Trump wants to expand U.S. nuclear arsenal, make it 'top of the pack': Reuters interview

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Orwells GhostIf the USA desires to maintain a deterrent, modernization is necessary.

I feel pretty confident that there is a marked difference between modernization and expansion, per the title.

I'm having a hard time finding where in the linked article Trump talks about "expansion". He says he wants the USA's arsenal to be "top of the pack".

a reply to: Orwells Ghost

The first line of the article "President Trump says he wants to build up...that usually implies expand, which is likely why reuters considered that as the headline.

a reply to: alphabetaone

So we can currently make them all dead but Trump wants to make them VERY dead, not a bit dead like other nuclear nations. They're fake nuclear nations, very sad, and bad, and FAKE. We'll be the best, like a Trump Steak or Trump University, the best. The top of the pile. Get it, a nuclear pun - top of the pile - nuclear pile. The best.

And this helps the average American, how?

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Orwells Ghost

The first line of the article "President Trump says he wants to build up...that usually implies expand, which is likely why reuters considered that as the headline.

Right. That's exactly what the author of the article says, but what does Trump say?

Gee, I wonder if this could benefit the military-industrial complex somehow?

originally posted by: Orwells Ghost

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Orwells Ghost

The first line of the article "President Trump says he wants to build up...that usually implies expand, which is likely why reuters considered that as the headline.

Right. That's exactly what the author of the article says, but what does Trump say?

The article states Trump said....whether that's hyperbole or not is anyone's guess, I'm simply taking it at face value.

dbl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gee, I wonder if this could benefit the military-industrial complex somehow?

Well, maybe this is how Trump is gonna bring jobs back to America. >.>

What was that old saying again? An unused weapon is a useless weapon? Lol yeah I know some of you still believe in M.A.D. I don't believe in this day in age it means a whole hell of alot considering most developed nations know the fallout effect is so ridiculous that it would be pointless to even consider using any nuclear weapons of any large yield blast radius. I think whoever can safely and cheaply find a way to utilize all that plutonium in a practical means would surely be in the upper echelon economically in the decades and centuries to come. Otherwise are we just going to find a cheap way to launch the stuff into space to some far reaches of our galaxy? Eh. Don't mind me. The whole thing to me seems completely redundant.

originally posted by: Noncents
Nukes are deterrents. If another country has more or better than your deterrents aren't as effective so they deter less.

I understand the principal behind MAD and the strategic balance of nuclear weapons from a tactical point of view.

But when I step back it truly does seem MAD maybe whoever came up with the term was on to something.

This balancing act of weapons that can kill all life on planet earth is like a madness and seems to speak of some sort of

collective insanity in the human species to be willing to go this far with a weapon that can pratically

end all life on this planet.

It is surreal, it is quite literally MAD.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gee, I wonder if this could benefit the military-industrial complex somehow?

Well, maybe this is how Trump is gonna bring jobs back to America. >.>

What's running most of the old systems? 5.25" floppys or reel-tapes?

Have more doesn't do anything if the first few incoming destroy / disable the weapons or destroy the country.

My take is chest thumping and money to be made by suppliers.

In the future, the military will be protecting a few elites while the large majority of US citizens live in poverty.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gee, I wonder if this could benefit the military-industrial complex somehow?

Well, maybe this is how Trump is gonna bring jobs back to America. >.>

What's running most of the old systems? 5.25" floppys or reel-tapes?

I wasn't even aware we had broken away from Xerox Sigma 6's and Sigma 9's

(for those who don't know, if you watch some old re-runs of I Dream of Jeanie, you can see them at the JPL in some episodes)

I always been told US and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the world 50 times..
That sounds enough to me

originally posted by: roadgravel
Have more doesn't do anything if the first few incoming destroy / disable the weapons or destroy the country.

Hell, there doesn't even have to be landfall...detonate them in the stratosphere and you will likely generate a large enough EMP to disable most every computerized system that isn't protected by a faraday cage. That alone would put most countries back in the dark ages.

originally posted by: Noncents
Nukes are deterrents. If another country has more or better than your deterrents aren't as effective so they deter less.

The idea is to have more and/or better of whatever deterrent you are using. From what I've read Russia has more nukes than us so we need more to ensure Russia doesn't get froggy. Due to the size of Russia I think they're the only country we should even be mildly concerned with.

Based on size alone we should be able to nuke any other threat off the map with a quickness if needed. I could be very wrong about that but that's the way I think it works.

For offensive warfare there are better things than nukes. Much better. But for defense the nuke is still one of the top dogs.

*I do not support or want war. I do not support actually using nuclear weaponry. I do support having the best military on Earth.

It's not the number of nukes that matter, it's the delivery system. 1000 nuclear weapons capable of dynamically changing targets midflight, impossible to shoot down, and split between first/second/third strike launch systems would be just as effective as having 1,000,000 of such weapons.

Having more nukes doesn't matter much beyond a certain point. You do however need to ensure you have capable land, sea, and air delivery systems, in particular against countries with a lot of mass like Russia and China that could pretty easily absorb a couple hits as long as they were able to stop most of them.

For now, I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume he was talking about modernizing delivery systems and not just building bombs for quantity.

originally posted by: Aazadan

For now, I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume he was talking about modernizing delivery systems and not just building bombs for quantity.

Agreed. I too am just waiting and watching, to see what (if anything) that truly means.

a reply to: Aazadan

Isn't the sea and air delivery quite good. That night leave the land launched part.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Just want a nation that bends over and takes repeatedly, do you? No thanks. I don't care why we are the target we are (in fact, I recognize that the biggest guy in the bar is always going to have a target on his back... and he's going to have to kick a lot of ass to stay that way, but it means he's doing something right.) but I do care that we are always in a position to exorcise the demons out of any other country stupid enough to front us.

originally posted by: SolAquarius
I understand the principal behind MAD and the strategic balance of nuclear weapons from a tactical point of view.

But when I step back it truly does seem MAD maybe whoever came up with the term was on to something.

This balancing act of weapons that can kill all life on planet earth is like a madness and seems to speak of some sort of

collective insanity in the human species to be willing to go this far with a weapon that can pratically

end all life on this planet.

It is surreal, it is quite literally MAD.

MAD is an interesting concept. It has provided a usable framework that has prevented nations from declaring on each other, but every now and then the warning systems deliver a false positive and it no longer comes down to national policy, it comes down to individuals deciding if they want to launch, and so far when put in those positions the people have chosen not to launch. Eventually though, someone is going to choose otherwise.