Unless, like the Russians, you drop ALOT of them. Russians killed LOTS and LOTS of muj with thermobaric bombs dropped by TU-26 Backfires out of Engles AFB.
I think a couple of TU-160 Blackjacks got in some KH-101 action early on too.
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.
Which is why I stated that it probably not a good thing to say.
“Unnamed sources” - all you need to know
So who the heck says that he said this?
“I don’t agree with the conventional ‘wisdom’ that any use would lead to complete annihilation of the world.”
That wisdom was back then, when the Soviet Union and the US trading nukes would be the end (’mutually assured destruction’). Not today.
Today, conventional wisdom does not include that scenario, as non-state actors with one or two nukes, even low yield “dirty nukes” are the most likely use. . .not end of world scenario.
“Why can the US test nuclear weapons?”
To verify the weapons still work. . .but when was the last time any weapon was tested?
“Why can’t the US build nuclear weapons?”
Lack of political will. . .and the fact we no longer have anyone that built nukes working at Sandia or for the federal government. We simply don’t have the expertise and it would take decades to reconstitute that expertise.
I’d be surprised many of the current crop of voters even know where Hiroshima & Nagasaki are located.
Unless, like the Russians, you drop ALOT of them. Russians killed LOTS and LOTS of muj with thermobaric bombs dropped by TU-26 Backfires out of Engles AFB.
I think a couple of TU-160 Blackjacks got in some KH-101 action early on too.
3) See #1 and #2.
Completely agree.
Not sure how “simple” the MOAB or bunker buster is. And with a nuke, the more blast, the more scattered radiation too.
The political liability is that anyone using a nuke for something less than the scale of a Japan victory is going to have to wear the badge of barbarian. It worked in Japan because an actual national surrender was possible, the emperor had enough honor and influence. Try to find something in, say, Islam that can surrender on behalf of world Islam... rotsa ruck!
Last time we did it was 1994 ... and your answer as to why we can't build them applies to testing as well. IMO, this was Slick Willy's greatest crime, and George W. Bush's greatest failure.
Nukes are a deterrent. They are not just defensive weapons. According to current doctrine, the US could use nuclear weapons first under various scenarios.
To summarize this thread’s posts, this is yet another hack job because:
1) no source; from a private conversation and no verification it actually happened
2) if it did happen, no context. Trump could have asked this totally hypothetically, to gauge the person he was asking. That’s what good businessmen do all the time.
I hope and expect Trump will fight back - fixate on Hillary as “unfit for office” more and more.
I think it was Maddie Albright that said; why have an army if you don't use it?
Cold War joke:
Q:What is the definition of a tactical nuke?
A: A nuke designed to blow up in Germany.
They would take her SoChina Sea kowtow as weakness and grab for Taiwan.
Some kind of exchange in the next decade seems inevitable - either an Islamic terror strike and the retaliation; KimFat loses control of NK and shoots off a few at SK; the PKI lose control and shoot off a couple at India; or a complex ME situation spirals out of control. Too many cannons, too many vectors.
Scarbutt is hearing voices again.
Quote:
“Nukes are a deterrent. They are not just defensive weapons. According to current doctrine, the US could use nuclear weapons first under various scenarios. “
The doctrine of “Pre-Emptive War” or a “Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike” pretty much died with “Dr. Strangelove” and the Presidency of George W. Bush.
This is not the America of 1945.
There are use-or-lose scenarios for land based nukes, at least... but that’s why there is a “nuclear triad.” So this doesn’t have to be forced.
Classic Christian philosophy is to use the “sword” for self defense or defense of neighbor, but not aggression.
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.
