Trump's ranting about nuclear weapons should trigger a declaration by Obama or by the State Department of a national State of Emergency, based in the NDAA which nullifies the election and prevents Trump from being President, represses the extreme right and sets the stage for new elections -- with different candidates.
The U.S. is in the midst of a $1 trillion, 30-year modernization of its aging ballistic missile submarines, bombers and land-based missiles, a price tag that most experts say the U.S. cannot afford. That is a fact that predates Trump and should be enough to scare the crap out of most thinking people on the planet. Yes, he tweeted that he was all for a new arms race with the Russians, but the neocons/neolibs and the corporatist MIC had already laid down the gauntlet and Trump just witlessly affirmed what was already in place.
These are dark times, with or without Trump. The fate of the human race is hanging in the balance as we confront the Deep State and its machinations.
The problem is that if Obama made such a move, we would be in a state of civil war with the military and law enforcement probably on the side of Trump. We can't nullify election results just because we hate who won. Having said that, I agree with you about the urgency of the nation to address Trump's dangerous rhetoric. This won't happen in the MSM as an arms race is in the best interests of their corporate sponsors. NBC is owned by General Electric, the country's largest manufacturer of nuclear weapons followed by CBS which is owned in part by Westinghouse our country's second largest producer of nuclear weapons. It would be folly to assume that our MSM are blind to these details about who butters their bread.
Very true. The MIC has pretty much gotten the politicians it wants for generations now. The military contracts will be borne by the working class families of America as their taxes are used not for the public good but to further enrich a handful of powerful corporatists. Trump is merely dispensing the need to hide corporate greed, be politically correct or pander to the 99% beyond the usually empty rhetoric. Unless the general public is able to vet the entire government of corporate sycophants, the bleeding won't stop.
I think there's a difference between agreeing to upgrade the near 50 year-old nuclear arsenal to get the renewed START Treaty through the Senate, which Obama had to do, and Trump's reckless tweeting. Treaties expire and START is one worth keeping. There's always going to be give-and-take.
In a sense we live in denial almost to make life bearable because in the event of a false alarm about a nuclear attack a president would only have about 6 minutes to react if the attack came from submarines. There is really no human being who we can have confidence in given that situation. The president would have to decide if the alarm was real or not and what to do. This type of thing has already happened but it was determined that it was a false attack before the president was notified. What this means is that we have lived with the possibility of a nuclear war at any moment and will continue do so. I think what is different about Trump is that he might use nuclear weapons against a country without nuclear weapons. He is a bully and may bully countries with the threat of a nuclear attack. He has already talked using nuclear weapons against ISIS and has said they might be used used in Europe. Now that he is elected there is little we can do about it. In my opinion anyone who voted for Trump made a foolish mistake. Concern that he will launch a nuclear attack is one of many consequences of his being elected, not by a majority but through the electoral college.
There's a difference in tone for sure, but planning to spend 1 trillion dollars for nuclear weapons development including the possibility of smaller ones when he says he ultimately wants to eliminate them is why so many of us HATE most politicians. That's our damn money and if he wants to waste it like that, we can spend it better on just about anything.
Well, politics isn't easy and the President had to decide whether having a START treaty was worth it versus not having one. We could've seen it dumped and massive expansion of nuclear weapons with no limits on all sides. Plus, there is actual concern over the state of our 1960s and 70s era nuclear infrastructure.
I agree. But the problem is, if the election was somehow nullified; you already have approximately 50 million angry, bellicose, Trump voters. And many would go ballistic! And you could have blood in the streets of America.
Don't you realize what happened? Obama's people and the existing deep state people who aren't going anywhere set down with Trump and convinced him to continue Obama's policy of 'upgrading' our nuclear arsenal.
But instead of then talking about it with the sophistication and usage of terms about 'stability' and 'peace' and 'reducing nuclear weapons globally' and all the rhetoric that makes cultural liberals feel safe, (like this author who never woke up once afraid that Obama's escalation of our nuclear arms, his wars in Libya and Syria, and the war games in the Baltics might lead to war with Russia,) Trump, once he was convinced that we need to continue the arms race that Obama begun, just bluntly says that in his uncouth, unthinking, blustery way.
But all the folk upset by Trump talking about doing things that Obama & Clinton did get more upset.
Wake up. We should have been upset a long, long time ago.
At least now some of the cultural liberals and the establishment Democrats may actually try to to do something about all this.