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

a reply to: BubbaJoe

en.wikipedia.org...

This crap happened before I was born, pretty sure it predates your birth.

This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

a reply to: carewemust

I usually agree with 95% of what you say, but on this I'm not sure I do. If you wish, can you answer my previous post?

"For those of you so against the U.S. having the best nuclear arsenal/capabilities in the world, what exactly are you proposing? Should the U.S. disarm themselves, in the hope that Russia/China/India/NKorea/Iran etc. will follow suit? What if they don't? Should the U.S. just stand pat with their nuclear capabilities, and take the word of the Russians and Chinese that they are doing the same? What if they aren't?"

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: carewemust

I usually agree with 95% of what you say, but on this I'm not sure I do. If you wish, can you answer my previous post?

"For those of you so against the U.S. having the best nuclear arsenal/capabilities in the world, what exactly are you proposing? Should the U.S. disarm themselves, in the hope that Russia/China/India/NKorea/Iran etc. will follow suit? What if they don't? Should the U.S. just stand pat with their nuclear capabilities, and take the word of the Russians and Chinese that they are doing the same? What if they aren't?"

You have never served, you have no idea what the USA's nuclear response is. In 1990, we could blow up the world 8 times over, you have no f'n idea, have never served you country, you should just probably crawl into a hole, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Is there a setting where we can be notified if someone replies to our post... so we can respond?

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

NK has one or two nukes with no real delivery system so no nation is willing to invade.

In contrast we have thousands with a thousand differing delivery systems ...yet... for some reason we have a president that says we need more. Which begs the question of why is it NK can accomplish security with so little and not us.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Is there a setting where we can be notified if someone replies to our post... so we can respond?

In the upper right of your screen, to the right of "My ATS", there are two green bubbles, click on that, it takes you to threads where people have responded to your posts.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

I envision an international council who meets, if a nuclear-capable world leader reaches a point of being "too dangerous". That council decides whether to kill him or not.

Or, would it be better to simply let the nut-job launch a strike, and leave it up to the affected country to retaliate?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

NK has one or two nukes with no real delivery system so no nation is willing to invade.

In contrast we have thousands with a thousand differing delivery systems ...yet... for some reason we have a president that says we need more. Which begs the question of why is it NK can accomplish security with so little and not us.

I am not sure, there is nothing of value there, may be the reason.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Is there a setting where we can be notified if someone replies to our post... so we can respond?

In the upper right of your screen, to the right of "My ATS", there are two green bubbles, click on that, it takes you to threads where people have responded to your posts.

Hey that's neat! Thanx!

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: alphabetaone

The Minute the U.S. Loses it's Nuclear Weapons Edge to the Rest of the World , is the Minute We All will be Turned into Hollandaise Sauce . President Trump Understands that Fact Very well here .

Like I said at the top of this thread, President Trump is very much like Ronald Reagan, with his "Peace through overwhelming strength" philosophy. Not a bad President to emulate!

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

I envision an international council who meets, if a nuclear-capable world leader reaches a point of being "too dangerous". That council decides whether to kill him or not.

Or, would it be better to simply let the nut-job launch a strike, and leave it up to the affected country to retaliate?

You have to take the world as a whole, NK is China's little puppet, if Kim launches stuff at the USA do not bet your ass on stuff not flying back, and NK will not be the target.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: alphabetaone

The Minute the U.S. Loses it's Nuclear Weapons Edge to the Rest of the World , is the Minute We All will be Turned into Hollandaise Sauce . President Trump Understands that Fact Very well here .

Like I said at the top of this thread, President Trump is very much like Ronald Reagan, with his "Peace through overwhelming strength" philosophy. Not a bad President to emulate!

He used that philosophy to break the Soviet Union. Russia is still broke, we don't need the same philosophy.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: alphabetaone

The Minute the U.S. Loses it's Nuclear Weapons Edge to the Rest of the World , is the Minute We All will be Turned into Hollandaise Sauce . President Trump Understands that Fact Very well here .

Like I said at the top of this thread, President Trump is very much like Ronald Reagan, with his "Peace through overwhelming strength" philosophy. Not a bad President to emulate!

Trump is not Reagan, don't even compare, it will bite you in the ass.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

NK has one or two nukes with no real delivery system so no nation is willing to invade.

In contrast we have thousands with a thousand differing delivery systems ...yet... for some reason we have a president that says we need more. Which begs the question of why is it NK can accomplish security with so little and not us.

I am not sure, there is nothing of value there, may be the reason.

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Even if our country was made of gold and diamonds if it got nuked it would all be poisonous waste. Radiation devalues all property drastically.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: carewemust
This thread is so disheartening. We're putting so much money into mass destruction. The same money invested into researching how to "remove" a dangerous leader, would save the human species from self-destruction.

The same money invested in trying to save world might work too. Probably pretty harsh of me, but I have no problem taking out North Korea, he is a dick.

NK has one or two nukes with no real delivery system so no nation is willing to invade.

In contrast we have thousands with a thousand differing delivery systems ...yet... for some reason we have a president that says we need more. Which begs the question of why is it NK can accomplish security with so little and not us.

I am not sure, there is nothing of value there, may be the reason.

I don't think that has anything to do with it. Even if our country was made of gold and diamonds if it got nuked it would all be poisonous waste. Radiation devalues all property drastically.

Sorry have been around for a long time, am seriously doubting NK nuking us, if they do blow then the f up, just saying.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I never said NK would nuke us.

I said they are able to keep the world at bay with just a few nukes and little ability, but for some reason our president thinks our thousands of nukes and delivery systems are inadequate to keep the world at bay.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
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.

You clearly have not seen enough death, destruction and chaos to assume such a cavalier attitude toward planet killers.

As far as the rest of your post up there, the biggest guy in a bar has zero capacity to destroy a planet so the comparison is ridiculous.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Trump wants to expand U.S. nuclear arsenal, make it 'top of the pack'

Every step this corrupt Klown takes is backward, into Fascist Trumplandia!
He is living proof that no one "learns from history"~!