• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

trump wants the us to have a lot more nukes

Deuce said:
Let's say you're president. Russia is about to activate some kind of defense system that will render all your ICBMs obsolete. They'll have the capacity to destroy you, but you wont be able to retaliate. Your own defense system will not be ready.

How do you respond?
Click to expand...


I'd be scared ****tless. Let's also say that in your scenario the Russian president commanded a hugely more advanced army such that retaliating would be suicide... What would you do?
 
Deuce said:
Let's say you're president. Russia is about to activate some kind of defense system that will render all your ICBMs obsolete. They'll have the capacity to destroy you, but you wont be able to retaliate. Your own defense system will not be ready.

How do you respond?
Click to expand...

Let's say you have a defense shield... you have been scoping out places to set it up with friendly countries not far from the border with Russia.

How do you respond?

If you're Obama, you scrub the program.

Idiot.
 
jmotivator said:
I'd be scared ****tless. Let's also say that in your scenario the Russian president commanded a hugely more advanced army such that retaliating would be suicide... What would you do?
Click to expand...

Scared ****less, exactly. Because you're about to enter a situation where your enemy has you at its mercy.

So, reverse the countries. America is about to activate an effective missile defense system. Russia is now "scared ****less." America is about to be able to nuke them into oblivion without fear of retaliation.

But they possess thousands of nuclear weapons that still work, and the defense system isn't ready. There's a window to strike.

This doesn't strike me as a good situation.
 
zimmer said:
Let's say you have a defense shield... you have been scoping out places to set it up with friendly countries not far from the border with Russia.

How do you respond?

If you're Obama, you scrub the program.

Idiot.
Click to expand...

We don't have a defense shield. There's no sufficiently-reliable method to shoot down ICBMs. Sure, we can knock down short- and medium-range missiles, but stopping an ICBM barrage is pure fantasy. They re-enter the atmosphere at like mach twenty and can split into multiple warheads, or even use decoys. Oh, and your success rate has to be 100%.
 
Deuce said:
We don't have a defense shield. There's no sufficiently-reliable method to shoot down ICBMs. Sure, we can knock down short- and medium-range missiles, but stopping an ICBM barrage is pure fantasy. They re-enter the atmosphere at like mach twenty and can split into multiple warheads, or even use decoys. Oh, and your success rate has to be 100%.
Click to expand...

We have capabilities, and instead of placing them strategically with the full support of our allies... Obama scrubbed 'em.

Call it... Bending Over for Putin... BOP... (see avatar).

The Idiot.
 
zimmer said:
We have capabilities, and instead of placing them with the full support of our allies... Obama scrubbed 'em.

Idiot.
Click to expand...

Fantasize more if it makes you feel better. The number of warheads in Russia's inventory makes defense systems statistically irrelevant.

There's no reason to destabilize a nuclear standoff by implementing a defense system that wont even save you.
 
Deuce said:
Fantasize more if it makes you feel better. The number of warheads in Russia's inventory makes defense systems statistically irrelevant.

There's no reason to destabilize a nuclear standoff by implementing a defense system that wont even save you.
Click to expand...

That's why the USSR was scared ****less of the idea of SDI, and the Russians oppose the placement of it in former Commi countries vehemently.

You establish and upgrade as technology improves... so we don't have idiotic Leftist responses as we did when Reagan replaced missiles in western Europe.

I understand this is lost on you, and most Libs.
 
zimmer said:
That's why the USSR was scared ****less of the idea of SDI, and the Russians oppose the placement of it in former Commi countries vehemently.

You establish and upgrade as technology improves... so we don't have idiotic Leftist responses as we did when Reagan replaced missiles in western Europe.

I understand this is lost on you, and most Libs.
Click to expand...


We already have a defense budget equal to the rest of the world combined. Ten times that of Russia. With our subs and carriers, we have literally surrounded Russia with nuclear armament in a much shorter strike range than Russia has of us. We have 19 commissioned aircraft carriers. Russia has one. Regardless of how much more nuclear armament we add to our arsenal, the US and Russia can still destroy each other completely. Then, no country would want to invade and take over such poisonous countries. Trump’s statement is asinine. If carried out, Putin will only watch the US deplete valuable monetary resource that could have been better used for common Americans. And laugh. Hopefully, Trump will have cooler minds that can convince him otherwise. Your ad hominem against "Libs" is irrelevant. Argue facts and objectivity, or use your emotional hooks to infuriate your own selves.
 
bluesmoke said:
We already have a defense budget equal to the rest of the world combined. Ten times that of Russia. With our subs and carriers, we have literally surrounded Russia with nuclear armament in a much shorter strike range than Russia has of us. We have 19 commissioned aircraft carriers. Russia has one. Regardless of how much more nuclear armament we add to our arsenal, the US and Russia can still destroy each other completely. Then, no country would want to invade and take over such poisonous countries. Trump’s statement is asinine. If carried out, Putin will only watch the US deplete valuable monetary resource that could have been better used for common Americans. And laugh. Hopefully, Trump will have cooler minds that can convince him otherwise. Your ad hominem against "Libs" is irrelevant. Argue facts and objectivity, or use your emotional
hooks to infuriate your own selves.
Click to expand...

The emotion is all yours... as is your ignorance of history.

The US has 34% of the world's military budget.

The US protects most of the civilized world. Trump getting the Japanese, S. Koreans, Canadians and Europeans to pony up for the services provided is long past due.

Russia isn't our only threat: Iran, North Korea, China... we cannot be like the Brits going into WWI and WWII with pants around the ankles... learn thy history.

Defense is a constitutional expense... Job#1... you know the oath taken???... protect against enemies foreign and domestic.

They don't take an oath to redistribute wealth.

Like all post-Vietnam Leftist regimes in America, they leave the military and our defense posture in tatters... and our Idiot-in-Chief not only treated our military like garbage, he invited the enemy to camp out in our country.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
That's why the USSR was scared ****less of the idea of SDI, and the Russians oppose the placement of it in former Commi countries vehemently.

You establish and upgrade as technology improves... so we don't have idiotic Leftist responses as we did when Reagan replaced missiles in western Europe.

I understand this is lost on you, and most Libs.
Click to expand...

A scared nuclear superpower isn't a good situation.
 
Deuce said:
A scared nuclear superpower isn't a good situation.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL... they were defeated... SDI was a significant part of it.

Hundreds of millions locked in the slave state were freed.

No reply to establishing and constantly upgrading the defense shield?
 
zimmer said:
ROTFLOL... they were defeated... SDI was a significant part of it.

Hundreds of millions locked in the slave state were freed.

No reply to establishing and constantly upgrading the defense shield?
Click to expand...

They collapsed due to a variety of economic, social, and political problems. The arms race was a part of that.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a nuclear superpower scared.

The defense shield is for short and medium range weapons, not ICBMs. Surely you understand the difference.
 
Deuce said:
Scared ****less, exactly. Because you're about to enter a situation where your enemy has you at its mercy.

So, reverse the countries. America is about to activate an effective missile defense system. Russia is now "scared ****less." America is about to be able to nuke them into oblivion without fear of retaliation.

But they possess thousands of nuclear weapons that still work, and the defense system isn't ready. There's a window to strike.

This doesn't strike me as a good situation.
Click to expand...

Soooo, in your calculation Putin would choose suicide rather than defeat? That isn't how it played out last time. And any leader who would do that doesn't seem like one you trust with the MAD principle anyway.
 
Since Obama, we can add Iran pointing nuclear weapons at us.

So we have: Iran, North Korea, China, Russia. All throwing shade on the weak and creaky USA. If Trump can cleave Russia off China's BFF list, that will be a plus.

Either way, we have a lot on our plate, plus the coming militarization and eventual nuclearization of space by China, and thus Russia and the USA.
 
Radionuclides associated with the fission process. None of these occur naturally on earth, without nuclear fission:

technetium-99, carbon-14, iodine-129, tritium, cesium-137, strontium-90, nickel-59,
plutonium-241, nickel-63, niobium-94, cobalt-60, curium-242, americium-241,
uranium-238, and neptunium-237.

All are dangerous, and can even be lethal, both in large and small doses. Long-term containment cannot be guaranteed. Proliferation of nuclear wastes is a bad idea, unless you hate your children, grandchildren, great grand-children, great-great...
 
Deuce said:
They collapsed due to a variety of economic, social, and political problems. The arms race was a part of that.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a nuclear superpower scared.

The defense shield is for short and medium range weapons, not ICBMs. Surely you understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Reagan brought down the USSR, and the Soviets in the thick of it admit it.
Here... a short documentary about Reagan by the French (ARTE) that Libs would prefer to ignore.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MUHFde_GYu8

You're opposed to a shield that could protect millions of lives? And for now the shield will serve Europe, but technology doesn't stand still. In the future it could accomplish far more. The Russians know it.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
View attachment 67211691

The key to world stability is Russia and the US building more warheads? Nonsense. Burgeoning nuclear arsenals make the world less safe.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course, but in their minds (was it Putin that said) the more crazy the arsenals get, the higher the desire not to use them. That's their idea...
 
zimmer said:
The emotion is all yours... as is your ignorance of history.

The US has 34% of the world's military budget.

The US protects most of the civilized world. Trump getting the Japanese, S. Koreans, Canadians and Europeans to pony up for the services provided is long past due.

Russia isn't our only threat: Iran, North Korea, China... we cannot be like the Brits going into WWI and WWII with pants around the ankles... learn thy history.

Defense is a constitutional expense... Job#1... you know the oath taken???... protect against enemies foreign and domestic.

They don't take an oath to redistribute wealth.

Like all post-Vietnam Leftist regimes in America, they leave the military and our defense posture in tatters... and our Idiot-in-Chief not only treated our military like garbage, he invited the enemy to camp out in our country.
Click to expand...


My mistake. The chart I read I took as being the rest of the world, with the US as being 37%, rather than the next seven countries in order, with Russia as #4.:

U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries

Those facts do not change the greater facts of the matter. The US has an incredible military advantage over Russia that needs no “rebuilding” or expansion. Regardless of that advantage, Russia can still obliterate the US.

Wow. Just because I don’t mention how the US, in effect, protects most of the civilized world, while defending ourselves from other nuclear threats than just Russia, means I’m ignorant is a demand of aforementioned encyclopedic statement in order to avoid a label of ignorance. Go away.
Redistribute wealth? What?

Leftist regimes, defense in tatters, threatening military like garbage, inviting the enemy to camp. You state all as unsupported fact to give credence to Lord knows what is your point. My point is that there is no need for a buildup of our military because we already have enough armament to blow up each and every Russian by at least 50 tons of dynamite. And, so do the Russians have to blow up Americans. And, afterwards, what country, including us, would want to put boots on the ground to take over what’s left? So, what’s your point?
 
Reagan brought down the USSR, and the Soviets in the thick of it admit it.
Click to expand...
the guy you responded to was correct.
Here... a short documentary about Reagan by the French (ARTE) that Libs would prefer to ignore.
Click to expand...
why would liberals prefer to ignore it?
do you even understand political spectrums?
arte is the french equivalent of fox news, would they make a documentary pursuing the virtues of socialism?
 
bluesmoke said:
My mistake. The chart I read I took as being the rest of the world, with the US as being 37%, rather than the next seven countries in order, with Russia as #4.:

U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries

Those facts do not change the greater facts of the matter. The US has an incredible military advantage over Russia that needs no “rebuilding” or expansion. Regardless of that advantage, Russia can still obliterate the US.

Wow. Just because I don’t mention how the US, in effect, protects most of the civilized world, while defending ourselves from other nuclear threats than just Russia, means I’m ignorant is a demand of aforementioned encyclopedic statement in order to avoid a label of ignorance. Go away.
Redistribute wealth? What?

Leftist regimes, defense in tatters, threatening military like garbage, inviting the enemy to camp. You state all as unsupported fact to give credence to Lord knows what is your point. My point is that there is no need for a buildup of our military because we already have enough armament to blow up each and every Russian by at least 50 tons of dynamite. And, so do the Russians have to blow up Americans. And, afterwards, what country, including us, would want to put boots on the ground to take over what’s left? So, what’s your point?
Click to expand...

Point?

Nukes aren't used to fight conventional battles.

We need to develop a defense shield and keep ahead of adversaries with technology covering every aspect of warfare.

Top military chiefs admit US is unprepared for war with Russia or North Korea - Mirror Online

And then there is the War against Islamic Terrorism.
 
imodium said:
the guy you responded to was correct.
why would liberals prefer to ignore it?
do you even understand political spectrums?
arte is the french equivalent of fox news, would they make a documentary pursuing the virtues of socialism?
Click to expand...

1. Reagan brought down the USSR. As Richard Allen noted, had never heard a US politician speak about "winning" the Cold War.

If you don't have a goal or plan to win, you won't.

2. Libs hate to admit Reagan brought down the Soviets.

3. ARTE... FOX NEWS equivalent? Having spent much of my life in Europe, comparing EU funded ARTE to FOX NEWS is ****ing hilarious. They do interesting stuff... usually artsy fartsy stuff... they're no FOX NEWS. In fact, I was surprised it was an ARTE documentary.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Point?

Nukes aren't used to fight conventional battles.

We need to develop a defense shield and keep ahead of adversaries with technology covering every aspect of warfare.

Top military chiefs admit US is unprepared for war with Russia or North Korea - Mirror Online

And then there is the War against Islamic Terrorism.
Click to expand...


Since 1945, in two occasions, nukes have not been used in warfare. Only by the US. You have made an observation and drawn a conclusion shared by…many. Good for you! You get a silver star, pasted on your work paper.

What need we may have to develop a defense shield that does not have to do with nuclear warfare is off topic. So, your point, whatever it is, has not relative to the subject at hand.

Unprepared may a**. We may be drunk, but the “enemy” are passed out. Survey all nations and you’ll find however bad you paint the USA, all other countries, like Russia, come out worse. Of any large nation, Russia tops in alcohol consumption. That’s why they break up their mechanical instruction into three steps, followed by another three steps. When you’re drunk, you can’t figure beyond three steps of instruction.

Islamic terrorism? No kidding. You stretch the argument from beyond the subject at hand. OK. What are you talking about when you say “War against Islamic Terrorism.” Go ahead and troll your way to what is not what it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom