Home | About | Donate

Right Now, Trump Can Start a Nuclear War


#1

Right Now, Trump Can Start a Nuclear War

Olivia Alperstein

Right now, Donald Trump could start a nuclear war on a whim, and no one could stop him.

Under any circumstances, the prospect of nuclear war is terrifying, the deadly consequences irreversible. Yet with a single order, the president — any president — could effectively declare a nuclear war that would wipe out entire nations, including our own.


#2

Wow.

I'm still convinced that despite his bluster, HRC was the president more likely to get us into nuclear war.

Several of the things here that are hyped to make a Trump presidency look like it's the opposite of the truth, that HRC was the more likely to start a nuclear war, are based on Trump being a blustering loud mouth who bluntly states things that the other side also state, but they do it in a more discreet, understated way. Also it was Obama who started the big spending on 'updating' our nuclear weapons. What happened here, I'm sure, is that the Deep State explained to Trump that this must happened and convinced him it should- so he turns around and makes a blunt statement.

But Trump hasn't diverted in any of these things from what has been standard US policy for decades.

BUT!!!!!!!

...people are finally realizing how stupid, horrible, and terrible US policy has always been since it's President Buffoon now stating it and so finally, finally, we have people talking about undoing this policy in order to 'reign in' Trump.

So I support this 100%. Reign in Trump. Just be sure the law is more than just for this president. Make sure it's true for the next one too and the next one after that and so on, so if we do get HRC in and she starts a war with Russia in Syria or Ukraine the MIC can't launch a nuclear strike without Congressional approval first.


#3

Regardless of who is president this law should be passed. Putin has the same power to start a nuclear as Trump and a similar nuclear arsenal at his disposal but we can't do anything about that. And he may even control Trump, that remains unclear. A president must be able to make the decision on whether to retaliate against a nuclear attack because the decision might have to be made within 6 minutes, far too little time for any human being. But Congress should have to approve a nuclear war. It is important to realize the US has nuclear weapons that are nothing like those dropped on Japan. A hydrogen bomb is perhaps one or two thousand times more powerful. It doesn't take that many to completely destroy a country and enough of them used could create a nuclear winter and kill everybody. And even if there were survivors the effects of radiation are devastating. A world with Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un with nuclear weapons at their disposal is truly frightening. Anything to reduce the risk of nuclear war would be helpful.


#5

Physicist Greg Spriggs, of Lawrence Livermore Labs, spearheaded the effort to release footage of US nuclear bomb tests in the hope that people would find the devastation these devices cause abhorrent and the use of such devices unacceptable.

At this point in time, however, many in power, around the world, are promoting glorifications of brutality. While some Islamic State devotees promote the horrific brutality videos the group releases, where I live, in Trumpland, I have heard people, inspired by the nuclear testing videos, speak in favor of 'wiping our enemies off the map' with such nuclear weapons.

Humanity does need to abolish these weapons. At this point in time, there is not a strong anti-war movement. Thus it is unlikely that any efforts to abolish the development, use, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, will gain significant support from Democrats or Republicans. This is one more reason for progressives to focus on grassroots anti-war organizing.


#6

"Like the Soviet system, Russian command and control is based on a "triple key" system." The President, the Defense Minister, and the Chief of the General Staff each have to contribute their codes to enable launch.


#7

Sounds rational, elliemae. I don't think Putin controls him, Lrx. Just read "From Russia With Panic" at The Baffler Magazine site.


#8

Agree re your last paragrah. Who was more likely to start one is impossible to know. Trump was relaxed at first. Now he's gotta contend with push back everyday. Now he's got McMaster to listen to instead of Flynn. And the polity that endorsed all this stand-down rhetoric had no conception that Mr Smith would get yanked this way and that...what has America learned about anything?

Like I said, though, I agree we should be fully aware that the law is not just to control DT. That's why Steve_Fernandez is right. America's ignored the whole thing, and many Dems even think Russia's so evil...that that's more important than this insane build-up, so important that they're not obligated in the least to learn anything about the coup in Ukraine which we promoted. Who's being aggressive?!?! The hack hysterics have things backwards. They think the cyber lords are in Russia. If you're one of'em listen to Snowden (fforward one third for ES, KM's good too though). https://theintercept.com/2017/03/15/intercepted-podcast-snowden-vs-trump/

If you look at how Trump's revamped our gov and look at how our intel agencies have revamped the right to privacy...you could even expect, in your most negative moments, the powers that be to override this law. So, let's at least begin with the law.


#9

Unlike LWofLW, I don't think media's given Trump a hard time at all for his economics. They can't think that deeply; they could handle a big mindless tabloid flap however...granted, eventually they tried to skewer him over that/nothing.

We've been in this danger for a long time. A man like Trump in the White House is thankfully making us think about it. But an insane ramp-up was already in progress ever since the coup in Ukraine (which we fomented; don't be an ignorant Democrat, read about it at Consortium News, Counterpunch, or go to Oliver Stone's facebook page for crying out quiet). We need to start spreading out our resistance beyond Trump's policies in general to the orientation of his biased generals who'll still be around if/when Trump's gone.

All the President’s Generals: Do they Want War with Iran?

The Russian Peace Scare Averted, But What About Iran?


#10

"Putin has the same power to start a nuclear as Trump and a similar nuclear arsenal at his disposal but we can't do anything about that."

Putin again. What indication do you have that he is remotely interested in or tempted by starting a nuclear war? He has OUR nukes on his border, yet has not responded with threats, bluster or anger. Remember what WE did when we found ICBMs 90 miles from our borders?

And it ain't just Trump. Plenty of high ranking military and neocons are itching to start actions that they know would likely end in a nuclear exchange. One of them is named Clinton.


#11

A bizarre sentence. Leaving out what this so-called "leadership" consists of, would somebody please explain to me just who the "free world" is? Considering the persecution of whistle-blowers, surveillance and deportations, it sure ain't us. So who? Or what?


#12

Olivia, Do you really think such a vain man as Trump is, would even consider any action that would surely kill his entire brood? And himself?

Thank you for making us all aware again, that he possesses the authority to do so.

Fear mongering in your article serves what purpose?


#13

There is NO factual evidence that Hillary was likely to engage in nuclear war. Recall that Hillary supported the Iran nuclear weapons materials treaty. Trump does not. You are a victim of pro-Trump internet trolls (mostly Russian) planting "Hillary Is Evil Incarnate" memes throughout the internet.


#14

Hillary is already a 'Two Time' loser. Ya think she'll go for a 'Trifecta?'


#15

That's good to know.


#16

Just a little one.


#17

Whereas Clinton had no such qualms? Isn't that why Trump was the lesser evil?


#18

I don't think Putin wants to start a nuclear war. I just said he has authority. I would say no sane person would want to have a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. That includes neocons. To suggest Clinton would is of course absurd but expected over-the-top rhetoric from left wing extremists. You hear that so much from left wing extremists that it begins to sound plausible. But Hillary Clinton is not insane and would never want a nuclear exchange with Russia. How ridiculous can you get?


#19

There was not even grounds for speculation she would follow such a course. The nuclear war stuff was promoted by one of Putins more fascistic parliamentary supporters and parroted by RT and Leftists here.


#20

If Kim and Trump get into trading insults and threats all bets are off.


#21

Consensus seems to settle on Angela Merkel.