jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (32 posts)

Has Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin Restarted the Nuclear Arms Race?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 9 months ago

    I lived through the fear of nuclear war between the old Soviet Union and America.  I remember practicing what to do in elementary school in case of an attack.  I remember the television commercials advertising bomb shelters.  I remember the Missile Crisis.

    And now, Vladimir Putin first told the world he is going to "enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems."

    To this, the President-in-waiting replied by tweeting "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,"

    Let the Games begin!

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/ … apability/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

      The last time the soviet union tried this it cost them their economy and half their country.  Is there reason to think it would be different this time, or has Trump called a colossal bluff?

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

        That is true, but will Trump follow him down the rabbit hole.  Remember, to fund more and better American nukes will take oodles of money (remember the massive debt Reagan ran up?) money the GOP won't spend.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          I don't believe our problems are going to be solved, but I do believe it has bought us some time.   

          Trump still plans to "drain the swamp", (DTS).

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            How can he drain the swamp, he is the epitome of the swamp.

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              You sure do know how to start a discussion ~
              And then , end it.

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

                The fact that Trump is the swamp, as are many of his cabinet picks, has nothing to do with this discussion about starting a nuclear arms race.  I was just responding to your comment with the truth.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

          If the GOP won't spend it then I would guess he won't go down the same hole.  Personally, I think he's all bluster in the matter.  Carrying a big stick, with tough words, but that's about all.

          It's kind of surprising that lefties keep jumping all over everything he says as if they believe he means it, and after discounting anything he said during the campaign because "he lies about everything".  Don't you think?

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 9 months ago in reply to this

            Putin doesn't care about sticks, he laughs at sticks and threats which means if Trump doesn't carry through (remember Obama's red line) then Trump and America will look like fools and weak.  Well, Trump is already a fool, but he needed take America down the hole with him.

            As to believing what Trump says, you have to now, whether he is telling the truth (rarely) or not, he is the President-in-waiting; so he speaks for America.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 9 months ago in reply to this

              No other politician means what they say, and they all lie through their teeth.  Why would we have to believe this one?  Simply because he wasn't a politician a year ago?

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                To some extent true, but Trump has set a new record in lies per hour.  Being a politician in the past has no bearing, the only character he has is very unpleasant and will leave Netanyahu (not Israel, per se) as his and America's only international friend ... again.

                It took Obama 6 years to repair all of the damage from Bush; it will take Trump about a year to undo it.

            2. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              No, Trump isn't the one who is a fool. Our collaborator media is lying about our president.

              Who first called for nuclear war? Who first called for expanding their arsenals? 
              First, it was China saying they were going to build more nukes on Dec. 8th...and then about a week later Russia said they would have to build more nukes for their own security.     

              The People's Daily and other Communist papers, on Dec. 6th, 7th, and 8th, placed big articles.
              Reciprocity key to dealing with Trump's US
              http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1022482.shtml
              China cannot hesitate on nuclear buildup
              http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1025377.shtml

              It was in US news that China was going to build new nukes to counter the US and Russia.  Russia and China have a far more history of hating each other, (its all complex) than the US and Russia hating each other.

              Daily Mail - December  8th
              China 'needs more nuclear weapons to deal with Trump': Government mouthpiece newspapaper says extra defense is required should US treat Beijing 'unacceptably'
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … media.html

              I thought Trump should have responded then. I guess he got the briefing later, Dec 22 when he tweeted "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its  senses regarding nukes."

              What did our collaborated media do?  They said Trump was insane, he called for nuclear war! They were saying that he tweeted that out of nowhere.

              Could Trump's Tweets Spark a Nuclear Arms Race? (they didn't even use the complete quote)   
              https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … ar/511583/

              Putin urged a nuclear weapons boost after China did ... and the media said it was Trump's fault.

              Reuters:  Trump 'arms race' comment sows more doubt on nuclear policy
              http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t … SKBN14B1ZZ

              Our media is collaborating with the Communist Chinese, acting like our president responding 'we'll up our nukes till sanity comes back to you'.  They took that out of context and act like he tweeted out statements from his generals saying 'fine we'll up our arsenals if you break the treaties',  But, they leave out the part about the treaty...and say he is crazy, he wants nukes.

              China's artificial islands violates international law-tribunal - July 12, 2016   
              https://globalnation.inquirer.net/14099 … ippine-sea

              China is violating about everything, you name it, nukes, the South China Sea, lowering their currency, corporate taxes,  they steal our intellectual property, they treat their people like slaves and are treating us the same, they are screwing us.

              Chinese state media warns of 'US showdown' after Donald Trump picks ant-China trade adviser Peter Navarro
              http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 91941.html
              Again, they are threatening military attacks on us if we just create a level playing field.  And, our collaborator media is working with them.  There is no bottom to how low they will go. 

              More Chinese missiles bound for disputed islands
              https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/9a13f4ee-5 … bound.html

              Trump and Putin: the worst case scenario
              *   http://qz.com/871436/donald-trump-nucle … -armament/
              They imply nuclear war with the US and Russia and say that is what Trump is saying.

              Dec 23 -  US must cut, not increase nukes, says China  (who the hell do they think they are?)
              http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl … 145383.cms

              So, China says they are going to build more nukes, threaten the Philippians and Japan and everybody else if we don't submit to them.  Our media goes and starts attacking Trump.  Says he is calling for nuclear war, when its China threatening everybody, building up their arsenal, and then they have the nerve to come out on Dec. 23rd and say, we need the US to cut its nukes, Donald Trump is dangerous, and our media agrees ... to try to disarm the American people. 

              The truth is our country has been conquered partially by multi-nation corporations that are establishing a corporate world government.   

              So, Trump's tweet was talking about the world coming to its sense about China.   It was, I guess we'll have to build up our nukes until you,  China, until you abide by the old agreements you have broken.  China is breaking all the agreements.  And, under Obama we started breaking them.  So! Russia's breaking them too.

              The media has misrepresented what Trump said, and what he meant.  They are that stupid?  But, all the trendy liberals want war with Russia, and that's the biggest thing here.  They are using something China did, to act like it is the US and Russia.

              When Trump put out a letter saying he wants to work with Russia and not have conflicts, and have more trade, Putin agreed.   
              Trump receives 'very nice' Christmas letter from Putin, who wished him a Merry Christmas
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … toric.html

              I'm not defending Trump the man, I'm defending the truth and exposing the media that lies to you, because they think your an idiot.

              My God, this is treason the media is involved in siding with the Communist Chinese against the truth, against America.  Comedy Central doesn't make it cool to hate Donald Trump.  The trendies don't understand geopolitical stratagems, they are useful idiots.  But, they pretend to be intellectuals, but they are weak cowards.  They have given over their souls to a very dark enemy. 

              These collaborators are trying to start a nuclear war, because they must hate themselves so much they are bent on self-destruction and destroying America. 

              Big US corporations sold out to China along time ago, but at least they got paid off to do it.

              My Esoteric, I am not angry with you, I truly hope you will be able to see the truth.  However, you are free to not believe me and continue believing misinformation.   

              Merry Christmas.   (my apology for such a long post, but I couldn't condense it more than I already did)

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                The media doesn't have to lie about Trump (who is NOT our President yet), his narcissism is so severe that he makes is foolishness obvious to anybody with eyes and ears.

                That said, I have been watching and listening to the mainstream media for nigh on 60  years now (I started paying attention to it at around 9 or 10).  Once upon at time (before cable) they actually reported the news without much bias and commentary and without regard to the bottom line.  With cable came entertainment-based news; same reporting but the motivation was different.  With the Internet came alternative media whose relationship with the truth is frequently questionable.  A few stand out as good, The Hill, Politico, and the like, but the rest aren't really worth reading.

                I limit my insight into world events to CNN, Sirius/XM POTUS, Politico, The Hill,   But my main source is my own research.

                It isn't so much that Trump indicated a desire to make sure America stays ahead in preparation for nuclear war, it is the dangerous way he does it.  A foreign policy run by twitter can only end up in disaster.  Trump, by his own admission, is NOT a deep thinker and doesn't care about the details of anything.  That would be OK if he had the ability to take in conflicting summaries of fact and opinion and then come to a rational, logic-based decision-making.  But THAT is not Trump, not by a long shot.  He is, at a national level, a very dangerous man.

                Thank you for not being angry with me, but 20+ years with the Department of Defense (coinciding with 20+ years in the Army)  gave me a very clear view of how the world works.  I was an analyst, so I know how to take an unbiased view, regardless of my own feelings, and how to cut through the crap by comparing and contrasting sources in conjunction with my own experience. 

                I don't like big corporations because 90% abuse those who work for them and buy from them, but this has been always true throughout history.  (The only solution to this human nature is proper regulation from a caring government).  But, corporations, US or otherwise, don't "sell themselves out" to anybody, unless there is a bottom line reward.

                Hope your Christmas went well also.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Out of curiosity, which right-leaning news sources do you find credible?  Everything you've listed leans left - which from the other side to you gather news from?

                  Trump is not a great thinker, does not dwell on details, and you find this wrong.  Do you then think that the POTUS should immerse himself in the details?  Should he follow every dollar, personally assign every person to a task force, design every letter and word of legislation, etc?  Or should the POTUS sit back, let others do the detail work and concern himself with the wider picture and results of those details?  He is surrounded with people, after all - people that are there precisely to do the fine detail work of the office.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    Actually, all of those, especially POTUS, present balanced news.  On each one, I read articles and opinions from both sides (and not fluff pieces like Fox to seem balanced) .  Having said that about Fox, I will concede they do have a couple reporters who are balanced, but no commentators. 

                    Not necessarily "immerse" but has a desire to see and UNDERSTAND them; #NoMandateTrump does not want to do either.  By his own admission, he acts, right or wrong, by his gut (and we see that even now, it wasn't just a campaign slogan).

                    The problem is, Trump does not have a "wider picture" mode, at least he has never shown one; he is a here and now kind of guy.  That is why he has changed each hard-core positions at least three times during the campaign.

                    I have a hard time believing that if the results of any analyses presented to him disagrees with this preconceived answers, he will modify what he thinks.  All he has around him are "yes" people (not talking about his cabinet; they, in the long run, are going to cause him problems, especially Sec Def.)

  2. MizBejabbers profile image89
    MizBejabbersposted 8 months ago

    They've certainly started something unpleasant. As Wilderness said, the arms race cost the Soviet Union dearly and its people suffered greatly. If Putin does this again, the questions are, will Trump put OUR money where HIS mouth is, and if he tries, will the American people let him? Also, the world is low on natural resources like iron for virgin steel and oil for manufacturing and fueling needed to support an all-out war effort. Will either country be able to support a nuclear arms proliferation? Are they both just schoolyard bullies seeing who can be the loudest rooster?

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      All good questions, MizBefabbers

  3. Thomas Bergel profile image60
    Thomas Bergelposted 8 months ago

    Mr. Trump may be trying to tell Mr. Putin that the United States will match any Russian upgrade. This message may also be intended for China, which Mr. Trump has promised to challenge, or it may be an effort to coerce all nuclear powers into accepting some global aim.

    1. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Hillary mentioned Russia and China in a campaign speech where she was saying we have to make sure America is ready to meet future threats and be ready with political, economic and military responses. She said that one of the first things she would do as president is call for a  "new nuclear posture review".

      The last person I would trust with nuclear weapons is Hillary Clinton.   She wanted Iran to know that if she is president, that we will attack Iran if they build up their nuclear weapons if they plan to attack Israel. But, how can I believe anything she says when she promised to honor Obama's policies, who made that bad deal with Iran, and who just stabbed Israel in the back at the UN.   

      Trump as much as mentions the word 'nuclear' and liberals and their co-oped media hits the ceiling.  There is such a double standard, its ridiculous to me. 

      China is the problem to the world, and ISIS...not Russia.  Russia has been destroying ISIS. Trump welcomes Russia and any other country that wants to join in with the US to defeat ISIS.  That would be great for all the world!  ... BTW, the Obama Administration has been arming, training and funding ISIS, its a proxy army.

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Saying a normal thing as "for a  "new nuclear posture review". as opposed to this frightening statement "“Let it be an arms race … we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,”

        It is a fact that Hillary was Mostly False 14% of the time; False 10%; and Pans-on-fire 2% of the time.

        It is a fact that Donald was Mostly False 18% of the time; False 33%; and a huge Pants-on-fire 18% of the time

        Now, tell me who you think is telling the truth??

        Russia has NOT been destroying ISIS (not many anyway).  Their focus is the rebels fighting their good friend Assad. 

        However, statements like "Obama Administration has been arming, training and funding ISIS, its a proxy army." make me worry about your sanity.  That is so wrong it is mind-boggling.

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          My jaw did not stand agape.

          Leaked Audio of Kerry Reveals Obama Intentionally Allowed Rise of ISIS
          http://truthfeed.com/bombshell-leaked-a … sis/44745/

          I didn't get back to you earlier because nothing seems to get through, but maybe this will.  I could post links to much more, but I have to wonder if it would change your mindset one bit. 

          No insult intended. Would that we could actually have a discussion on some level eventually.  But, it is not necessary.  shrugs

          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            This Alt-Right source is a great example of Fake News.  Did Kerry say he wanted a more forceful response yes he did (so did Clinton),  But then again, neither Kerry nor Clinton were President.   Only the President has the Responsibility to make such decisions.

            Do I wish he had agreed to a "no-fly zone" to start with?  Yes; but then he has more information than I do.

            Do I wish he had agreed to arm the proper group of rebels, assuming they could identify who they really were?  Yes, but then he has more information than I do..

            Nowhere in that Alt-Right report (other than the headline) say PBO's plan was to "... intentionally allow the rise ..."

            1. colorfulone profile image88
              colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              I get a kick out your "alt-right" category.  This is a YouTube clip with Obama admitting they were helping to train ISIS / ISIL (same thing).   You can find a longer clip if you like. 
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOYm_CCxxKk

              2017 is looking good to me because it is almost due time that ISIS / ISIL / al Qaeda be resolved with the new administration, and quickly I hope.   Not on the battle field, but at home with those who created it. 

              Thanks!

              1. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                Hello again Colorfulone, it's good to see you resisting the temptation of those memes you used to be so fond of. But...

                Are you following the same path with your video links now?

                I viewed your 'US training ISIL' video, and thought it deserved a better look. So I went to the White House transcript of those remarks, and the full video of those remarks.

                As expected, your linked video was a purposely chopped sound-bite that was nothing more than a distortion of the truth.

                Here is the pertinent section for your video link:

                "Meanwhile, we continue to ramp up our training and support of local forces that are fighting ISIL on the ground.  As I’ve said before, this aspect of our strategy was moving too slowly.  But the fall of Ramadi has galvanized the Iraqi government.  So, with the additional steps I ordered last month, we’re speeding up training of ISIL [Iraqi] forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province."   *note the bolded clip of your video

                Why would your clip start in mid-sentence, and not include the part about training and supporting local forces that were fighting ISIL?

                The video I imbeded also includes your clip, but the difference is the discussion of the video and transcript was about fighting ISIL in Iraq. The mention of training ISIl was an error. As noted in the transcript, [Iraq], was the intended word. The president misspoke. Oh my gawddd! He said ISIL when he meant Iraq! How could that happen? Could it be the previous repetitions of "ISIL" through-out his remarks?

                Either way, it was an obvious slip of the tongue, (perhaps a Freudian Slip to you?), not a declaration of support for ISIL.

                It seems a stretch to think you did not know that, or, that you did not look deeper after seeing that clip looped over and over in your video link.

                Compare my video link, (start at 5:04), and the context of the remark, (provided), and the context of the transcript; do you still believe the point of your video link? 

                GA

                1. colorfulone profile image88
                  colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Did you happen to notice that Obama was reading a script word for word. Hardly a slip by any stretch of the imagination. 

                  Former DIA General Flynn blew the whistle on Obama / ISIS rise.  And, plenty of other whistle blowers from the military, CIA, FBI, to other intelligence agencies. They have been at war internally for some time.

                  There are declassifed documents that show Obama knew about the attack in Benghazi 10 days beforehand and did nothing.  By an al Qaeda or ISIS type group.

                  ISIS and al Qaeda has to be resolved ... those who created it, CIA, others who consorted with them, and civilians who were involved have to be held accountable. This enemy didn't just come out of nowhere, it was created by our own CIA, by our own intelligence community, and by our own mercenaries.  If, we don't clear it out, it will be an indictment against the end of the American Republic.

                  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Obama are responsible for ISIS, John Brennan and on and on... If, we hold no one accountable, we will repeat the mis-trials and mis-givings of the Clinton Administration, and Bush Junior. 

                  Hillary admitted that "We created al Qaeda".  It doesn't take much to connect the dots, and there are lots of dots.  It is really very interesting to see it.  It'll all come out in the open, you'll see it soon enough. Maybe now it won't be such a shock.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    It looks like you are sticking with your 'US training ISIL'    video, so I suppose you are also committed to your 'Obama knew 10 days in advance' story too.

                    Judicial Watch is, (I think), a well respected conservative website, And I can certainly see where their headline might seem to support your claim...
                    "Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance"

                    But when you read more than the headline, you find that the documents show that the attackers had planned the event 10 days in advance, not that the U.S. knew of the pending attack 10 days in advance. At least that's what I read, and it does make a difference.

                    "(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked “Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman” (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as the Blind Sheikh, and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts.  The new documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria.  The documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in Syria." 
                    Source: Judicial Watch.

                    You are right that Hillary admitted that we created ISIS, but the "we" she was referring to was the U.S. government - of Reagan's era, not Obama's. Her confession was in the context of how ISIS grew out of the Mujahideen of Afghanistan. And she was right. So do those dots you are connecting go that far back?

                    GA

  4. primpo profile image77
    primpoposted 7 months ago

    I've been finding things on the web that point to exactly where we are headed.  I'm scared.

    https://www.countercurrents.org/2017/01 … e-for-war/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, Teddy's "big stick" - a truly discouraging defensive capability - is always the road to war.

 
working