Posted on 08/03/2016 7:57:25 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.
"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
Scarborough made the Trump comments 52 seconds into an interview with former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden.
Scarborough then asked a hypothetical question to Hayden about how quickly nuclear weapons could be deployed if a president were to give approval.
"It's scenario dependent, but the system is designed for speed and decisiveness. It's not designed to debate the decision," Hayden said.
Hayden was CIA director from 2006 to 2009 during the George W. Bush presidency. He was the National Security Agency director from 1999 to 2005, spanning the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
CNBC reached out to the Trump campaign via email and was awaiting a response.
Not exactly correct. Historically, portable systems were used for tactical nukes (which would have been used against eastern Europe instead of the strategic weapons). While the Bushite NeoCons generally unilaterally disarmed with regard to tactical nukes, the Russians certainly have not done so. The US does still have some sub launched nuclear cruise missiles and some tactical nuclear bombs that can be dropped from aircraft, but has abandoned all surface delivery systems.
You may be too young to know about the Davy Crocket (not quite man portable, but close) that fired a small, approximately 75 pound shell, the huge 280mm atomic cannon, and the more prolific 155 mm artillery shells that could be fired from the common howitzers.
So, no, we did not "always rel(y) on land-based (silos) ICBMs and our huge numbers of airborne delivered nukes." We used to have tools to fit any need.
I call BS. If the person making these claims really felt that this was an issue, they should be willing to step forward and publicly sau so, otherwise it did not happen.
Gee this anonymous foreign policy expert has the same beliefs as Hillary that apparently you can tell anything. Those anonymous sources who have been told something by another anonymous source are soooo knowledgable and completely believable to the MSM.
Fusion weapons? These people couldn't tell you who The Speaker of The House is.yet, the CAN tell you who got kicked off the Survivor Island.
It sounds like Trump was being told we cannot use nukes.
The logical question is: Who says we can’t use them? Why can we not use them?
The idea of willy-nilly use of nukes is not present in this question. The question is really: “Why can’t we use nukes = What/Who prevents us if we decide to use nukes and in what way, by what power, do they prevent us?”
“Not the smartest thing to say in a close election, IMHO.”
Trump is an unconventional candidate. None of those will work against him. He could shoot a bunch of libtards in the middle of the 5th Avenue and still not lose support.
Not to sane people like us, however the MSM will make sure it works against him.
Clinton: “What are those pointy things in those silos?”
“Not to sane people like us, however the MSM will make sure it works against him.”
I wouldn’t worry about Trump. That guy can play the media like fiddle. He owns the news cycle. Does not matter if that makes you feel uncomfortable. Just keep it to yourself. Either get behind or get out of the way is the general consensus.
So this is 1964, Hillary is Lyndon Johnson and Trump is Barry Goldwater.
LMAO ROTF
The media has gone stark raving mad. Trump is the only sane one in the room.
This kind of makes me like him. It’s the belief we’d never use them which enables countries and their proxies to yank our chains with impugnity.
Didn’t Trump just get a national security briefing from the administration? There’s your answer.
I don't know what science you're using, but sociologically speaking, the physical existence of the Kaaba and mosques confirm to these medieval barbarians that they are superior and Allah is undefeatable. Their psychology is very literal - wear your wealth, act out your depravity to confirm it, attack everyone to show you can, butcher people like meat because that's how you affirm true power, and rape women to keep them in their place.
Nuke the Kaaba. Burn the mosques. Kill the imams. Only then will Muslims scratch their stinking butts, shake their heads, and say "you was serious about this"? I don't care if they have a PhD in physics - they are barbarians. If they are not destroyed, they literally believe Allah wants them to keep killing. That's the way THEY think, and so that's what matters here, if we want to stop them.
I don't like it - I was raised in the West, taught to work out problems with words instead of guns. But THEY WEREN'T. They laugh at the West, FROM the West they've infiltrated. They literally bitch-slapped the Pope yesterday after he declared them a peaceful religion, and retorted that they are a religion of war and that they hate the Pope.
In the end, after all our sophisticated intellectual efforts, the Muslim rampage on the world will be ended in the simplest possible way - a nuclear fireball. Because that's what THEY demand the price be for peace.
And an unnamed source I know says that Obama wants to joins ISIS when his presidency is over.
He is the logical choice for Supreme Caliph.
1950s technology developed the Davy Crockett, a 50 pound nuke the size of a watermelon....there were even smaller ones the size of a softball made for the Orion Nuclear Spacecraft project. That is over half a century ago.
I find it unbelieveable that we haven’t seen smaller nukes. Certainly it is possible to make them very small ... I bet it would be no problem to sneak dozens into Iran and drop them wherever they needed to be.
Until the late 70’ and beyond.
No mobile nukes by then—aircraft delivered were the types we relied on to keep the Bear from charging across the German plaines.
I recal flying in NATO TAC-Evals and never did we “fight” beyond three days as that was the cut-off —time to open a can of sunshine.
I suppose you can take the always from my post and that it would be more accurate. But maybe not, as old as you are, how would you even recall. Ha!
Davy Crockett. . . You ARE old, ya’know
;-)
By the 70’s we no longer deployed mobile nukes.
You know, I wouldn't advise Trump to be asking that question publicly before an election. There is a good reason why no other successful candidate has done so.
Maybe I'm just getting old. Is there really an appetite for nuclear exchanges out there?
Well I guess you could say “spirit science” but the thing about the devil’s lies, they don’t just go away when rebutted... they morph. The scheme isn’t to try to ever make sense. The scheme is to try to wear you out. And rotsa ruck with Islamic society scattered all over the globe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.