea that's stupid.
 
Kentonio said:
Of course it’s stupid, but in that scenario the US public would demand it. No question.
Click to expand...
Well I guess at least 40% (give or take) would... But that doesn't mean those people would deserve it...
 
Raoul said:
Expecting a right wing propaganda piece on Mueller to break soon.

Click to expand...


I hope Jacob Whol suffers from locked in syndrome and goes on to live and abnormally long life.
 
Pexbo said:
I hope Jacob Whol suffers from locked in syndrome and goes on to live and abnormally long life.
Click to expand...

Its also telling that he is being used to promote this new "scandal" as he's a major pro-Trump twitter troll. Dirty tricks a week before the election it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.