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

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump said on Thursday he wants to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the "top of the pack," saying the United States has fallen behind in its atomic weapons capacity.
In a Reuters interview, Trump also said China could solve the national security challenge posed by North Korea "very easily if they want to," ratcheting up pressure on Beijing to exert more influence to rein in Pyongyang's increasingly bellicose actions.
In his first comments about the U.S. nuclear arsenal since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump said the United States has "fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity."

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

Hmmm....first attack the media, then discredit them...then expand weapons of mass destruction...

Sounds like war drums to me.

I would think the US has the best nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I would think the US has the best nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Oddly enough, I always thought so too. Perhaps Trump can see something even the experts have missed.

Awesome Maybe I will finally get to see what it like to play fallout in the real world.




(Note the above is sarcastic dark humor and not my actual view)

a reply to: roadgravel

I would think the US has the best nuclear weapons

Countries that have " worse " nuclear weapons are still bloody dangerous.

How " good " does a nuclear explosion have to be exactly ?

a reply to: SolAquarius

I'm pretty sure you don't want that

Wasn't there a thing where some US guy said we have enough nukes to destroy the world something like 8 or times and the Russian guy just responded and say well we have enough to nuke the world and thus why make more?

originally posted by: alldaylong
How " good " does a nuclear explosion have to be exactly ?

Good enough to ENSURE no other nation ever pushes us into using it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: alldaylong
How " good " does a nuclear explosion have to be exactly ?

Good enough to ENSURE no other nation ever pushes us into using it.

And vice versa.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: SolAquarius

I'm pretty sure you don't want that

A little Dark Humor Sarcasm to lighten the mood.

No In actuality I don't like cancer and losing my teeth to radiation poisoning and fallout and nuclear winter.

Not my cup of tea.

a reply to: alphabetaone

It's the world we live in. We have to stay vigilant, so it's time to piss away trillions of $$.

Russia, in addition to having a greater number of warheads, is widely considered to have superior ballistic missiles, with that gap set to widen further with the upcoming RS-28, an absolutely enormous, 10 MIRV, allegedly missile-defense evading ICBM. The edge the USA has/had was largely with their Ohio-class boomers, but even that is eroding as Russia puts their Borei-class into service. If the USA desires to maintain a deterrent, modernization is necessary.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: alldaylong
How " good " does a nuclear explosion have to be exactly ?

Good enough to ENSURE no other nation ever pushes us into using it.

They're already at that level. So what's the point?

originally posted by: Maxatoria
Wasn't there a thing where some US guy said we have enough nukes to destroy the world something like 8 or times and the Russian guy just responded and say well we have enough to nuke the world and thus why make more?

And he was right. You only need to destroy the world once for it to matter, eh?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: alldaylong
How " good " does a nuclear explosion have to be exactly ?

Good enough to ENSURE no other nation ever pushes us into using it.

They're already at that level. So what's the point?

My point is there is no reason for the US to not constantly be increasing it's nuclear arsenal. We're the primary target in this world, so we may as well make that target one which guarantees "if we don't walk out of here under our own power, ain't nobody leaving alive."

a reply to: alphabetaone

There is no $$$ in that line of thinking.

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.

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.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: roadgravel
I would think the US has the best nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Oddly enough, I always thought so too. Perhaps Trump can see something even the experts have missed.

Trump can see job creation.

Build a wall, build more nukes.

There will be improvement to infrastructure, lots of Government Job creation etc.

It's what he said he would do.

Well you see, having made a career out of the military myself, and knowing war full well, I find it a bit more advantageous to fix our broken state such that we are no longer

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
the primary target in this world

then we wouldn't have to be concerned with

increasing it's nuclear arsenal.