You know what i think about that economy experts?
They are not worth a red cent.

And I've got enough of arguments like: people far more educated say that... so that must be true.

Edited 8/3/2016 16:24:05

Can't find a source for that outside conspiracy sites.

@Kosmitow: Democracy does not mean your ignorance is equal to someone else's knowledge.

Edited 8/3/2016 16:23:47

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.

I'd say it doesn't matter too much. He isn't going to be making decisions in a vacuum, and you can bet that the president has hundreds or thousands of really smart people working for him to help him make decisions.

Democracy does not mean your ignorance is equal to someone else's knowledge.

Democracy means two dumb bums have more to say then university profesor.

You need a baseline of knowledge to pick advisors. Moreover, you need an attitude of being able to learn. Both of these are things Trump has demonstrated he does not have. Look at the rate he's losing core campaign staff, or the number of times he's made the same false claims after being corrected. He's already had multiple briefings- there's simply no excuse for asking the most basic question about nuclear weapons at this stage of the campaign.

He is no George W. Bush.

@Kosmitow: That doesn't make the opinion of those dumb bums more right. But yeah, stupidity prevails. You don't even have to look outside your own country for that.

Edited 8/3/2016 16:28:38

true i don't.
Anyway if you would like to discuss something pm me becouse on a public forum there are too many people for me. it is just to much too read - too much time consuming

You need a baseline of knowledge to pick advisors. Moreover, you need an attitude of being able to learn. Both of these are things Trump has demonstrated he does not have. Look at the rate he's losing core campaign staff, or the number of times he's made the same false claims after being corrected. He's already had multiple briefings- there's simply no excuse for asking the most basic question about nuclear weapons at this stage of the campaign.

He is no George W. Bush.

I'm not even convinced that he's going to be picking advisers. My guess would be that there is some sort of professional government committee to pick competent advisers for the president.

http://muslimobserver.com/us-veteran-reveals-atomic-bombs-dropped-on-afghanistan-and-iraq/

@Imperator... yeah, that's not how it works

On the topic of how nukes work, here's some insight from someone with more relevant experience: https://twitter.com/noonanjo

(Read the numbered Tweets)

@MGSB: Uh... that's still the kind of source you'd cite Wikipedia over. I've looked hard and can't find anything remotely credible. Sadly, the citations themselves aren't linked and it'd be quite a pain to look them up (even for the core claim, since the link chain is pretty drawn-out here) and determine whether they're real and whether they say what your source says they say. Anything better?

I've read Dick Cheney conspiracy erotica with better citations than this, tbh.

Edited 8/3/2016 16:59:23

@Imperator... yeah, that's not how it works

Unless you can find some source about it, there's no reason to keep speculating. As I said, it seems very unlikely to me that the president is going to be personally picking his advisers.

Except that's literally how the executive branch works. Are you not familiar with this thing we call the Cabinet?

This is straight-up a citizenship test question. It's the baseline of knowledge you need to be an informed voter. Don't tell me you don't know how executive branch appointments work. Even the core advisory committee that would help with further appointments is picked by the president.

I mean, if you want something more insider, check out Condi Rice's biographies: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=21vqpZywXWgC&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gl=US&gclid=CIievb7cpc4CFcWQNwodtNoE_A&gclsrc=ds

Or those of any other Cabinet Secretary. It gives you an idea of how things actually work outside "I bet there's a special secret committee that does X" speculation-land.

Edited 8/3/2016 17:01:56

Yes, they are appointed officially by the president without confirmation of the senate. I'm just saying, I doubt he's the one personally choosing them, even if he does appoint them.

Edited 8/3/2016 17:04:52

This twitter feed seems extremely relevant.

https://twitter.com/noonanjo

Former national security adviser for Jeb and Mitt. Previously sat in a Minuteman Launch Control Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_launch_control_center#Minuteman_facilities) as an officer of USAF at FE Warren AFB.

Oh well, didn't see this above (didn't bother reading the Trump-ian drivel somehow justifying his position/candidacy)

Edited 8/3/2016 17:13:48

There's no governmental mechanisms for him to receive advice. Anything he's told would be ad-hoc, and at that point we're relying on Trump having good judgment. Without the baseline of knowledge he clearly lacks, I seriously doubt that he'd be able to properly process advice.

Look at Manafort, for example. Or Lewandowski. These were/are his biggest advisors, and Trump clearly didn't/doesn't listen to them. They've got no mechanisms to hold him in check.

Manafort's worked for actual dictators before- Mobutu Sese Seko, etc. And yet Trump's the one who finally managed to break his spirit.

@Sharpe: haha beat you to it :P

Edited 8/3/2016 17:08:47

Don't worry, it can get way worse.

Vladimir Zhirinovski, leader of the "Russian Liberal Democratic" party. He said, if he was president, that he would nuke Chechnya the next time there would be restistance there. He also advocates for blasting a warhead in the middle of the Marmara Sea to beget a harbour wave that would kill millions of Istanbuler, after Turkey shot down that Russian skyglider. He's publically threatened to kill his opponents, and he has gotten in fistfights with a few (such as the dead B. Nemtsov). He upholds deporting all Jews from Russia, as well as Chinese, Japanese, and Turkic folk. He's banned from entering Kazakhstan.

But don't worry, his foreign policy is awesome.

>RESTORE THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE BORDERS 1867

He's said "Alaska would be a great site to put Ukrainians in", and that the Baltic countries would be great for throwing away core waste.

He also doesn't want women as politic leaders, saying this of Y. Tymoshenko, old prime minister of Ukraine: "Yulia Tymoshenko, I'm sorry, is a woman. I don't like them...Women are more compliant, and it's dangerous."

During the bird flu scare of 2006, he upheld arming every Russian grownup with a gun and shooting every bird they see.

Just awful bloke. At least Trump is not directly upholding the wielding of core bombs or kicking out all blackskins from America or something.

Edited 8/4/2016 04:36:20

Okay, this thread was originally about why we cant just use nukes, but got derailed by another US-American Politics talk.

I agree that we should drop some nukes over the USA :)

Nagasaki and Hiroshima look so fancy, dont they? :)

Cata, this thread was originally about the use of nukes as a segue to American politics discussion. The only reason it was posed in the first place was due to the report that Trump repeatedly asked that very question. It was not derailed but instead went to the exact destination that the original poster, knyte, desired.

having nukes and not using them is what maintains world peace

I dont know if the discussion is still about the nukes, but i will add some points:

1- The movie "Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb" is a funny and interesting thing about this question - the one that have my image <- ;

2- The game Fallout, and its story about a world after nukes;

3- Noone has any idea what will happen after nuking. It may lead us to other bombs, contamination all over the atmosphere, huge instabilities, wars.. the possibilities are just one worst then the other.

MAD.

The Cold War may be over, but we still realize how dangerous nuclear weapons are. I believe there's something in the UN about not using them, as well as just the fact that the countries that would use nukes would eventually use them on each other.

A threat of violence is as powerful as actual violence, because you can get the enemy to comply without wasting attacks.

Also, the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have made it clear how dangerous nukes are.

We've advanced so far in nuclear weaponry that the destruction a single bomb does would dwarf the two used on Japan.