Yes. You are 100% Right

[Minimalist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nucl...ction=&

These Nuclear Launch Officers Are Scared By The Idea Of A Trump Commander-In-Chief

“Only the president can order a nuclear launch. That order cannot be vetoed and once the missiles have been launched, they cannot be called back,” the letter states. “The consequences of miscalculation, impulsive decision-making or poor judgment on the part of the president could be catastrophic.”

The letter concludes: “Donald Trump should not be the nation’s commander-in-chief. He should not be entrusted with the nuclear launch codes. He should not have his finger on the button.”

[Anomalocaris]

A specie that placed a specimen like Donald trump in the position to irrevocably launch many nuclear warheads does not deserve a fate other than extinction.


What? What did you say?


Why the fuck didn't anyone tell me I am living amongst such a specie??

[Whateverist]

But what if Hillary is like just a really unpleasant person, prone to lying and power-mad like nobody's business. Then wouldn't the American people be justified in putting the nuclear codes in Trumps little tiny hands? Surely the lord will understand if he kills some millions of people? After all, it would be immoral to elect a power hungry woman like her, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?![/sarcasm]

[Cato]

HuffPo???? 

Seriously, there's plenty to dislike (hate) about Trump, but suggesting he's more likely than the neo-con Clinton to deploy first strike nuclear weapons is shear lunacy.

[Cecelia]

Trump goes apeshit over a tweet. Hillary Clinton remained pretty well composed considering the things her husband was accused of while all eyes were on her. It's ridiculous to assert that she'd be more likely to push the button than the narcissist who gets upset anytime someone says something bad about him.

[Minimalist]

The story clearly notes that the letter was first published by the Washington Post. 

Or are they on the shit list, too?

[Gemini]

Seriously, there's plenty to dislike (hate) about Trump, but suggesting he's more likely than the neo-con Clinton to deploy first strike nuclear weapons is shear lunacy.

lolwut?

[Cato]

Are people seriously arguing in this thread that a Trump presidency will more likely result in young Americans dying for politics than a Clinton presidency? As I previously stated, there's no love for Trump here, but the Armeggedon bullshit is misplaced. Clinton will surpass George W. as a hawk. Criticize Trump all you want and as he should be, but please understand that a Clinton presidency will almost certainly result in foreign military intervention.

[abaris]

Criticize Trump all you want and as he should be, but please understand that a Clinton presidency will almost certainly result in foreign military intervention.

In that you may be right. And as a European I'm not looking forward to it.

But this is over the nuclear arsenal and in that the officers have a point. There's this story of a drunken and depressed Nixon contemplating nuclear strikes. Only talked out of it by Kissinger. Trump is as inbalanced if not more, in a more aggressive way. And he doesn't have the advantage of having ruthless but intelligent advisors. His staff only contains Yes Men and idiots.

[Thumpalumpacus]

HuffPo???? 

Seriously, there's plenty to dislike (hate) about Trump, but suggesting he's more likely than the neo-con Clinton to deploy first strike nuclear weapons is shear lunacy.

I disagree. Neocon though she is, she's running rational computations.

Would you rather have Russians with nukes, or mullahs?

That's right -- mental context in the decision-making process is important. Trump has yet to demonstrate the rationality required to make any such weighty decision.