Donald Trump and US politics

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

That Clinton, Bush and Obama stood by and allowed such proliferation should be an international crime. There were ample opportunities to prevent being where we are now.

Nonsense. Unless actively restrained by force, a nation will tend to train smart people in pseudorandom numbers and eventually acquire any manner of technology. To prevent this is worse than a nation oppressing the best within itself; it is us forcing a nation to do so. There is no way of achieving nuclear nonproliferation permanently, and to achieve it temporarily forces the kind of neocon wetdream military interventionism that puts us at maximum risk when prevention eventually fails.

It is just a matter of time before almost everyone would have nuclear capabilities. Lots of countries have nuclear capabilities but they aren't nuclear-armed. Nations possess the capacity to build nuclear weapons but choose not to.

Why do Countries need to build Nuclear Weapons? The same reason they need to build weapons. Defense against external threats. Proliferation begets proliferation. Nonproliferation mean not having nuke and that should include America. It is bought up that America need to cut its Nuclear Arsenal. If we can't trust America to disarm their own nukes, how can we trust them at all. Truth is We don't.

Also nonsense. Why should every nation except the Americans have nukes? Truth is, every nation should have nukes, so that any nation that uses them is destroyed.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Also nonsense. Why should every nation except the Americans have nukes? Truth is, every nation should have nukes, so that any nation that uses them is destroyed.

That is the point. How can we trust only America's goodwill against using nuclear weapons? We don't. We use Russia and China to curb America's ambition.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Nonsense. Unless actively restrained by force, a nation will tend to train smart people in pseudorandom numbers and eventually acquire any manner of technology.

It isn't the know how, that was widespread public info well over thirty years ago. Making smaller warheads, making them more reliable, making better launch vehicles - that takes some learning and effort, but still doable. It is the manufacturing (acquisition of raw materials and enrichment- whether through a centrifuge or breeder reactor) that takes a lot of effort - and that effort is relatively easy to disrupt, and doesn't take more than a few surgical air strikes, computer viruses etc. We had the opportunity to do this before Iran or North Korea obtained their goals. North Korea was slightly more tricky, but Iran was straight forward.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

To prevent this is worse than a nation oppressing the best within itself; it is us forcing a nation to do so. There is no way of achieving nuclear nonproliferation permanently, and to achieve it temporarily forces the kind of neocon wetdream military interventionism that puts us at maximum risk when prevention eventually fails.

With better detection, it becomes more and more difficult to hide nuclear efforts. There may be more people trying to do it, but the minimum requirements are still on the order of a large corporation or nation state, and it is possible, reasonable and prudent to prevent nuclear proliferation.

A large part of the reason behind the Arab Spring effort that Obama and Hillary pushed was to destabilize middle eastern countries so that they wouldn't be able to move towards nuclear weaponry. Measures to stop Iran were available, but once again, Barry and Hillary decided that since they didn't really like Israel, they wanted a nuclear counter in the area - Iran. Their thinking twas that having Iran balance out Israel would force Israel to bow down and do whatever the USA told it to - including granting Palestinians whatever they were asking for.

The divestment movement that started in 2005 was the other prong of this attack.

"

deathflower wrote:

That is the point. How can we trust only America's goodwill against using nuclear weapons? We don't. We use Russia and China to curb America's ambition.

I agree with you on the basic concepts, but it isn't so much American ambition that poses a nuclear threat as it is politicians and generals who find themselves in a dire situation and think a "limited" nuclear bombing would be more convenient solution than a protracted war. Having Russia with a serious counter and to a much lesser degree China, does provide a strong reality check.

"

deathflower wrote:

It is bought up that America need to cut its Nuclear Arsenal. If we can't trust America to disarm their own nukes, how can we trust them at all.

The US has significantly reduced their arsenal twice through the START I and START II treaties. START III should have been ushered through for a further reduction, but Obama bungled it.

I'm fairly convinced this is all just a bait to try and get any ET that might actually exist in the universe to come here.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The US has significantly reduced their arsenal twice through the START I and START II treaties. START III should have been ushered through for a further reduction, but Obama bungled it.

As required in the agreement, both US and Russia need to disarm. I wouldn't think US would unilaterally disarm, would you?

This looks really familiar, I can't quite put my finger on it...

"

deathflower wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The US has significantly reduced their arsenal twice through the START I and START II treaties. START III should have been ushered through for a further reduction, but Obama bungled it.

As required in the agreement, both US and Russia need to disarm. I wouldn't think US would unilaterally disarm, would you?

I dont reckon anyone is going to disarm

even if they say they will

"

k1rage wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

The US has significantly reduced their arsenal twice through the START I and START II treaties. START III should have been ushered through for a further reduction, but Obama bungled it.

As required in the agreement, both US and Russia need to disarm. I wouldn't think US would unilaterally disarm, would you?

I dont reckon anyone is going to disarm

even if they say they will

As in reduce their nuclear arsenal. The better question would be why has the reduction of Nuclear Arsenal Slowed. It has to do with the U.S. of trying to “neutralize” Russia’s nuclear arsenal through nonproliferation treaty while building its missile shield. U.S is being a sly fox.

Two time Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersh says Russiagate is a lie invented by Obama spy chiefs

OFC total MSM blackout even though Sy Hersh is usually correct

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/seymour-hersh-%E2%80%98russiagate%E2%80%99-cia-planted-lie-revenge-against-trump

USA has performed about 80 coup d'états since WW2 now it's come home apparently