(January 9, 2021 at 5:37 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Sorry, Brian, but a lot of us knew this. My nightmares for four years now.

Read his response again with your sarcasm detector switched on.

Quote:And NOBODY addressed the subject..

Just made assumptions and hurled insults at the OP....

That's your fault.

Quote:I am not against WHAT she said...


But saying it publicly? Pure irresponsible stupidity.

You bitched about the bonehead stuff Trump said the last 4 years - and for the.most part - rightly so..... You were INFURIATED by people who stood up for the dipshit things he did and said...

Saying it publicly was neither stupid nor irresponsible.It's what should be said openly.

Quote:Now you want your turn.......

Except she didn't say anything stupid nor was stupid to say it publicly

Quote:Defend the morons...

Pelosi has said plenty of stupid things. This isn't one of them.

Quote:It's the new politics...

Only in your delusional cynic mind

I'm not sure if actually using nukes is Trump's style, that much I concede.

That said, the fact that it is within his power to nuke the world on a whim is a valid concern. Fun Fact: Around the time of Watergate, Major Harold Hering of the United States Air Force wound up getting a question stuck in his head: "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?" The answer he wound up getting is that, in practice, the question is irrelevant. To this day, the fail-safe procedures to facilitate a nuclear strike only concern themselves with whether or not that order actually came from the President, and whether or not said President was of sound mind or was merely tilting at windmills does not factor into it. If this disturbs you, it's only a sign that you are still sane.

This realisation was disturbing when I discovered it during the Obama administration, and Obama, whatever you may think of him, was still pretty even-headed. And Trump's actions are severely unhinged enough (from downplaying the severity of this present pandemic to the fact that he heavily implied that the people at his rally should disrupt the election count at the Capitol that day) that even members of the Cabinet are planning on invoking Article 25 to oust him. Because even if Trump's out of his mind, he still has that power as long as he's in the Oval Office.

(January 9, 2021 at 6:30 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I'm not sure if actually using nukes is Trump's style, that much I concede.

That said, the fact that it is within his power to nuke the world on a whim is a valid concern. Fun Fact: Around the time of Watergate, Major Harold Hering of the United States Air Force wound up getting a question stuck in his head: "How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?" The answer he wound up getting is that, in practice, the question is irrelevant. To this day, the fail-safe procedures to facilitate a nuclear strike only concern themselves with whether or not that order actually came from the President, and whether or not said President was of sound mind or was merely tilting at windmills does not factor into it. If this disturbs you, it's only a sign that you are still sane.

This realisation was disturbing when I discovered it during the Obama administration, and Obama, whatever you may think of him, was still pretty even-headed. And Trump's actions are severely unhinged enough (from downplaying the severity of this present pandemic to the fact that he heavily implied that the people at his rally should disrupt the election count at the Capitol that day) that even members of the Cabinet are planning on invoking Article 25 to oust him. Because even if Trump's out of his mind, he still has that power as long as he's in the Oval Office.

Something to consider, when Trump first assumed office he asked several cabinet members and generals about using nukes, saying "what good are they if you don't use them?"  I assume they tried to explain it to him and eventually ran out of the room screaming.

I doubt any real consideration of the President's state of mind has ever been included in the question of a nuclear strike, or perhaps it's sort of baked in if you realize that such a strike means the end of global civilization as we know it for centuries if not forever.  What sane person would ever call for a strike except to insure mutual destruction?

(January 9, 2021 at 5:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(January 9, 2021 at 5:37 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Sorry, Brian, but a lot of us knew this. My nightmares for four years now.

Read his response again with your sarcasm detector switched on.

I'll stick with the morphine.

(January 9, 2021 at 7:09 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(January 9, 2021 at 5:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Read his response again with your sarcasm detector switched on.

I'll stick with the morphine.

Do you rescue morphine addicts from hurricanes?

(January 9, 2021 at 4:58 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: But saying it publicly? Pure irresponsible stupidity.

The US is committing acts of war, or threatening acts of war, against several countries at the moment.

Those countries have reason to worry that they are under increased threat. It is reasonable and diplomatic to assure everyone that the nuke codes are safe. 

Of course everyone knows that the chances are slim. But a nuclear strike is a very bad thing, and it doesn't hurt to utter the words of assurance.

(January 9, 2021 at 9:52 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(January 9, 2021 at 4:58 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: But saying it publicly? Pure irresponsible stupidity.

The US is committing acts of war, or threatening acts of war, against several countries at the moment.

Those countries have reason to worry that they are under increased threat. It is reasonable and diplomatic to assure everyone that the nuke codes are safe. 

Of course everyone knows that the chances are slim. But a nuclear strike is a very bad thing, and it doesn't hurt to utter the words of assurance.

Leaving the war threats/commission rhetoric aside, I will agree that a nuclear strike is a bad thing(TM). Nobody on this site (except for some lunatic or other) has ever advocated the chump using nukes; in fact, quite the reverse is the case.  As an aside, I'd like to ask why you say, "We in the US", when you are living in a foreign country? You sure as hell don't represent the US' current policies (note that I disagree with a fair amount of them, TBH.) Now, no weaseling about this, just because I mentioned the "We in the US" in a different thread.

(January 9, 2021 at 11:28 pm)Fireball Wrote: Leaving the war threats/commission rhetoric aside, I will agree that a nuclear strike is a bad thing(TM). Nobody on this site (except for some lunatic or other) has ever advocated the chump using nukes; in fact, quite the reverse is the case.  

Yes, I think that's clear. The OP isn't about actually using nukes, but about giving the assurance that they are under control. I think it's OK to speak those words, while the OP seemed to think it wasn't.

Quote:As an aside, I'd like to ask why you say, "We in the US", when you are living in a foreign country? You sure as hell don't represent the US' current policies (note that I disagree with a fair amount of them, TBH.) Now, no weaseling about this, just because I mentioned the "We in the US" in a different thread.

I don't think I said "we in the US." Did I?

I think I said "The US is committing acts of war, or threatening acts of war, against several countries at the moment."

It's true that I don't represent any US policies. I have zero political power, and don't at all speak for the country of my birth.

Yeah, it took Democrats only to wait for Trump until he organized insurrection against the USA to say that he shouldn't be trusted with nuclear codes, while conservatives were yelling in public that Obama shouldn't be trusted with having nuclear codes when he used a selfie stick