Huffington Post
Donald Trump repeatedly asked an unnamed foreign policy expert why the U.S. couldn’t use its nuclear weapons stockpile during a national security briefing earlier this year, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough said Wednesday.
“I’ll have to be very careful here,” Scarborough said. “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on 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?"
6 comments:
Well for gosh sakes, someone tell him already! Here's a segue:
"Its because school kidz were drinking strontium-90 in their milk 28.8 years after atmospheric atomic tests, because cows ate the grass that absorbed it, for starters, you moron!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90
How about it! Tom
And his questions could have been a mode of inquiry, seeking information as a devil's advocate. I, for one, often use similar approaches when attempting to gain information from individuals who may have agenda to serve, such as would be the case with a military consultant. The technique casts the question in a manner not conducive to talking point responses. In this instance, the approach would be especially valid considering current military instruction at our various war colleges now embrace the concept of 'flexible responce' in place of the older MAD protocol. Flexible response posits that tactical employment of nukes is not only viable, but also survivable.
Fear is a powerful emotion and who pulls the nuke trigger first wins.it is obvious that this global civilization is set for a big decline at some time
Anyone not believing Hillary is ready to call a nuclear strike on at least the tactical level is a fool. The Obama administration has been playing a dangerous game of imperial expansion, taking NATO right to Russia and China's doorstep.
Let us not forget that it was Bill Clinton who reneged on the US promise to Gorbachev that NATO would never advance past the borders of the former East Germany. Bush's adventurism was merely a continuation of policy objectives outlined and set in motion earlier by the prior iterations of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton continuum. We are approaching 2017 and it appears the continuum shall remain intact---so here's to the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton global destruction machine, next stop, World War III
Lest you doubt:
Now here's some frightening shit---
https://www.stratfor.com/the-hub/case-tactical-nuclear-weapons
"Within the arms control community, some view nuclear deterrence as being an antiquated remnant of the Cold War, with no utility in today’s more multilateral security environment. Still others see tactical nuclear weapons as being especially counterproductive to peace and stability, and argue that they should be phased out of U.S. and NATO military strategies. Yet this view is incorrect. Because tactical nuclear weapons are at times a more credible response under the principles defined by customary international law, these weapons enhance deterrence and subsequently improve international peace and security."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/airchronicles/aureview/1967/jan-feb/chapman.html
"Compare Brodie’s appraisal of the implications of nuclear strategic stalemate, especially his position on the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Escalation and the Nuclear Option. To him strategic stalemate means tactical freedom, and he suggests that “the use or threat of use of tactical nuclear weapons may often be counterescalatory.” Contrast this position with his former argument, in Strategy in the Missile Age (1959), that “between the use and non-use of atomic weapons there is a vast watershed of difference and distinction, one that ought not be cavalierly thrown away, as we appear to be throwing it away, if we are serious about trying to limit war.” Apparently Brodie has had occasion to change his mind on this issue. It should prove instructive to see why, especially so since Kahn, and presumably Schelling, continue to be so cautionary.
A number of considerations seem to influence Brodie’s stance on tactical nuclears. If any one consideration is decisive, it is his belief in strategic stalemate: there can be no general war. And this circumstance of itself offers encouragement to the provocative and the aggressive, those who would escalate, not to the top rungs of the ladder, to be sure, for they are gone; rather up the ladder for political advantage. Some such nations can be deterred, and safely so, by the threat to use, or the actual use of, tactical nuclear weapons."
What's scary is that no one seems to be asking why the Obama administration--soon to be the Clinton administration, believes that tactical nukes can successfully be used, and not merely in a defensive capacity, but as a first strike 'preemptive' measure. That's what 'flexible response' is about. Why aren't folks asking why the US is spending billions on B61 tactical nuclear bomb upgrades?
Post a Comment