Completely serious question. I hope I'm not an idiot for asking this.

Cuz da hippies b liek "PEACE, DUDE!"

Becouse:

• that is always connected with genocide, many innocent people die, some may consider that immoral
  
• impasse in not using nukes keeps world peace as it is
  
• radiation may cause damage to people far away the nukes attack
  
• of signed agreements
  
• there is a risk that the first one who uses them will be pacyfied
  

Wow... just wow. I can't even imagine asking this question...

Well, let's hope we have enough time to build a bunch of bunkers between Nov. 8 and Jan. 20, because a major party American presidential candidate just asked a foreign policy advisor this same question three times.

(Skip to 0:50) https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/760790261370753025

Edited 8/3/2016 13:04:39

Had me worried there for a minute knyte...

Taken with a massive grain of salt given the obvious bias of the network

1) Immoral. Destroys many innocent lives.
2) Mass destruction of property. Leaves an area much weaker than before industrially, economically and population-wise.
3) Pretty much guaranteed to start a full out nuclear conflict, unleashing all of these effects worldwide.
4) Nuclear winter- massive devastation to agriculture and population.
5) Radiation- Leaves an area uninhabitable for a very long period of time, forcing people to relocate, affecting the ecosystem of that area
6) Collapse of order- Almost all governments would eventually collapse, due to an influx of refugees, agricultural collapse or nuclear annihilation of economic, industrial and population centers.

EDIT: Really Trump...

Edited 8/3/2016 13:11:26

@Richard: MSNBC itself is pretty liberal, but Scarborough himself is a former Republican congressman. Moreover, even if it's not true, the fact that it's quite plausible for Trump to have done this is itself a cause for alarm. I mean, he's already made the same comment in public- multiple times, in reference to multiple foreign policy issues.

In fact, when it comes to accuracy, Morning Joe tends to slant the other way; their biggest accuracy scandal- http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/morning-joes-accuracy-deficit-88376_Page2.html- was an attack on Democratic policy.

Hell, Joe himself was cheering for Trump until June 30.

Edited 8/3/2016 13:21:03

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html

While in the case of these "bunker buster bombs", the distinction between "nuclear" and "conventional" warheads is not always brought out in official statements, the impacts of the "nuclear version" on civilians are far more devastating, in view of the toxic radioactive fallout over a large area.

@Knyte
Such an inteligent person like You should not believe in everything You hear from politics in tv.
They are lying you know? And talking bullshit when they don't know what to answer.

Threatening with nukes is not the same as using them. How many times northern korea has threatened world that they have nukes and can use them. Or Iran. But even they are are not stupid enough to do that.

The americans are a really stupid nation at the moment (not talking about the small group of elites 10% maybe 20%) but about that dumb mass of voters.

They just have to be convinced by lies.

Trump is ofcourse a populist. I doubt he will build The Wall not talking about using nukes.

Hillary though have many reasons to start WW III which ofcourse means using nukes. Thouse are:

• America is drowning in debts. As she is going to continue the current goverment roadmap thouse will still grow. What to do when your country is going to go bankrupt soon? We know that from what happend in Germany in 1939.
  
• She represents the rich millitary lobbies that live from making weapon, America has to fight someone all the time so that new weapon can be produced and more money is consumed on that.
  
• America's millitary power is less and less important, soon China+Russia+Iran will have greater army then them, (China already has greater economy) and now Turkey is unsure as an ally. Trump doesn't care about that position so much but Clinton will do everyrthing to keep that position
  
• Some more but minor so I wont write
  

Thank you.

If no one gets it, America uses tactical nuclear weapons already.

@Kosmitow: The point is not that Trump would use nuclear weapons. The point is that he asked such a simple question incredulously 3 times in an actual foreign policy briefing, per a credible source that was- just over a month ago- actively backing him for the presidency and still supports his party. He's made the same comments in public- certainly, while you could interpret them as "leaving the option open," these comments are extremely atypical. The US has already adopted a no-first-use policy (which can be easily repealed by the executive branch, sadly); Trump's comments deviate extremely hard from the presidential norm and strongly suggest he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Moreover, with all due respect, the points you made don't quite make sense. As far as debts go, no, we are nowhere comparable to Germany in 1939. While the numbers look big and scary, the only real cost we face for our debts in the near-term is paying interest- which isn't even that bad, since most of our debt is domestic. The absolute worst-case suggestion made for any situation when we're unable to handle debts is declaring bankruptcy, not declaring nuclear war on the rest of the world. Keep in mind that WWII happened under a fascist candidate- and no matter how bad you might've heard Clinton is, she simply cannot be classified as a fascist of any sort.

The military lobby issue is non-unique; major candidates tend to have ties to some branch or another of our massive military-industrial complex. That doesn't make them war hawks. Clinton has suggested she'll operate under the Obama doctrine, which means more drones, more cyberwar (a la Stuxnet), and fewer "boots on the ground" ("smart war"). We produce weapons, sure, but that doesn't mean we have to use them. Most of them, we just sell. And have you seen the shelf life of these weapons? It's not constant production- they last for decades, and we already rolled out most of the current generation.

America still outspends the next 7 countries combined when it comes to defense. NATO still accounts for the majority of global military expenditure- and China's clearly not making much of an effort to catch up, given their military budget as a % of GDP. China + Russia + Iran aren't a military alliance or cohesive unit; in fact, their interests actively conflict too. The Chinese GDP (PPP) is higher than ours (keep in mind that this measurement is only as good as the assumptions made in the CPI here- which aren't that great). Moreover, there's absolutely no reason how this would lead to nuclear war. China, Russia, and the US have all historically been the most concerned parties about nuclear war (check the declassified documents from the governments of both countries- the Soviets and the Americans were extremely worried about the risk of nuclear war and did what they could to prevent it).

Simply put, we're the country that built stealth helicopters and successfully used them in 2011 before the world even realized the tech existed. Our edge isn't fading anytime soon- and when it does, we've accumulated enough soft power to ease the transition, just like how Britain did.

Starting a war against other major powers just doesn't line up with America's economic and domestic security goals. A president- like Clinton- with a solid understanding of foreign policy and the economy will simply not start any sort of major power war outside truly extreme circumstances, no matter how many interventions they back in the Middle East. It's only a candidate like Trump- with a demonstrated lack of understanding of foreign policy- where the risk becomes an issue.

Ironically enough, it seems that you're the one repeating talking points you heard on TV. :P

Edited 8/3/2016 15:32:51

Keep in mind that WWII happened under a fascist candidate- and no matter how bad you might've heard Clinton is, she simply cannot be classified as a fascist of any sort.

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/woodrow-wilson-americas-worst-and-first-fascist-president/

The first fascist American president was Woodrow Wilson, if he can be defined as one, Hillary can as well.

The military lobby issue is non-unique; major candidates tend to have ties to some branch or another of our massive military-industrial complex. That doesn't make them war hawks

These are weapons for war, they are not going to all stay in a cabinet in Langley, they will be either used or sold at some point.

Clinton has suggested she'll operate under the Obama doctrine, which means more drones, more cyberwar (a la Stuxnet), and fewer "boots on the ground" ("smart war").

More drones that will kill civilians 90% of the time, and special forces to coordinate air strikes that will inevitably kill more civilians. Oh wait, it's evident that civilian lives don't matter, at least to the current regime and the next one.

Most of them, we just sell

Which will be used by foreign dictators to prop up their regimes, and terrorist groups to expand.

Starting a war against other major powers just doesn't line up with America's economic and domestic security goals.

NATO has been expanding into Old Communist territories since the nineties, and has been getting more revanchist and nationalistic elements of the Russians political ammunition. The more NATO expands, the more the warmongers in Russia will respond. You think Putin is bad? Hah, wait till you get Eduard Limonov, or some other National Bolshevist in power when Putin keels over.

You're toxic.

Before this conversation gets too derailed- the main point here is that a major-party presidential candidate doesn't seem to understand even the most basic aspects of foreign policy.

Before this conversation gets too derailed- the main point here is that a major-party presidential candidate doesn't seem to understand even the most basic aspects of foreign policy.

Or the US military's technology in general. As I've shown, the US already uses low yield nuclear weapons.

@Knyte

The point is not that Trump would use nuclear weapons. The point is that he asked such a simple question incredulously 3 times in an actual foreign policy briefing

As I wrote he is a populist. He says what masses want to hear. If you don't believe in that why do you thing that is an important issue?

Moreover, with all due respect, the points you made don't quite make sense. As far as debts go, no, we are nowhere comparable to Germany in 1939. While the numbers look big and scary, the only real cost we face for our debts in the near-term is paying interest- which isn't even that bad, since most of our debt is domestic.

Domestic debt may be even worse, if it is foregin you can just simply not pay that with your millitary potential. But what if it turns out that you have no moneyfor your own people? That you have no money for seleries or retirement pensions? What will people live for and what do you think they will do?

America still outspends the next 7 countries combined when it comes to defense

Sure but ten years ago in were 37 countries, in a few years it may be two or just one...

China + Russia + Iran aren't a military alliance or cohesive unit

China and Russia has shared military drills, Iran is clearly Russia's ally. They are like a counterbalance to NATO so their are clearly cooperating.

Starting a war against other major powers just doesn't line up with America's economic and domestic security goals. A president- like Clinton- with a solid understanding of foreign policy and the economy will simply not start any sort of major power war

Economy? really? From a great powerfull country, people like her has led America to socialism and bankruptcy. If that is that economy knowledge - no, thatk you for that. And only such a president can start such a conflict becouse only such a president would exactly know how the US position is melting. War is the only way to keep that position.

Ironically enough, it seems that you're the one repeating talking points you heard on TV. :P

Yeah, ironically enough i guess becouse i don't watch TV at all :P
Sometimes if i know there will be an old film I can't see in the Internet but thats all. Never news...

[EDIT] And about fascism
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
~Benito Mussolini
that is the definition by creator of fascism and that is what Clinton heads towards slowly...

Edited 8/3/2016 16:17:54

Didn't quite get your point but yes, we use these things called MIRVs (multiple independent re-entry vehicles)- instead of focusing on high yield, we detonate multiple lower-yield weapons at the same time since that's more effective in nuclear war. It's how you deal more damage for the same price.

That makes our nuclear arsenal more dangerous, not less.

@Kosmitow: Per independent analysis (inb4 Gove "we've had enough of experts!"), Trump's expected to lead to a "prolonged recession" with 3.4 million jobs lost while Clinton's expected to lead to solid economic growth with ~10 million new jobs created.

War is the only way to keep that position.

The very basis of trade is that economics isn't zero-sum. Unlike what Trump says, there are no "winners" and "losers" here. All voluntary economic exchanges lead to an increase in utility; otherwise they would not occur.

If we become the second largest economy in the world, so be it. Trade wars and real wars are both losing games, outside extreme circumstances.

Furthermore, I think you're failing to see the expansion of state power and the curtailing of civil liberties within Trump. Under Clinton, we're talking about an expansion of welfare services like Medicare and likely an expansion of the cybermilitary-industrial complex (which is mostly private, not state-controlled). Under Trump, we're talking about potentially curtailing First Amendment liberties.

Your definition of fascism, while a cute Mussolini quote, simply does not line up with the actual definition of fascism used by people far more educated on the subject than you and me. And those same people tend to recognize the similarities between Trump's demagoguery of "I alone can fix it" and "I'll purge all Obama and Clinton appointees within my first month of taking office" and historical instances of fascism. Trump's a shove in that direction.

Edited 8/3/2016 16:21:58

Didn't quite get your point but yes, we use these things called MIRVs (multiple independent re-entry vehicles)- instead of focusing on high yield, we detonate multiple lower-yield weapons at the same time since that's more effective in nuclear war. It's how you deal more damage for the same price.

That makes our nuclear arsenal more dangerous, not less.


I'm making the point that we have already used nuclear weapons past 1945 in warfare. Those nuclear bunker busters were used in Afghanistan and Iraq.