Wed
Aug 9 2017
05:03 pm

It's open mic night at the White House, except the jokers doing bad performance art have nuclear weapons. The incompetence is astonishing. And dangerous.

46
like
bizgrrl's picture

Very dangerous. However, the

Very dangerous.

However, the people who voted for the president probably think it's great. They think it is necessary to take a weapon everywhere they go. His voters probably have no concept of how dangerous his actions could be, or don't care.

You probably need to read to learn.

WhitesCreek's picture

Mrs. Creek said Trump's

Mrs. Creek said Trump's bombast and blather made her fearful enough to want to call her sons and tell them she loves them.

I would say we have an idiot for a president but that would be unfair to idiots.

WhitesCreek's picture

A Little Norman and Nancy to ease your fears

danandrews's picture

Stop! Everything will be just fine!

Dude, right now our greatest hope at avoiding nuclear war between two world leaders who are eager to create World War Three...is Dennis Rodman! Sadly, this is not a joke! Dennis Rodman is our first, last, and best chance at world peace tonight! Sleep tight everyone!

R. Neal's picture

At one of the debates, Trump

At one of the debates, Trump was asked about his priorities for maintaining the nuclear triad (U.S. arsenal of bombers, missiles and submarines), as in which is the most critical for our defense.

His answer: "I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me."

This is the guy with the launch codes.

In a couple of interviews, he also pondered why we even have nuclear weapons if we aren't going to use them.

This should have been a big red flag.

But no. Because Make America Great Again.

Also, we were curious about the launch protocol and wheher the president has the absolute final authority on his own.

The Mrs. found a quote by Dick Cheney saying yes, as a matter of fact he/she does.

I found that hard to believe, thinking there would be a more rigorous protocol.

It appears there is, but not really. The president can order a strike against anybody, any time for any reason without consulting Congress or anybody else. The only check is that the secretary of defense must concur and two people, the president and secretary of defense, must enter the codes.

The secretary of defense cannot refuse or veto the order. He/she can only resign or be fired on the spot. The deputy secretary then steps in.

The reasoning behind this is MAD, "mutually assured destruction," which some of us may recall from the days of hiding under our desks at school during nuclear attack drills.

The idea is that if an enemy launches ICBMs at us, we have 30 minutes to respond. Unfortunately, the only response is to launch ours. Thus, "mutually assured destruction" which is supposed to be a deterrent.

There does not appear to be any safeguard against an unstable president launching a first strike.

With the current commander in chief, that seems troublesome.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

It does look, though, like we can have confidence in Secretary of Defense James Mattis (who breezed through his confirmation hearing with strong bipartisan support).

From U. S. News and World Report (January 2017):

Contrary to popular opinion, the official role of U.S. nuclear weapons is for more than just deterrence. According to the latest Nuclear Posture Review, released in 2010, U.S. policy allows for the United States to use nuclear weapons first against any nuclear weapons state or any state not in compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations if U.S. interests are at risk. Mattis showed concern about the status quo, stating in his testimony, "We must clearly establish the role of our nuclear weapons: Do they serve solely to deter nuclear war? If so we should say so, and the resulting clarity will help to determine the number we need."

Declaring that U.S. nuclear weapons exist solely for deterrence, as Mattis suggested might be sound policy, would in essence establish a "no-first-use" policy, whereby the United States promises to only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack against itself or an ally. This policy change is logical and long overdue. Since the end of the Cold War, and as U.S. conventional capabilities have advanced to a level never before seen in human history, nuclear weapons have, in practice, served no role other than deterring adversaries from striking first. Today there are zero plausible scenarios where nuclear weapons would have to be used first in place of conventional tools. Declaring a no-first-use policy would clarify the role of nuclear weapons as defensive and not offensive, while reducing the risk of miscalculation by any adversary.

Yes, I realize this sounds contrary to all we've heard from Trump. Still, it appears that Mattis is both level-headed and broadly respected on this issue.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.

style="display:block"
data-ad-format="autorelaxed"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3296520478850753"
data-ad-slot="5999968558">

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

Alt Weekly

State News

Local .GOV

State .GOV

Wire Reports

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

Monthly archive