Nukes for The Donald?

 

On Fox News Sunday, George Will asked a simple question:carry-nuclear-football

Do we really want to give nuclear weapons to Donald Trump?

Well, do we?

Does the question answer itself, as George Will supposed, or is President Trump becoming … thinkable?

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Peter Robinson: is President Trump becoming … thinkable?

    It’s not even 2PM yet. Are you drunk?

    • #1
  2. Pencilvania Inactive
    Pencilvania
    @Pencilvania

    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)

    • #2
  3. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    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

    • #3
  4. JimGoneWild Coolidge
    JimGoneWild
    @JimGoneWild

    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?

    • #4
  5. Luke Thatcher
    Luke
    @Luke

    I don’t know how to feel about asking this question.

    • #5
  6. Matt Bartle Member
    Matt Bartle
    @MattBartle

    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.

    • #6
  7. Majestyk Contributor
    Majestyk
    @Majestyk

    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.

    • #7
  8. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    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.

    • #8
  9. Flapjack Lincoln
    Flapjack
    @Flapjack

    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.

    • #9
  10. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    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.

    • #10
  11. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Better Trump than Obama.  At least Trump would probably be willing to use them to negotiate.

    • #11
  12. raycon and lindacon Inactive
    raycon and lindacon
    @rayconandlindacon

    The King Prawn: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

    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.

    • #12
  13. raycon and lindacon Inactive
    raycon and lindacon
    @rayconandlindacon

    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.

    • #13
  14. Jordan Wiegand Inactive
    Jordan Wiegand
    @Jordan

    The better the questions get about Trump the more seriously people are taking him.

    So yes.  Trump is thinkable.

    • #14
  15. Dan Hanson Thatcher
    Dan Hanson
    @DanHanson

    JimGoneWild:How has Donald Trump shown some form of irresponsibility to even render this a serious question?

    How about his trade policy ideas?

    Donald Trump:

    Every car, and every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax. Okay? And that tax is going to be paid simultaneously with the transaction, and that’s it.’

    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:

    There are hundred things like that.

    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.

    • #15
  16. Real Jane Galt Coolidge
    Real Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The King Prawn: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

    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?

    • #16
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Nukes?

    I wouldn’t give him unrestricted access to the sharp scissors.

    • #17
  18. Dan Hanson Thatcher
    Dan Hanson
    @DanHanson

    So tell me how The Donald as President is any crazier than what is already happening?

    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.

    • #18
  19. Marion Evans Inactive
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    I think the real question, implied by George Will, is whether Trump is entirely sane. You decide.

    • #19
  20. Tom Garrett Member
    Tom Garrett
    @TomGarrett

    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.

    • #20
  21. Johnny Dubya Inactive
    Johnny Dubya
    @JohnnyDubya

    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

    • #21
  22. Real Jane Galt Coolidge
    Real Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Dan Hanson: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.

    Well electing the “not crazy guy” is not helping any.  Desperate times desperate measures.

    • #22
  23. Matt Balzer Member
    Matt Balzer
    @MattBalzer

    Matt Bartle: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.

    As I understand it, this was one of the advantages Richard Nixon had at the negotiation table.

    • #23
  24. Brian Watt Member
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    He may have to be told a few times that it’s not really a ‘football’.

    • #24
  25. JimGoneWild Coolidge
    JimGoneWild
    @JimGoneWild

    Dan Hanson: Dan Hanson JimGoneWild:How has Donald Trump shown some form of irresponsibility to even render this a serious question? How about his trade policy ideas?

    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.

    • #25
  26. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Matt Bartle: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.

    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.

    • #26
  27. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Didn’t Bill Clinton lose misplace 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.

    • #27
  28. Jordan Wiegand Inactive
    Jordan Wiegand
    @Jordan

    Austin Murrey: 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.

    No love for Truman?

    • #28
  29. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    No worries.  To paraphrase Ra’s al Ghul, I’ll take his nukes from him once he is through with them.

    Eric Hines

    • #29
  30. Marion Evans Inactive
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    anonymous:Donald Trump owns properties in many of what would be prime targets in a nuclear exchange. His wealth, largely in those properties, is central to his identity. Pushing the button would be unthinkable.

    Hmm not if these properties have debt and are performing poorly. Then he can invoke force majeure clauses and write off the debt.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.