CNN: What it actually takes to launch a nuclear strike
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump warned North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Tuesday that he has a nuclear "button" on his desk at all times and boasted that the US has "much bigger & more powerful" nuclear weapons -- a stunning threat that has once again raised questions over what it takes to actually launch a nuclear warhead.
"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" Trump tweeted.
The image of the President with his finger on a "button" that is capable of initiating a nuclear strike has been used to symbolize the speed at which the process of such an order can be carried out for decades.
Read more ....
Update: There is NO 'nuclear button' on Trump's desk: Here's what would actually happen if the president decides to launch a nuclear attack (Daily Mail)
WNU Editor: If there is one man-made event that will forever change the world .... it will be that one hour window when some leaders of the world decide to start a nuclear war.
3 comments:
"How can you trust him with the nuclear codes?" Why shouldn't we. We trusted Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and numerous others before him who held the office of POTUS.
How is this POTUS different? He has given us no reason not to trust him in this area. He has given us no reason to break with the standard protocol of trusting a duly elected or Constitutionally appointed POTUS. As this POTUS meets the legal and Constitutional requirements to hold office and there is nothing he has done to indicate he should not be trusted with this, there would be no reason not to trust him.
Perhaps we want to change the standard protocols. If so, this would mean we should not have trusted Obama or the other previous men who held this office with this. In which case it would have been accurate to say we shouldn't have trusted Obama with this. Perhaps we've been on the wrong course all along.
Since we have avoided nuclear war for many decades, it would seem the course we have been on is the right one. As such, much evidence would need to be presented that we need to change this. Such evidence has not been presented.
As for Obama, to the best I can tell he has not denounced the nonsense of Russian interference in our election or the nonsense of team Trump and Russian collusion. As I stated when HRC first started with the nonsense of such things during the campaign they are either from the mind of an immature childlike person or a lunatic. Either way such a person should not be trusted with power. If Obama has not distanced himself from such nonsense, he would appear to be even less trustworthy than DJT.
Perhaps POTUS should not have this responsibility period. This may be a fair debate. With that said the main threats to America are as follows: 1.) an all out nuclear attack from Russia, 2.)an Islamic terrorist attack involving the use suitcase nuclear weapons and other types of dirty bombs detonated in multiple metropolitan areas simultaneously, and 3.)an invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, Russia and China, or Russia, China, and some combination of their allies. Any of these scenarios will likely require a rapid nuclear response. As such, it seems entirely appropriate for a POTUS to have the nuclear "codes." Not doing so would make the necessary rapid response that today's world would likely require problematic at best.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary which has not been presented, it seems entirely prudent to maintain the current policy. While the lunacy of the Russian collusion madness and the temper tantrum BHO threw after the election by seizing the property of Russian diplomats without proper compensation in the face of reckless allegations, would tend to suggest that BHO perhaps could not be trusted with such a responsibility, to the best of my knowledge no one ever took the extraordinary step of saying he should not be trusted with this responsibility.
Since the policy has worked for decades, only extraordinary circumstances would justify a change. "Extraordinary circumstances" do NOT constitute the unhappiness of the elites at the outcome of an election. I think a case could be made that by stating they do not trust POTUS they do not trust the people who elected him. If so in a Constitutional Republic such ours where the voters have some say in choosing who represents them, this would likely much such people unfit to lead. After all the leaders need to trust the people they are leading. If they cannot or will not do so, they are unfit to lead them.
Of course there is no "nuclear button." Everyone over the age of say 10 will definitely know this and most over the age of 5 will know this. This is obviously a metaphor and would have been understood as such by most readers or hearers.
By assuming the reader or hearer would not understand this and that it would need to be clarified the authors indicate that they do not hold the intelligence of the American in much regard. DJT, for all of his faults, does at least address the American people as though they are adults.
You are blind, and Trump is a dangerous, impulsive, vengeful man who has no regard for the state of the world. We have never hadso stupid a man with so much destructive power.
Post a Comment