Would Trump press the button?

[harvey k-tel]

I think Trump's morning tweet suggests that he's walking back a bit:

My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before (h)opefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!

I bet a got a woody typing that last sentence.

[Your Friendly Neighbourhood Postman]

I think Trump's morning tweet suggests that he's walking back a bit:

My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before (h)opefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!

I bet a got a woody typing that last sentence.

...and obviously he's a clairvoyant.

[kath]

when it comes to trump's "posturing", don't forget about the other times he's shown his nuke love, in various contexts. for example, during his first national security briefing (i think it was the first) when over the course of an hour, he brought up the subject of nukes three times, including the line, "what's the good of having nukes if i don't get to use them?"

[Goat Boy]

when it comes to trump's "posturing", don't forget about the other times he's shown his nuke love, in various contexts. for example, during his first national security briefing (i think it was the first) when over the course of an hour, he brought up the subject of nukes three times, including the line, "what's the good of having nukes if i don't get to use them?"

Was it not something more like, "what's the point of having nukes if WE are not prepared to use them?"

[kath]

I think Trump's morning tweet suggests that he's walking back a bit:

My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before (h)opefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!

I bet a got a woody typing that last sentence.

i do hope he's walking it back. for more than two seconds, anyway. the last time i had checked this morning, i saw retweets from fox news praising him for his wonderful fire and fury.

[kath]

when it comes to trump's "posturing", don't forget about the other times he's shown his nuke love, in various contexts. for example, during his first national security briefing (i think it was the first) when over the course of an hour, he brought up the subject of nukes three times, including the line, "what's the good of having nukes if i don't get to use them?"

Was it not something more like, "what's the point of having nukes if WE are not prepared to use them?"

you may be right on the exact wording. i don't see a substantial difference, though.

[Your Friendly Neighbourhood Postman]

when it comes to trump's "posturing", don't forget about the other times he's shown his nuke love, in various contexts. for example, during his first national security briefing (i think it was the first) when over the course of an hour, he brought up the subject of nukes three times, including the line, "what's the good of having nukes if i don't get to use them?"

So nukes spark up the same warm feelings in him as do the hands of Emanuel Macron.

Say about him what you will, but his id is of great interest.

[Goat Boy]

when it comes to trump's "posturing", don't forget about the other times he's shown his nuke love, in various contexts. for example, during his first national security briefing (i think it was the first) when over the course of an hour, he brought up the subject of nukes three times, including the line, "what's the good of having nukes if i don't get to use them?"

Was it not something more like, "what's the point of having nukes if WE are not prepared to use them?"

you may be right on the exact wording. i don't see a substantial difference, though.

well, one is potentially a more theoretical question whilst the other is a "I want to play with ALL my toys RIGHT NOW" sorta thing.

I'm possibly reaching here.

I hope you understand

[harvey k-tel]

I feel sorry for Dennis Rodman. All his hard work...

[Jimbo]

I feel sorry for Dennis Rodman. All his hard work...

That's not funny.

[kath]

Was it not something more like, "what's the point of having nukes if WE are not prepared to use them?"

you may be right on the exact wording. i don't see a substantial difference, though.

well, one is potentially a more theoretical question whilst the other is a "I want to play with ALL my toys RIGHT NOW" sorta thing.

I'm possibly reaching here.

I hope you understand

i do.

the problem is that trump doesn't really do theoretical. he doesn't do things in the realm of abstract debate. his reptilian hindbrain doesn't function on that level.

he doesn't have the patience, the attention span, the interest or the brain power to deal with any complex policy issyews, no matter how severe the consequences. he has all sorts of toys and games he thinks get him out of all that, whatever the subject.

the checks and balances need to hold. sanity needs to be able to counteract him. he's already doing scary damage here. unchecked, he will be an ever increasing disaster-in-progress. he resents being checked by anyone, which is one reason the nuclear option probably appeals to him. the whole ultimate authority thing. scarier.

[Your Friendly Neighbourhood Postman]

"Reality TV Celebrity Starts World War III".

(Sorry. It just came up in my mind - the absurdity of it all.)

[kath]

"Reality TV Celebrity Starts World War III".

(Sorry. It just came up in my mind - the absurdity of it all.)

i am a fan of absurdity. i'm not total doom-and-gloom. reap and i were just talking about doom. i said, "carpe the damn diem." he said, "carpet the damn dining room."

with trump, i kinda fall into that song, hope for the bestttt, expect the worsttttt.

i've just read this:

US Defense Secretary James Mattis issued a dramatic warning to North Korea to "cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and destruction of its people" on Wednesday -- just one day after President Donald Trump warned that the US could unleash "fire and fury" on Pyongyang.

"The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Mattis said in a written statement, adding that the "regime's actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates."

[Snarfyguy]

I feel sorry for Dennis Rodman. All his hard work...

That's not funny.

Counterpoint: yes, it is.

[Dr Markus]

I feel sorry for Dennis Rodman. All his hard work...

That's not funny.

Counterpoint: yes, it is.

Does the Korean El Duce love basketball?

[Sneelock]

shit, I wish we had a couple more Dennis Rodmans over there. With the lack of any real diplomacy, I think having some Americans sitting around with Kim Jong playing X-Box and talking pussy couldn't hurt at ALL.

it would have to work better for our relations than this "my dog's bigger than your dog" b.s.

[take5_d_shorterer]

Pretty sure kath is right. As a legal matter, he's Commander In Chief. End of story. Maybe as a practical matter people can stand in his way, but ultimately, orders must be followed.

Corroboration from radiolab at

http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/

[...]

The real danger about this kind of brinksmanship is that if (and hopefully when) Kim backs down, Trump will soon become even more gung ho about threatening other countries with nuclear weapons. Eventually, he is going to attempt to bully someone who might not be so easily cowed.

[Tactful Cactus]

The real danger about this kind of brinksmanship is that if (and hopefully when) Kim backs down, Trump will soon become even more gung ho about threatening other countries with nuclear weapons.

The only hope might be if his base popularity falls. Committing troops would be political suicide, its those same poor he'd be signing up, but how would those people feel about bombing a country they've never seen before?

[...]

The real danger about this kind of brinksmanship is that if (and hopefully when) Kim backs down, Trump will soon become even more gung ho about threatening other countries with nuclear weapons.

The only hope might be if his base popularity falls. Committing troops would be political suicide, its those same poor he'd be signing up, but how would those people feel about bombing a country they've never seen before?

Sadly, past experience shows the US populace are generally pretty cool about bombing places they are barely able to find on a map. Predictably, the prospect of actually having your boy go over there and - to quote Country Joe - have him "come back in a box" is somewhat less appealing.

Jesus, Trump's administration is getting seriously scary now.

He's barely been in office six months and he's already threatening to do something that only one president has ever done before. And let''s not forget Truman only dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki all those years ago because he could see no other way to bring WW2 to its end without causing still more loss of life.