Nuke me now: Trump threatens big buildup of America’s nuclear arsenal

One of the more heartening accomplishments of the last 50 years has been the drawdown of nuclear arms between big powers, especially the U.S. and the Soviet Union (now Russia). Now our “President” wants to spend our money on more nuclear weapons. Yes, more! Just what we need, when we’ve already got enough missiles, on submarines and elsewhere, to destroy Russia several times over. But. . . here you go: click on the screenshot to go to the depressing story on CNN:

This is what my father used to call “cutting of your nose to spite your face.” Are we to return to the days of my childhood, when we regularly had “bomb drills” in which we hid under our desks?

96 Comments

  1. Posted October 22, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Trump is atavistic on so many fronts that it is hard to keep track. “At the flash of the atomic bomb, place your head firmly between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.”

  2. Helen Hollis
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Duck and cover comes to mind.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

      We never wasted time on that. We lived in the overlapping flash-incendiary zones of two US nuclear bases. Which, if we’d been politically aligned with America might have made the near-instant death by gamma-broiling slightly less unacceptable.
      Anyway, if the Russians can bring this level of relaxation to the centre of America … I’m sure some Prozac will be available. For those who can afford it.

  3. Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    I am from a country half way across the ocean from America, even I get the chills.

    • rickflick
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

      Kiribati?

      • Posted October 23, 2018 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

        Good attempt, Papua New Guinea actually. Corrupt as ever, that is why I decided to create a blog.

        • rickflick
          Posted October 23, 2018 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

          At least the ability to read WEIT will keep you sane if politics are a bother. It works for me.

  4. Mike Cracraft
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Another example of Trump’s version of American imperialist domination of the world.

  5. Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    … or the classic cartoon in the “underground” magazine The Realist in which a guy walks past a civil defense poster showing a mushroom cloud, that asks “What Would You Do If They Dropped the Bomb?”. He walks on, thinking, in the second panel. In the third panel he faces the reader and says “I’d shit!”.

  6. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    On the news I was watching this evening, experts said that Trump was making it worse for the U.S. and better for Russia by doing this. Russia will have the advantage with Nuclear weapons in Europe. It makes no sense to do what he is threatening. Possibly this is more of his work to do for Putin.

    • Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      They probably already have the advantage. My guess is that is why we are pulling out of the treaty. Not sure what we can do about evening things back out. We may have a deficit in the type of short and intermediate range missles needed to defend Europe.
      Technology needs change.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        ‘Defend’ Europe? How ‘defend’? By nuking somebody else?

        The phrase ‘defended to death’ comes to mind.

        cr

        • Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

          Defend by being do prepared Russia will not dare attack because they know they would not survive.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        In ’83 the Soviets were rightly worried about US Pershings coming to Europe – shortening drastically nuclear flight times. They were sriously considering a first strike partly because they thought the Americans were lining up Pershings to target the Soviet Bloc decision centres. Chop off the heads of the only people who could order a Soviet launch.

        Far more serious than Cuba ever was

        Short range nuclear weapons are a disastrous idea. The only option in an environment with short range [or very, very fast or very hidden] weapons is to launch everything or launch nothing. Bad.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

          I entirely agree.

          This is why nuclear weapons in Europe are as bad an idea as they are in Cuba.

          They do very little to deter a conventional war. The only outright invasions by a ‘great power’ in the last 70 years have been quite rare, I think. All the others have started as insurrections or civil wars (often with tacit encouragement) and who’s going to launch a nuke and destroy the world over that?

          cr

          • Michael Fisher
            Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

            Thanks. It is incredible to me now looking back that NATO was planning to bury nuclear mines in European soil around & in the “Fulda Gap” to halt a Soviet tank invasion of Northern Europe! The U.S. deployed Atomic Demolition Mines for many years in the Fulda Gap – I assume they were kept on base ready to be sent to prescribed locations rather than actually in holes along the German border [though who knows with official secrets?].

            That’s the way to defend Germany from The Reds old boy!

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

        the type of short and intermediate range missles needed to defend Europe.To defend us to our death for your ideals? Cheers for that – I’ll hold the gates of hell open for you. (I’ve been a cat lover all my life – eternity of tickle service for me! If the FSM allows me time off from the Beer Volcano (SBUHMB).

        • Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

          Suits me for us to back off and let you fend for yourselves. But we would probably be at war with you in a few years.

      • Kyle B.
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

        From what I’ve read, leaving the INF isn’t necessarily a bad idea (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/trump-to-pull-plug-on-russian-arms-control-treaty). The Russians seem to have already broken the treaty numerous times, and there is an argument that the US having intermediate land based cruise missiles could help balance against the Chinese (mostly that the Chinese can use their intermediate cruise missiles to deter the US Navy from patrolling nearby and so the US having equal capabilities would be useful).

        However, the experts seem fairly clear that deciding to withdraw should have been a decision made with our allies rather than like this. As for creating more nuclear weapons, it just seems like a bad idea. The US and Russia already almost certainly have more than what would be justified by mutually assured destruction.

    • eric
      Posted October 23, 2018 at 6:09 am | Permalink

      The argument is that Russia was already building ground-based IRBMs to point at Europe. Which is true AFAIK, they’ve been violating the treaty for years.

      Trump wants to respond in kind; that response in that theater may be stupid even if the Russians are doing it.

      Another complication: China has been freely developing IRBMs for years. Because they aren’t part of tho treaty. They point them at Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea, and any fleets challenging their sovereignty claims over the waters off southeast Asia. While we don’t need ground-based IRBM’s to counter this threat because we have lots of naval power, having them would let us add some ambiguity to China’s calculation as to where our retaliatory strikes will come from, should they start a hot war (over Taiwan, for instance).

      Personally, I think none of that is worth it. Even if the treaty didn’t bind China or other non-Russia nations, it was a good non-proliferation tool. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, all opted not to develop this tech, probably in part to honor this treaty that bound them when they were part of the USSR. Also, it’s going to be much harder to bring nations like Iran to the table over missile development when we don’t abide by such restrictions ourselves.

      But having said that, I agree with the conservatives on the narrow point that this will not make Europe less safe from Russian ground-based IRBMs, because it’s an open secret that the Russians already have them.

  7. Michael Fisher
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    The USA is committed to modernising nearly all their current stock of 4,600? warheads & delivery systems at an unknown cost [10s or 100s of trillions of dollars] over an unknown time frame. The modernisation includes some new controversial capabilities.

    Trump is talking bollocks – he could be choosing to [in the future] double account existing stock & stock awaiting dismantling/destruction in such a way as to talk tough, or to move existing stock from one column to another – there will be no expansion beyond what is already planned/proposed – that’s for sure.

    All these agreements are also bollocks – China isn’t involved & we have no idea what is going on in space. I have a dread that there are nuclear weapons up there.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      Everyone needs to watch War Games again. First of all, I loved Matthew Broderick’s bedroom and his modem. Then there is the string anti nuclear war message.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

        SHALL WE PLAY A GAME

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Watch first time, for me. IIRC, it was a decade before I got a phone line. Maybe more. A very American film.

  8. Helen Hollis
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    What do the Polish people think of this? I fear for many countries that have been bullied by Russia for many many years.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      Poland is a NATO member so theoretically protected.

      • Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        Just like in 1936 and we know where that got us.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

          Can you be less obtuse/obscure? What happened 1n 1936 that illustrates your point? And what is your point? And who is “us”? You use the non sequitur gambit a LOT – it’s lazy.

          • Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

            I expected people who read this would know history.
            Same with my other lazy comments. For instance I expected everyone on her eould know that Stormy Daniels said Trump’s penis looked like a mushroom.

            Poland in 1936 had an agreement with England and France for mutual defense. The result was that when Germany later invaded Poland England and France declared war on Germany and we had World War II. Thought everyone knew that.

            • Michael Fisher
              Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

              OG:

              “I expected people who read this would know history […] Same with my other lazy comments.Poland in 1936 had an agreement with England and France for mutual defense”

              What is the significance of 1936 in your comment? The Franco-Polish military alliance ran from 1921 & the Anglo-Polish military alliance from 1939. So explain to me where 1936 comes into it please. Remilitarization of the Rhineland? 10% off bubbly gum in the summer of ’36? WHAT?

              • Posted October 22, 2018 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

                Typo. Should be 1939 after alliance was signed.

              • Michael Fisher
                Posted October 22, 2018 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

                No, not a typo sir. You came up with this mysterious year of 1936 in your original comment & in your reply after that too. And now you’re saying you ‘typoed’ “1936” for “1939” twice. I’m getting old too – I check stuff rather than just typing half memories & hoping for the best. Saves you wasting other peoples’ time when the have to inquire what you mean. 🙂

              • Posted October 22, 2018 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

                Smart guy like you should have figured that it was a typo or I was guessing at the year from the beginning and not wasted his time tracking down an obvious mistake.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    Jeez, any idea what the Donald is trying to compensate for with yooge, beautiful nukes?

    • grasshopper
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      “Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous plot we have ever had to face.”

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

        Yes, an international conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids, according to Gen. Ripper.
        \

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

          Oh, such a good movie…

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

            Makes two Peter Sellers movies adverted to in this thread.

    • Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

      You mean mushroom Donald?

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      None of those tinpot uniformed dictators have ridiculously small hands – mushroom-shaped or not – so are all bigger than President TinyHands.

  10. Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Is there a certain type of nukes that we are short of and need? Are old ones becoming obsolete and do they need to be dismantled? Has anyone given any reason for this that makes it a good idea?

    • Helen Hollis
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

      Do we still have an agreement with Iran? I seem to recall he did away with that one too.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        Hopefully the rest of the nations that are party to that agreement (and who are not completely deranged) are keeping to it and encouraging Iran to hold to it.

        cr

      • Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        No, we do not have a treaty with Iran now. I keep hoping we will have one soon. I think we are talking. Iran needs to come to terms with us bad. Their economy is going down and the people share getting more unhappy with their government.

      • gravelinspector-Aidan
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        And the agreement for the USA to buy a new nuclear arsenal from Iran follows in 3…2…1.[££%£$%£ NO CARRIER

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      see my answer #7 above. The point about a number of powers having nuclear weapons and delivery systems is to reach a point of balance where nobody benefits from a 1st strike. That’s the most important thing to understand.

      The second principle is that once weapons start flying there should be mechanisms to unwind the unfolding disaster such that a power can neutralise their weapons in flight if the HOT PHONES do their job. For the second principle to be practical no nuclear weapon should be based close to their target.

      It is almost impossible to switch off a weapon flying inside a bubble of plasma, but the latest Chinese delivery systems are hypersonic vehicles – a bubble of plasma surrounds them & it’s difficult/impossible to comm with such a weapon. The option to de-escalate has gone.

      Modernising systems are in part to do with INCREASING options & stability. The problem there is that the Russian systems are unreliable – it may be that de-escalation is impossible technically if Putin can’t talk to his huge boomers parked offshore near NYC & LA. If those boomers can’t talk to the decision makers for some reason & there’s indications of nuclear war, then their instructions might be to launch their weapons…

      Modernisation & testing of comms is vital – all sides

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

        During the Cold War there were a lot of rules both sides agreed to. The reason we are all still here today is because of statesmanship. This is what makes this old War Part Deux extra scary.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

          Exactly – the deployment of effective ambassadors by nuclear states in ALL other nuclear states [including Israel & North Korea] & unbreakable chains of Comms between all those nations. If it got bad someone would have to tie up Orange Pumpkinhead & stuff him in a cupboard until the big boys & girls have had a playground chat.

      • Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        Somehow you do not make me feel better.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

          That’s because ‘things’ are worse than they have been for three decades in terms of nuclear arms stability & yet it is rarely a talking point. Trump has done us a favour by accident in pointing out the absurdities that are too boring for the media. The deeply technical nature of weapons & weapons control are a major turn off for journalists & editors who would rather splash 100 articles on the social phenomena x, y, z than do 1 piece on how stupidity [not Donald’s stupidity] will put us back in animal skins.

    • eric
      Posted October 23, 2018 at 6:15 am | Permalink

      Because nuke cores are radioactive, they decay over time. DOE has been certifying our 1960s-1980s-made nukes for decades based on computer modeling and simulation.

      I’ll admit, the replacement question is a tough call for me and not cut and dried as it seems to be for most people responding to JAC. On the one hand, no I don’t want the US to go back to building up more nukes. On the other hand, the idea of relying on 40-year-old weapons that are known to decay over time, using only computer simulations to assess their performance and not actual physical tests or actual physical replacement…that concerns me too.

      I think I’d be fine with a “no new designs, and no increase in numbers…but yes go ahead and replace” strategy for the US. I suspect that’s a more hawkish position than most liberals.

      • Posted October 23, 2018 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

        If we were struck first and used ours in response to a first strike, we would never know if they were duds or not. We were old all be dead from the first strike that we responded to.

        The protection is in having the nukes. The other does not know whether they are still good or not either. Or whether theirs will work. The deterrence is still there for both sides.

        Climate change will make all that a moot question in a few years anyway.

  11. Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    He’s a global bully and more nukes is him wanting the US to be the only kid in school with a switchblade. He’s got to go. Please vote!

  12. Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    I grew up so far out in the country we did not bother with the drills. We were pretty safe from the blast. But we knew the extended fallout would get us a day or so later.

  13. phoffman56
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    The destruction of civilization, in this threatened manner, will put the present USian population, having elected a man who in the end would thus be infinitely worse than Adolf Hitler, in the position of being regarded as the worst ever blight on homo sapiens’ 300,000 year history.

    However, the possibility even ending humanity’s actual existence, which could be a blessing for remaining life on earth (or at least under the sea), would soon get you guys off the hook.

    Perhaps shortening Kavanaugh’s term would be the unique minor blessing, for you, but not for the rest of us.

    Are there actually about 180 million adults down there, the number of electors who either chose him or couldn’t be bothered voting, for whom such an attitude to humanity is a matter of indifference?

    As a non-USian, just a little reminder seemed in order. At my age, I’ve personally little to lose, but my loved ones have.

    • Helen Hollis
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

      The entire world has a lot to lose if this triggers mass deaths. No matter where they are.

    • allison
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

      I began thinking in November 2016 that Donald Trump is the most dangerous person in world history, and nothing I’ve seen since then has changed my mind one iota.

  14. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    He’s a f*cking idiot, and also, after all his hysterical kerfuffle over North Korea and Iran possibly getting nuclear weapons, this shows him up as the world’s biggest hypocrite.

    But of course we always knew that.

    cr

  15. Ken Kukec
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    … we’ve already got enough missiles, on submarines and elsewhere …

    Reminds me that, during the 2016 presidential primaries, Donald Trump was the one candidate who had no freakin’ clue what “nuclear triad” meant.

    The man is a total public-policy and governmental-affairs ignoramus. When he rode down his gilded escalator into our presidential politics in 2016, I’m all but certain Donald Trump could not have passed a middle-school social-studies exam — not the history unit, not the civics unit, and probably not even the geography unit. And I doubt, after two years of on-the-job training, he could do much better now.

    Hate so say it, folks, but the leader of the free world is a malign version of Chauncey Gardiner. All he knows about the world at large is what a man armed with a remote control might discover accidentally while desperately searching the cable news channels for a story that makes him look good.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      “was the one candidate who had no freakin’ clue what “nuclear triad” meant.”

      He probably thought they were Chinese criminal nuclear arms dealers. Like the triads you see in movies?

      cr

    • Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      A narcissistic Chauncey Gardiner. That’s what we have, no doubt.

    • darrelle
      Posted October 23, 2018 at 8:20 am | Permalink

      “The man is a total public-policy and governmental-affairs ignoramus.”

      No need for qualifiers.

  16. Diana MacPherson
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    We are dealing with terrorism and populism. How boring. Let’s add a third thing. What could it be? I know! Let’s relive the Cold War!

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

      Well, he did say, make America great again. All those nuclear bombs are really great. Very nostalgic or was that nauseating.

  17. Claudia Baker
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Ffs, what in hell happened in-between railing against immigrants and threatening nuclear war while I was at the gym this afternoon?!

    My guess is he is some steamed up about Stormy’s description of his ugly mushroom penis and calling him “Tiny” in a tweet a couple of days ago: “Oh yeah? Call me a mushroom penis will you? I’ll show you!”

    This monster needs to be stopped (legally and peacefully) before he gets us all killed.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

      I wouldn’t much care about the legal or the peaceful as long as nobody else got killed in the process.

      😎

      cr

    • Diane G
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

      Claudia, for the sake of the rest of us, please stop going to the gym.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted October 22, 2018 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

        You’re making me laugh too often Diane

        • rickflick
          Posted October 23, 2018 at 9:40 am | Permalink

          I agree. 20 pushups Diane.

          • Claudia Baker
            Posted October 23, 2018 at 11:09 am | Permalink

            I know, Diane! It’s terrible having such power.

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted October 23, 2018 at 11:12 am | Permalink

              With great power comes great responsibility.

            • Diane G
              Posted October 24, 2018 at 1:00 am | Permalink

              Heavy is the head that wears the sweat band.

  18. Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Democrats and Republicans sign a pact to refrain from advertising, or lying. At some point Democrats notice the GOP is running ads full of lies.
    Withdraw from the pact?

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

      I feel an allegory coming on. 🙂

      The moral being that the Dems should’ve launched a preemptive first strike?

      • Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

        Every comment, and the post, are predicated on the assumption that withdrawing from an agreement that has been violated is folly. I think that needs to be argued. What’s a good alternative?

        And as ever just as an aside I think it’s wrong to take Trump at his word. With NAFTA I predicted to friends that he wouldn’t pull out. He’d get some change that he could spin as a concession and claim to be winning. We saw that with NATO too. He cannot do much without congress and he seems likely to lose the house. (I question his ability to do much even with congress, but that’s another topic altogether.)

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

          You still crawling to conclusions on Saudi Arabia? 🙂

          • Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

            Are you asking if we had evidence now we didn’t have before? Or are you asking why I think evidence matters?

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted October 23, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

              Oh, given the circumstances of Khashoggi’s disappearance and our background information regarding the Saudis’ brutal treatment of dissidents and penchant for snatching dissidents from abroad (and our background information regarding Donald Trump’s penchant for mendacity on behalf of his foreign strongman benefactors), our Bayesian priors that this was a hit ordered by MbS (and that Trump was aiding the Saudis in covering it up) were sky-high from jump street.

              To claim otherwise is akin to the intelligent design crowd clamoring to “wait until all the evidence is in.”

        • Posted October 22, 2018 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

          See post of Kyle B. above.

  19. Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Until other people come to their senses we will abandon ours.

    • W.T. Effingham
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

      “You can’t play that game on (D.J. tRUMP) ME!”

  20. Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Why do we need more nukes, when we have invisible planes?

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted October 22, 2018 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

      Lol. Thread winner.

    • Nicolaas Stempels
      Posted October 23, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

      Not as funny, but why does the US need nukes if with a nice one on one talk you can stop a nuclear build up? Alternatively, stop a nuclear build up by unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty?

  21. Posted October 22, 2018 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    “Come to their senses” !!???? that’s abit freekin rich..

  22. Steve Gerrard
    Posted October 22, 2018 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Which country, USA or Russia, will take more advantage of not having a treaty? The answer Russia seems obvious to me. It gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want.

    Maybe that’s Trump’s intent. He can’t very easily do things for Putin, but he can easily undo things for him.

    • eric
      Posted October 23, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      I think US development will change much more than Russia’s, since they were already building these things (in violation of the treaty) and we weren’t.

      Still, as many other posters have pointed out, there are other good reasons to stick to the treaty even if the Russians aren’t.

      Thinking optimistically, it takes years and years to build new weapons systems. Which means (a) assuming this is not simply Bush-style ‘going to Mars!’ rhetoric, (b) Trump won’t be in charge of them, and (c) there’s lots of time in the future for program cancellation.

  23. mfdempsey1946
    Posted October 23, 2018 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Wonderful, another of these stories about some people’s seemingly unquenchable longing for a rootin’, tootin’, shootin’ atomic conflagration.

    Alright, already — let them have what they want, if only to shut them up once and for all.

    Then maybe afterwards, the two surviving groups, cockroaches and lawyers, having learned at last what such a war would really entail, can cobble together some semblance of a “Never again” (as opposed to our “Ever Again”) civilization.

    No, probably not…

  24. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted October 23, 2018 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    I suspect it is just a ploy for the mid-term elections. Mr Trump wants to be seen as the strong man.

  25. Posted October 24, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Another existential threat. 😦

  26. Posted November 2, 2018 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    At least, a refreshing detour from Trump’s usual Russophilia.


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: