Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nukes for The Donald?
It’s not even 2PM yet. Are you drunk?
I’m just curious, did anyone on the show ask: if Trump were president, do you think Iran would attack Israel?
(I’m not saying it’s a reason to support him)
To expound a little and paraphrase my wholly apolitical wife, the popularity of Trump and Sanders is proof that the entire nation has gone insane. If we get to November of next year and our only two options are a socialist and whatever Trump is that week, then we are doomed
I don’t want Trump for President but I’m glad he’s in the race–it makes it way more interesting. But as to this question about Trump having the nuke codes is faulty at best. How has Donald Trump shown some form of irresponsibility to even render this a serious question? But after asking such ridiculous question, who would trust George Will with nukes?
I don’t know how to feel about asking this question.
Yes! Nukes are no good if no one believes you are actually willing to use them.
If Trump had his finger on the trigger, other countries might just take it seriously! Your bargaining position is improved if the other party thinks you’re crazy.
Let’s keep in mind that there are reports that Joe Biden keeps the Nuclear football 2 miles away from his motorcade so as to avoid the appearance that he’s anything but a “regular guy.”
He also likes to Skinny Dip apparently…
Where was I? Nuclear weapons. Crazy Presidents. Yeah. Apparently we have that.
Lets be honest here. Trump will not win the presidency even if he some how wins the Republican nomination. If trump is our candidate unless it is Bernie Sanders on the other side I am not going to bother to vote.
I’m sad that this question has to be asked — meaning, Trump should not even be a valid option for Commander in Chief. That he is says a lot more about our current political situation than it does about him. If he is elected — if the electorate wants to give him the presidency — then he gets the whole deal, football and all.
The electorate voted for “hope and change” (read: fundamental transformation) twice. That it might vote for Trump’s version of the same is not all that much of a leap, though the chasm into which the country drops would, I suspect, be wholly different.
I’m OK with it. I don’t see any evidence that Trump would do anything with nukes that anyone else wouldn’t do. Seems to me that nuke scenarios are pretty well thought out in advance.
I really don’t think a Trump presidency would be that big of a deal.
Better Trump than Obama. At least Trump would probably be willing to use them to negotiate.
Oh yeah, 50 years of elections for republicans mimicking Chinese water torture as, inevitably, nothing changes except the continual image of America circling the drain, is certainly the way to shut down any semblance of change.
As long as fear keeps your wife and millions of others clinging to the same pattern, we will, in a few more years, lose it all.
The voters have already, through Obama, decided that Iran can be trusted with nukes. George Will has gone from pseudo-conservative to demagogue flack for the left.
The better the questions get about Trump the more seriously people are taking him.
So yes. Trump is thinkable.
How about his trade policy ideas?
Donald Trump:
Of course! Why didn’t anyone think of that? Just lay down the law! Break your treaties, and show ’em who’s boss! What are they doing to do? You know, other than reciprocate and kick off a trade war? Or decide they’d rather be allied with less belligerent countries and we wind up with Russian military installations in Mexico?
But even if that falls apart, don’t worry, because this isn’t specific to Mexico:
Donald Trump:
And I hope to God none of them involve nuclear negotiations. Or really, any other kinds of negotiations. Or decisions of any kind.
The man is a clown in a suit. His ideas of how to negotiate with others belong on “The Apprentice”, not the world stage. He’s an embarrassment to the Republican party, which is why so many Democrats are cheering him on and the mainstream media is treating him with kid gloves.
We passed insane a while back.
We voted Obama in because he is blackish (twice) despite an economy that is sub-optimal.
Everything costs more but we are told there is no inflation.
Looks like the establishment types wants a Clinton vs Bush.
SSM is the law of the land and the libs are scalp hunting Christians and running them out of the public square.
An Olympian athlete has changed his sex and anybody that does not celebrate it is politically incorrect and maybe committing a hate crime but we have to celebrate his “bravery”.
The GOP seems to believe that Obama can do what he wants and they can not stop him, only cry about it.
We are handing Iran a nuclear weapon throwing away decades of work to get them to stop.
We seem to have an unending wave of immigrants coming in to do the jobs that Americans will not do but we all know Americans that can not get jobs.
BlackLivesMatter but it seems nobody else’s does.
Cities burn while cops stand around and watch.
So tell me how The Donald as President is any crazier than what is already happening?
Nukes?
I wouldn’t give him unrestricted access to the sharp scissors.
So the argument is, “They got to elect their crazy guy, and look at all the damage that ensued! So now we get to elect a crazy guy too!” Is that it?
“He’s no crazier than Obama!” is not exactly a rallying cry I can get behind. I prefer to set the bar a little higher for the people I endorse.
I think the real question, implied by George Will, is whether Trump is entirely sane. You decide.
I was pondering this the other day: Let’s say Trump is as much a buffoon as his harshest critics say (I would classify myself as a Trump critic, although not his harshest).
Given that, is it possible that Trump would order a nuclear strike that would simply be ignored by his subordinates? I’m referring to military personnel, not Trump’s cabinet.
Other realistic nuclear scenarios always seem to be of the last-resort variety: Either someone has launched a nuclear attack against us, or we know one is imminent and launch a limited nuclear strike preemptively.
Yet, with Trump (or at least the version of Trump we see on television), there seems to be some question about whether he would launch a first strike for reasons other than those described above. If that’s the case, would those in the chain of command simply ignore him, leading either to their own courts-martial or Trump’s impeachment?
I’m not sure.
Trump has waged war, on at least one “woman”:
https://youtu.be/4IrE6FMpai8
Furthermore, he has proved himself an adept negotiator across the table from a formidable adversary:
https://youtu.be/co0aDXPTK5o
Well electing the “not crazy guy” is not helping any. Desperate times desperate measures.
As I understand it, this was one of the advantages Richard Nixon had at the negotiation table.
He may have to be told a few times that it’s not really a ‘football’.
But Dan, this is not action. This is the–somewhat off the cuff–remarks made by a guy campaigning for office. You’re trying to take a border policy and turn it into a mad-man lighting off a nuke. Now if he tossed someone off is helicopter at 10,000 feet, sure. If he burn down a building with people in it, OK, with you. Ordered his limo driver to mow down people on a sidewalk, very bad, I agree.
If the other party thinks you are irrational that means they think your actions are not dependent on their actions.
To effect your opponent’s actions your opponent needs to believe that you are both rational and strong-willed, not merely crazy.
Didn’t Bill Clinton
losemisplace the nuclear football once?If we were willing to give it to a haberdasher (Truman), a syphilitic drug addict (Kennedy), a legacy-obsessed statist wheeler-dealer (LBJ), a law-breaking bully (Nixon), an affable but befuddled football star (Ford), history’s greatest monster (Carter), a labor-union leading actor (Reagan) and Bill Clinton I fail to see why a reality star billionaire is somehow worse.
In the history of nuclear weapons there have been two people whose resume should make you comfortable with them having nukes: Eisenhower and Bush 41.
And let’s not even get started with a nuclear Pakistan.
No love for Truman?
No worries. To paraphrase Ra’s al Ghul, I’ll take his nukes from him once he is through with them.
Eric Hines
Hmm not if these properties have debt and are performing poorly. Then he can invoke force majeure clauses and write off the debt.