Trump says nukes are on the table
That item about Trump’s wanting to use the nukes? I didn’t post about it yesterday because there was only one source, but ThinkProgress has collected examples of his saying it in public on the record, so.
On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough passed on an intriguing piece of gossip: Donald Trump, speaking with a “foreign policy expert,” repeatedly asked “why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”
Scarborough’s claim was thinly sourced. He didn’t reveal the identity of the expert advising Trump or even where he learned the information. Information attributed to anonymous sources is inherently suspect.
But one need not rely on anonymous sources to glean Trump’s views on nuclear weapons. He has broached the subject repeatedly on the campaign trail. Several of his public comments are similar to Scarborough’s account while others are terrifying in their own way.
They provide a video clip.
And transcribe it:
MATTHEWS: Well, why would you — why wouldn’t you just say, “I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don’t talk about use of nuclear weapons”?
TRUMP: The question was asked — we were talking about NATO — which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dis —
MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn`t have talked about.
TRUMP: I don’t think I — well, someday, maybe.
MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?
TRUMP: Of course. If somebody —
MATTHEWS: Where would we drop — where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?
TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain.
Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn`t fight back with a nuke?
…
MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.
TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?
[MSNBC, March 30, 2016]
You can watch him saying it:
“Why do we make them?” OK, beecoss we so smart alrite!
And clever. And verbose. And cretinous … and … and thinkin on our own feet, alletime.
Hey, wonder why they look so much alike, except opposite like? Everytime I have to count to a big number like a billion or 24, I wonder. Can’t answer that now cannya!½
Nuclear weapons are for retaliation. Do we say that however much damage ISIS causes us (maybe with a chemical or biological attack) we will never use a nuclear weapon against them?
Why would you use nuclear weapons on a disparate and diffuse group of assholes interspersed with complete innocents? They have no hardened and difficult to destroy military infrastructure you want to destroy and if they concentrate in sufficiently large numbers to warrant an attack in force you have non-nuclear weapons that would be just as efficient and destructive.
Any attack on a population centre would result in devastating losses to people who are themselves victims of ISIS occupation without necessarily degrading ISIS capability. It would be a response based on rage and revenge, not on any justifiable military or ethical grounds. Why do you even need to ask the question?
Rob. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped on civilian centers. (The US thought it was necessary to turn the tide of WWII in the East. I’ve seen historians who dispute that, but although that may be true it may not have been clear at the time. The fog of war is a thing.)
Anyway, my point is that the US in the past has considered it a good idea to do the bad things you list. To their credit, once they saw the horrific result, they’ve spent the next decades convincing everyone they wouldn’t consider first use again. And they’re sincere about that so people have been believing them. But trust is very fragile, especially when the other party can kill you. The Dumpsterfire breaks the carefully nurtured trust.
Quixote, I understand what you are saying and take it you don’t personally agree with Trump’s musing on the use of nukes. However David appeared to be opening the door to use of nukes against ISIS. So, let’s consider that in the specific light of their use in Japan.
Japan was a nation at war with the US. While the US had by then gained the upper hand militarily it did not have the technology to deliver a crushing blow using conventional weapons and was unwilling to negotiate anything other than unconditional surrender, which the Japanese still wouldn’t do. Much of what followed is disputed in how it should be interpreted, but we know the facts. The bombs were dropped and the Japanese Government surrendered. The targets chosen were mid sized cities with only modest military and industrial value at best. That was the point. To make it very obvious what would happen if bigger higher value targets were chosen.
Now, bomb a target in Syria and what is acheived? You’ll kill the ISIS adherents who are present. You’ll kill the subjugated population that ethically should be rescued instead. You destroy the infrastructure, industry and surrounding land that belongs to a sovereign state you are NOT at war with. You do nothing to damage the diffuse control and supply network ISIS uses and they pop up elsewhere, perhaps in a different guise but now with even more recruits than ever outraged at the actions of the US. Plus the rest of the world including your closest allies would be staring at you in horror and distrust.
Nothing good would come of that.
It’s egotistical and masturbatory of a trump to even muse about the use of such weapons when the US has the ability to strike anywhere it likes with conventional weapons if it can identify a legitimate target.
“…Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?”
Why indeed. The blind squirrel finds a nut!