• 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 threatens to build up nuclear arsenal

TU Curmudgeon said:
I never took the position that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could withdraw from the treaty, only that Mr. Trump cannot do so unilaterally.

In fact, Mr. Trump may even not have the constitutional competence to announce that the US is going to withdraw.

Mr. Trump does, however have the constitutional competence to announce that he is going to recommend to Congress that Congress vote to withdraw from the treaty.

PS - Did you miss the "It isn't what you do that counts, it's what you call it that matters" bit?
Click to expand...

Article XV was also ratified by the Senate, nothing needs to be "unratified" as you put it.
 
Mr Person said:
That's foolishly stupid and dishonest post. I didn't talk about ending MAD. I talked about the idiocy of building more nukes rather than just improving delivery systems. We have more than enough.
Click to expand...

They will build new ones, no matter what your thoughts on it are. They will retire older weapons and recycle what they can. That's how it works.
 
Renae said:
They will build new ones, no matter what your thoughts on it are. They will retire older weapons and recycle what they can. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

You looked at the name and the lean, then made a bad guess about what I was saying. You're shadowboxing again.

SAD!
 
Renae said:
A lot of what Trump is pushing is just to modernize our weapons, and make sure the old ones still work. Nuclear material has a half life, and maintenance is required. Tritium and other chemical have to refreshed, **** like that. Some of it is just replacing outdated warheads, some of it is "ME TRUMP ME HAVE BIGGER WEAPONS" talk. Obama neglected our Nukes, they do need maintenance and updating. The truth of it all is, the cost of nuclear weapons isn't really that high, it just seems high for something no one ever wants to use as they were designed to do. I get that.

Look, as a Veteran, I never met ANYONE that liked those damn weapons, no one wants to see them used. Dad talked about the "One way" strikes they practiced, The world just ended and their mission was to drop a crowd pleaser on a city, and try to get far enough away after the bird ran out of fuel not to run into any natives. The hope was that your side survived enough one day rescue might happen, but that was a fool's hope and those men knew it.
Click to expand...

No wonder he didn't like it. Can't imagine a more terrible duty to have to perform. And I'm all for keeping our arsenal up to date. Outdated aircraft are bad enough. Out dated nuclear weapons? No thank you.
 
Renae said:
You show very little understanding of Nuclear War Theory, I think this conversation is just stuck on your "MORE NUKES BAD!!!!" simpleton view of the issue and fails to take in the very complicated gamestheory (their term not mine) behind nuclear deterrence.
Click to expand...

No, I think you're on the "MORE NUKES GOOD" simpleton view and don't understand our current stockpile is already sufficient for MAD.
 
Then what is the point of then INF? And why are we adhering to it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom