Trump refuses to rule out using nukes in Europe

[Antonio the Sixth]

The idea that nukes should only be used as a response to an enemy first use of nuclear weapons is a bit Pollyannish.

No, it's literally common sense.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I think what he is trying to say is that he wont rule anything out.

He did not specifically say anything.

In fact, his policy is not to say anything as a deterrant to the evil foes who may wish harm on the USA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea that nukes should only be used as a response to an enemy first use of nuclear weapons is a bit Pollyannish.

No, it's literally common sense.

Common sense is often neither common nor sensible. Nuclear deterrence is far from ideal, but unless Europe is willing to invest in conventional deterrence, the only other option to deterrence could end up being surrendering up something to satiate the Russian bear the next time it gets hungry, if there is a bear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This is not some naive pacifist nonsense, it's sheer rationality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This is not some naive pacifist nonsense, it's sheer rationality.

And yet paradoxically that means they are only useful if one's potential opponents believe you will use them in certain circumstances. If we're simply not ever going to use them, then we might as well get rid of them and save the expense of building them. Abandoning nuclear deterrence means either having a credible conventional deterrence or being will to be gobbled up by the bear, if there is a bear.

Your trigger metaphor applies just as well to conventional war. Do you really think either Ukraine or Russia has gained anything from their current tussle?

[Ljube]

What are the nukes for if you're never gonna use them?

The Art of the Deal:

1) All options are on the table - never limit your options.
2) Don't let your opponent know in advance what you're thinking/you're gonna do.

Not ruling out using nukes in Europe plays well into this pattern.

The key thing is to give to your opponent as little as possible, but have him feel like he's won a lot by making a deal where you don't get to use the nukes and in return, the opponent gets to give away most of the things you wanted. Get something for nothing, but have the other side think they got more, that's the true Art of the Deal.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

What are the nukes for if you're never gonna use them?

The Art of the Deal:

1) All options are on the table - never limit your options.
2) Don't let your opponent know in advance what you're thinking/you're gonna do.

Not ruling out using nukes in Europe plays well into this pattern.

The key thing is to give to your opponent as little as possible, but have him feel like he's won a lot by making a deal where you don't get to use the nukes and in return, the opponent gets to give away most of the things you wanted. Get something for nothing, but have the other side think like they got more, that's the true Art of the Deal.

Extortion is a fantastic way to live
Truly the epitome of what New York Values really meant all along.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This is not some naive pacifist nonsense, it's sheer rationality.

And yet paradoxically that means they are only useful if one's potential opponents believe you will use them in certain circumstances. If we're simply not ever going to use them, then we might as well get rid of them and save the expense of building them. Abandoning nuclear deterrence means either having a credible conventional deterrence or being will to be gobbled up by the bear, if there is a bear.

Your trigger metaphor applies just as well to conventional war. Do you really think either Ukraine or Russia has gained anything from their current tussle?

Well yeah, it's pretty clear Putin feels like he's gained a lot out of it. And what are you saying, that the US should threaten to nuke Russia if it doesn't back down?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This is not some naive pacifist nonsense, it's sheer rationality.

And yet paradoxically that means they are only useful if one's potential opponents believe you will use them in certain circumstances. If we're simply not ever going to use them, then we might as well get rid of them and save the expense of building them. Abandoning nuclear deterrence means either having a credible conventional deterrence or being will to be gobbled up by the bear, if there is a bear.

Your trigger metaphor applies just as well to conventional war. Do you really think either Ukraine or Russia has gained anything from their current tussle?

Well yeah, it's pretty clear Putin feels like he's gained a lot out of it. And what are you saying, that the US should threaten to nuke Russia if it doesn't back down?

Nukes are the sort of threat you can only make in advance, not after the fact, and only if it's really meant. Neither applied to Ukraine.

Putin overplayed his hand. I'm convinced he thought he could get what he wanted without a fight. Had he stuck to just Crimea, he probably would have succeeded.

[DrScholl]

Trump should not have the nuclear codes. Period.

[ProudModerate2]

trump knows nothing about foreign policy.
One of the worst candidates for the high office I have seen, in many years.

[Democratic Cynicalism]

He said he wouldn't take cards off the table. If you're playing poker, you don't just take your cards and throw them away. Why play from a position of weakness?

in EUROPE of all places?

We don't know what's going on in Europe. There's terrible things happening. We need to sit back, take a deep breath, and figure it out. That's all DJT is saying.

I'm curious. If we don't know what's going on in Europe, where do we know what's going on? Do we really know what's going on in Alaska? Idaho? Lebanon, KS?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Trump in his first meeting with Merkel:
Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

[JRoby]

So can we just nuke anyone we please now? Is that how it's going to be?

It's called the madman theory. a good idea from Roger Stone's old boss. our enemies already have an idea that Trump might be unhinged and irrational. if they think trump is capable of anything and everything then their more likely to buckle down due to fear of his finger on the nuclear button.

Like Trump always says, unpredictability is an asset.

[Democratic Cynicalism]

It's also a logically unsound theory and even when employed by Nixon himself proved ineffective.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Trump in his first meeting with Merkel:
Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

We're listening to your phone conversations, and we're not happy, Angela.  We've got, really, the best intelligence people.  They can literally tap anyone's phones in the world, I'm so, so proud of them.  And the things they tell me you've been saying about me, listen you stupid *****, I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are...

[Cory]

No, it's literally common sense.

So let's imagine it's the early 1980's and the USSR has launched a massive invasion of Western Europe. Let's then say that they are doing outstandingly and are invading France.

So you think that it would be "common sense" for France not to use two or three tactical nukes against Warsaw Pact spearheads to blunt their invasion? Really? You think they should just let themselves be occupied?

Or how about if Israel was about to be overtaken by their neighbors in a war. Should they just let themselves be occupied (and likely wiped out) instead of using nuclear weapons to crush the invasion?

The whole point of having nuclear weapons is that they only are useful if you never get to use them (or, if you really want to be cynical, at least not use them against another nuclear power). The moment you pull the trigger, it's game over and everybody loses.

This only applies if there is nuclear parity. Even then it's much more complicated than that. You have to take into account who has the first-strike advantage, what kinds of weapons systems they have, where those systems are deployed (to minimize time from launch to impact) ect.

WarGames was not an accurate representation of nuclear strategy.

[RightBehind]

If this man gets in, forget about building a wall, build an underground bunker. This country would need all the Greenbriers it could get.

[IceSpear]

Oh great, so even if I end up going back to France I still won't be safe from Drumpf's madness...

Trump and Le Pen will form the a new Axis.

[ag]

It's also a logically unsound theory and even when employed by Nixon himself proved ineffective.

Well, Nixon was a lot less credible as an insane madman. Trump would not even have to pretend to be one!

[Oak Hills]

What are the nukes for if you're never gonna use them?

The Art of the Deal:

1) All options are on the table - never limit your options.
2) Don't let your opponent know in advance what you're thinking/you're gonna do.

Not ruling out using nukes in Europe plays well into this pattern.

The key thing is to give to your opponent as little as possible, but have him feel like he's won a lot by making a deal where you don't get to use the nukes and in return, the opponent gets to give away most of the things you wanted. Get something for nothing, but have the other side think they got more, that's the true Art of the Deal.

And the rich wonder why so many people hate them...

[Kingpoleon]

Um... You would?

ATTENTION, ATLAS: You do not draw red lines in the sand.

[RightBehind]

He actually referred to the Geneva Conventions as a problem.

Anybody here still dumbfounded as to why the world hates us?