It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dear Leader-elect's Daily Twitter Debacle Goes Nuclear

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Just keep hoping the US goes down in flames. If it does, you WIN!!!!!




posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BrokedownChevy



I appreciate the post. I have something to read up on now. I am always curious about learning how philosophies and the purveyors of those philosophies evolve.


Here is a website by a woman who grew up in a 1950-60s JBS household. On that particular page is an article about "Growing Up in the John Birch Society". That might be a good place to start.

While a few years younger than her, I do remember well the public face of the JBS back then. I had personally known JBS members decades ago. I had thought that it had died out, but there has been a resurgence in recent years; and I have a family member who holds meetings at home.




I wish we could all come back to the table as I think the liberal and conservative people who are more "foundational" can use each other in a symbiotic way to achieve the goals of their own constituency. If a liberal or conservative group wants to get their ideas or bills passed through then surely they need their friends on the opposite side of the table to be willful listeners who will be allowed to share their thoughts and ideas as well as contribute. Strange how it consistently devolves into infant like behavior.


We sure have devolved!

And there is a structural reason why today "compromise", the basis of the govt our Founding Leaders left us, is not happening in Congress. Here is a link to a review read of Mann & Ornstein “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks”.

I learned a long time ago in a secular way, Saber Es Poder. Knowledge Is Power. And I learned in a religious way, The Truth Will Set You Free. And Speak Truth To Power.

In a post truth world, speaking truth to lies may be our only way out.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Current US

Current stockpile (usable and not) 4,500 total
Current strategic arsenal 1,900 methods of delivery (including ICBMs, bombers, and including MIRVed warheads on SLBMs )

Drumpf wants more so we can obliterate the planet 20 times over instead of just 10. As it stands a single celled organism just may continue on he wants to make sure that won't happen.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
People were freaking out about a nuclear war if Hillary became president. But now that Trump wants to build more, nuclear bombs are a great idea again, and who cares about nuclear war.

Don't we already have enough bombs for it to be a deterrent. Can someone explain, without any partisan bs, how having more bombs is better. We already have enough bombs to destroy the whole world multiple times over. If a war ever went nuclear its basically over for everyone.

So I ask how does building more bombs equal more safety and how do those more bombs become a bigger deterrent than what we already have.

We can already project power over any nations military that does not have nukes. Those countries seeking nukes know it will take time to amass a stockpile of nukes to equal ours and they know that if they use one against us we can respond with overwhelming force. Those that are already nuclear powers know that we have enough to destroy the whole world, the same way that they have enough to do the same. Mutually assured destruction.

So if our stockpile is already at the point were we can assure mutually assured destruction. Isn't that enough? 7000 nukes and 15000 nukes are basically the same. Because both have well surpassed the stockpile point of mutually assured destruction.

Granted, that also means that more bombs won't really change anything. There is already enough to destroy the world. So adding more doesn't change that. We would still be in the same no win situation.

So doesn't the mantra of build more nukes just become a dick measuring contest. A waste of taxpayer dollars. It doesn't actually fix any of our problems. It is just a bone thrown to people. To trick them into feeling safer. So that our problems do not have to be fixed. Its more wasted money.

But what the heck do I know. I am one of those crazy Americans in the middle who did not like Hillary or Trump. So my opinion does not matter.

Back to the regularly scheduled pissing match.




posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
People were freaking out about a nuclear war if Hillary became president. But now that Trump wants to build more, nuclear bombs are a great idea again, and who cares about nuclear war.

Don't we already have enough bombs for it to be a deterrent. Can someone explain, without any partisan bs, how having more bombs is better. We already have enough bombs to destroy the whole world multiple times over. If a war ever went nuclear its basically over for everyone.

So I ask how does building more bombs equal more safety and how do those more bombs become a bigger deterrent than what we already have.

We can already project power over any nations military that does not have nukes. Those countries seeking nukes know it will take time to amass a stockpile of nukes to equal ours and they know that if they use one against us we can respond with overwhelming force. Those that are already nuclear powers know that we have enough to destroy the whole world, the same way that they have enough to do the same. Mutually assured destruction.

So if our stockpile is already at the point were we can assure mutually assured destruction. Isn't that enough? 7000 nukes and 15000 nukes are basically the same. Because both have well surpassed the stockpile point of mutually assured destruction.

Granted, that also means that more bombs won't really change anything. There is already enough to destroy the world. So adding more doesn't change that. We would still be in the same no win situation.

So doesn't the mantra of build more nukes just become a dick measuring contest. A waste of taxpayer dollars. It doesn't actually fix any of our problems. It is just a bone thrown to people. To trick them into feeling safer. So that our problems do not have to be fixed. Its more wasted money.

But what the heck do I know. I am one of those crazy Americans in the middle who did not like Hillary or Trump. So my opinion does not matter.

Back to the regularly scheduled pissing match.







But what the heck do I know. I am one of those crazy Americans in the middle who did not like Hillary or Trump. So my opinion does not matter.


It doesn't matter when you use logic that's critical of Orange Julius. Only devotion works here at the ATS.

A....All
T....Trump
S....Services



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: karmicecstasy



People were freaking out about a nuclear war if Hillary became president. But now that Trump wants to build more, nuclear bombs are a great idea again, and who cares about nuclear war.


Funny how that works, isn't it.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills how long before Trump and the equally thin skinned Kim Jong Il start an insult war?



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
This thread is getting rather funny. People seem to believe his tweets, yet in the same breath say Twitter isn't a news source.

It isn't hard to see how Trump is playing this game. He likes to rile people up and get them talking. It's an excellent strategy actually. Hit the media outlet that gets you the fastest coverage to the most people with a fantastic statement and then watch what the people actually think and say. It's brilliant really. You get your team to go through and see what the majority think and then plan accordingly.

He knows his statements are going to stir the pot in a big way. I don't see these stopping anytime soon either. What better way to get an immediate feel for your populace? Polls don't work and take time...

I am actually starting to lean more towards Antediluvian actually being a Trump supporter because of this. He is causing readers to have a very strong reaction based on Tweets from the POTUS elect. This pushes people to express their thoughts on the matter in a succinct manner as on Twitter which gives immediate feedback and results.

Twitter should actually reconfigure it's entire structure to do just this...be a polling entity for everything. They could make a fortune.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I was actually leaning that way as well. Though I doubt he understands it's happening, it is working out that way.
Like being an effective tool.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yeah, sounds like Trump and Putin want to ramp up the nuclear arms race all over again. Don't we have enough nukes?

Btw, scary thought here, the computers many nuclear weapons use are so old they still use 8 inch floppy disks. Yikes...



America’s nuclear arsenal still runs off of 8-inch floppy discs


You are so hypocritical that in one breath you can criticize the president elect for wanting to upgrade our nuclear arsenal and in the next make fun of how outdated our nuclear arsenal is.

You are the very definition of a contradicting, partisan blow hard.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   


In the 1960s Buckley warned the Republican Party to never let this fringe group gain control


Now the fringe is the party. It's very sad to see the demise of America.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Trump is a negotiator. I don't see him pulling much of anything off the table before he even sits down at it. I suspect that some of Trumps comments, the ones that some find so troubling/stupid/etc. are just a matter of him establishing his negotiating position.

My guess, he's just putting everyone on notice that he's not giving anything away for free. Shake things up a little bit.

I think that's smart.

Smart would also be taking a more cautious position towards a man that out smarted the MSM, the DNC, and no small number of the self proclaimed brain trusts here on ATS when he won the election. Might want to be careful about calling/insinuating someone like that was stupid, lest your comments be used later to confirm your own stupidity. You know . . . once again.

Merry Christmas



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
I'll tell you what, how about instead of expanding an already world killing nuclear arsenal, that we modernize the one we have, and expand nuclear research to include nuclear powered space craft and nuclear rockets?
We've been holding back this research for many years now and it makes little sense to dump all of our nuclear eggs into the weapons basket when we could be using it to better mankind.

I'm talking much larger scale. Like star system colonization purposes. Nuclear rockets could get us to Mars and beyond much faster than conventional chemical rockets. Not to mention propelling much larger payloads. I'm not going to say Trump is right or wrong on this one. But I definitely do believe we should be seeking to change the tracks on nuclear issues and make it work for us in a more constructive manner.

Fool! Nuclear material is for obliterating people we hate and having a heavy hand to back doing whatever we want! NOT enriching ourselves in other ways! Only a fool seeks betterment through knowledge, the strong dominate through misery and threats, like the US!

Seriously, though, I'd love to see our stockpile converted into fuel for solar system spacecrafts, and eventually deep space crafts. We're too effing stubborn and ass-backwards to do it yet.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

And we have no one else to blame. As the cartoon character, Pogo, said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

Americans themselves are not as divided as the political system has become. We were warned by our Founding Leaders to not devolve into factions, but one party did so. (All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to not speak up.... or good men and women to speak up but be punished!) That is why the last eight years took on a different feel, we really have not gone down this road for over 150 years. Now that we are on that road, the next couple of years (at least) will have the same feel, likely more intense, as the last eight years; and the faction to be in power Jan 20 has the power to reshape America using their extremist ideology. It could be one giant clustersnafu.

We are not set up structurally to be multiparty, as other countries are. Either we structurally change to a system our Founding Leaders felt was not as preferable, or we back out of the road we are on. To me, the last option is preferable, but that would take time; it took 20 years to get to where we are today, and the extremist faction will not be put back into their cage without putting up a fight.

Our system has no way to force compromise or coalition. I am sorry to sound as if I am bearing news of America's demise, but I guess in a way it is. We either dig ourselves out of this or dig our grave.
edit on 24-12-2016 by desert because: add Pogo attribution



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



In the 1960s Buckley warned the Republican Party to never let this fringe group gain control


Now the fringe is the party. It's very sad to see the demise of America.


And has been for the last 8 years....



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and you think we need more? THAT is delusional thinking.

The delusional thinking is that an outdated nuclear defense system that can be hacked by a 12 year old with a 10 year old palm pilot is safe. In case you all on the left were not paying attention(like usual). America has simply been reducing it's nuclear arm's while Russia has been reducing but upgrading their weapons with ones that are far safer and more capable than ours. Take the Stealth Nuke for example. We should be allies with Russia, but on the world stage we must also be strong and in this world that means having a capable nuclear arsenal.

Sorry lefties you may have a nice cushy life here in the west thinking everything is roses. That we can all just throw the nukes in the trash and replace the guns with daisies but sadly the world is a cruel nasty place outside of your little bubble and monsters still exist. If we simply disarmed every insane dictator with a red button would get a chubby...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: Liquesence
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and you think we need more? THAT is delusional thinking.

The delusional thinking is that an outdated nuclear defense system that can be hacked by a 12 year old with a 10 year old palm pilot is safe. In case you all on the left were not paying attention(like usual). America has simply been reducing it's nuclear arm's while Russia has been reducing but upgrading their weapons with ones that are far safer and more capable than ours. Take the Stealth Nuke for example. We should be allies with Russia, but on the world stage we must also be strong and in this world that means having a capable nuclear arsenal.

Sorry lefties you may have a nice cushy life here in the west thinking everything is roses. That we can all just throw the nukes in the trash and replace the guns with daisies but sadly the world is a cruel nasty place outside of your little bubble and monsters still exist. If we simply disarmed every insane dictator with a red button would get a chubby...


Why should the US be allies with Russia? Putin's Russia is an authoritarian state widely suspected of routinely murdering its critics and known for jailing people for speech. The far-right in the United States spent the last election cycle arguing that Clinton was a dangerous warmonger and claiming that the left was an existential threat to free speech. Is this a case of different standards for different people, or is it perhaps the case that the right never really objected to war and oppression in the first place but desperately wanted the mantle of nobility that comes with opposing those things? Methinks the latter. The sheer amount of glee that exudes from the modern proto-fascist as they fantasize about unfortunate fates befalling those who have the temerity to use larger words than they can comfortably interpret is downright unsettling.

Oh, and Obama was already spending 20B per year to modernize the nuclear arsenal:

www.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: Liquesence
We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and you think we need more? THAT is delusional thinking.

The delusional thinking is that an outdated nuclear defense system that can be hacked by a 12 year old with a 10 year old palm pilot is safe. In case you all on the left were not paying attention(like usual). America has simply been reducing it's nuclear arm's while Russia has been reducing but upgrading their weapons with ones that are far safer and more capable than ours. Take the Stealth Nuke for example. We should be allies with Russia, but on the world stage we must also be strong and in this world that means having a capable nuclear arsenal.

Sorry lefties you may have a nice cushy life here in the west thinking everything is roses. That we can all just throw the nukes in the trash and replace the guns with daisies but sadly the world is a cruel nasty place outside of your little bubble and monsters still exist. If we simply disarmed every insane dictator with a red button would get a chubby...


yes Russia reduced there's but made the newer version faster and bigger, US uses ICBMs easily intercepted Russians new ones are designed to avoid that meaning the US is at a disadvantage. Russia would be a major threat if they could actually afford to maintain them all. But that aside having ICBMs built 50 years ago isn't practical. The costs continue to increase parts are in short supply and frankly the safety features and electronics are not near what they should be. Realize a bomber isn't getting through that entire part of the nuclear triad is useless. The ICBMs are becoming obsolete leaving really only the trident systems. I guess the biggest danger is a country being able to destroy any retaliation we could launch the moment that happens its no longer a deterrent.

Now it would be nice if countries would get together and decrease them but we have learned that doesn't work. Even with the Russians all they did is build new ones and decommission the old ones. And we learned that negotiations still left thousands of warheads. Then theres the ease in which you can lie and not comply with the treaty. The only way we will ever remove that threat is to come up with a reliable way to destroy them before reaching there target. That's currently where the arms race is at everyone trying to design the perfect missile defense system. The other alternative design something even worse that no one would ever use.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyElohim


They shouldn't be allies I agree but they also don't have to be enemies. The us deals with lots of countries we don't agree with ideologically. Its far better to work with other governments than have them plotting to kill you.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JAY1980




The delusional thinking is that an outdated nuclear defense system that can be hacked by a 12 year old with a 10 year old palm pilot is safe.


How's a 12 year old going to hack those 8 inch floppy drives?




top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join