The man manages to complete a perfect circle of logic within 140 characters

The man manages to complete a perfect circle of logic within 140 characters.

Can anyone defend his position?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
globalresearch.ca/how-america-double-crossed-russia-and-shamed-the-west/5475209
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If you can't understand what he's saying here, then you might just be the real retard in all this.

Spell it out for me.

The US needs more nukes, how is that sensible? Any sensible person is for nuclear disarmament

Yes. Fuck off.

This.

This was not inflammatory. I hated when people lost their shit at this, he's literally calling for disarmament.

>Until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes
>COMES TO ITS SENSES

Of course anyone sensible hates them and advocates disarmament. Of course. However, the cat's out of the bag, so we need to deal with it. This has been done for the better part of a century through the principle of "Deterrence."

Considering you're clearly a clueless prole, I'll explain it for you. Deterrence is the general principle of having more or equivalent arms as your enemy, therefore neither tries to attack, though this often leads to an arms race. In the context of nuclear weapons, this led to the assumption of Mutually Assured Destruction, wherein if both forces have equivalent nuclear arms, upon attack, both would basically be assured their death. Therefore, nobody attacks, because the attack is not worth it. Very simple stuff.

Trump, being President, has control over our nuclear weapons and good information about it all. While nuclear disarmament is clearly preferable, as he clearly alludes to, we need to keep up with other nuclear capable weapons, especially as one of the last superpowers and a dominant force in the world, lest the principles of MAD and Deterrence fall through and open up the world to the horrors of open nuclear war.

This, at the time, was also probably spurred on by announcements of nuclear advancement by Russia and China at that time. Russia introduced a sub-fired, near undetectable weapon that would serve as a dirty bomb and render large areas uninhabitable while being cheap and under the radar. China made the claim they had a missile to actively track and even accurately strike a aircraft carrier with a nuclear weapon, which is really fucking bad. We need to keep up with their advancements, simple as that.

tl;dr: A basic understanding of Deterrence and strategy explains it, OP is a fag.

You can't render your views explicit because you know Trump is W R O N G

Rural and suburban retards shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Do you not understand the logic of peace through strength? It is literally the oldest form of foreign policy their is. Nukes being extrememly dangerous and devastating does not change the fact that they are what makes America extra scary.

> Any sensible person is for nuclear disarmament
That's where you're wrong, kiddo. If we got rid of nukes, WW3 would happen within a month. Nukes are the reason why we haven't had WW3 and possibly 4 by now.
>b-bu-but cuban missile crises
Nothing happened, everything worked out okay. You're worried about nothing.

They are a necessary evil. So long as nukes are being built by other countries we'd prefer to have the most capable nukes possible, and in the greatest quality.

I wonder how many white, Asian, and Indian males age 21-22 work for NASA

Oh thank you for explaining for me what deterrence is you stupid faggot. I like how you capitalised it too. Big "D" deterrence, like it's a common axiom in political science.

Let me explain it for you: The US "greatly strengthen(ing) and expand(ing) its nuclear capability" is not coming to is senses, it's not disarmament, it's the opposite. Whether you justify that using the pretext of deterrence or whatever it doesn't matter. Also if you look at the nuclear arsenal of the US compared to any other country you'd see how stupid it is pretending the rest of the world needing to come to it's senses over the US.

Remember when your country used to lead the world? Remember when you guys lead the progress? Now you have a president who wants to do the opposite and morons like you defending him.

Did you actually read the fucking post, or did you just read "Deterrence" and lose your shit?

Quality over quantity. Most of our nuclear arsenal is from the 60's and 70's and is under constant replacement and maintenance so it doesn't just go off in the silo. Meanwhile, Russia and China are actively reviving old Cold War apocalypse programs and using new technologies to improve their weapons, while we stagnate. If they get over us, the threat goes away because they can beat us on first strike, or at least take acceptable losses. We need to keep up or else we'll be leading ashes.

There's also the fact that yes, we do disarm occasionally, just not while other nations create new systems. That's what START II and the like is. We could immediately disarm all our nukes and be the Jesus Christ of the world, which would only matter until we announced that and promptly got blown the fuck out. There's no point in disarming if nobody else does at the same time, because the world isn't nice and they wouldn't "follow our lead" or whatever.

In a Mexican standoff, if you drop your gun, the other guy doesn't drop his; he just shoots you. This is basic fucking logic, idiot.

How could you possible know that?

The US already does by far though.

If Trump is for disarmament why is he advocating strengthening expanding the arsenal when the US is already the worst offender.

c i r c u l a r l o g i c

urban retards are just a different kind of retard, retard.

responses to this post show how dumb pol is.

ur kinda dumb

>Can anyone defend his position?

If it were 1955 I could, but in 2017 nuclear rearmament shouldn't even cross someone's mind because disarmament and containment of WMDs has been the standard since the 1970's. Trump might actually intend to start Armageddon.


May the apocalypse be kind to us all brothers

>"peace through strength" isn't understood by non-Americans
>America is the greatest superpower to have ever existed
Choose both and kys.

Evoking a Mexican stand off is wrong. What would happen if Russia backed a insurgency in Canada changing it's government to pro-Russian anti-American then started moving troops and weapons to the Canadian-US boarder? What would be an appropriate response from America?

America is provoking countries like China and Russia on the boarders of their soil not the other way around.

America has around 7000 warheads, China has less than 300.

Nukes have got to be the most retarded thing ever conceived. I get they have prevented large scale wars, but it's like "Oh shit that guy is building things that will kill all life as we know it we better build things that will kill all life as well so if they use them on us we can use ours on them. We'll be dead anyway but ayyyyyyy"

Evoking a clear war-starting scenario is pointless here when we're literally in a global Mexican standoff, in regards to nukes, until something like that happens. This is just how it works, it's peace through strength. Doesn't matter.

Also, love how you go for China when the other listed nation just about matches or exceeds ours, at various points in time.

>nuclear zero
enjoy your world war iii

But by the same token, nuclear proliferation and especially open and loud proliferation is reckless.

whats so hard to understand?

peace through strength

A World War is a hell of a drug, apparently. Especially since they realized that at the time. "I am become Death" and all that. But we're in it, so here we are.

"A clear war starting scenario"

That's pretty much what Europe and America did in Ukraine through Euromaidan which is why I made the analogy. The fact you didn't understand that speaks volumes.

Find me one ir theorist who believes in peace through strength.

>Any sensible person is for nuclear disarmament

just if you don't know and are curious, this is called the security dilemma
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

oh good it's you again

you understand iran and north korea are real places with real allies who are developing real nuclear capabilities?

>Ukraine

While I support the actions, you're just going to ignore the whole "Russian Crimea" bit of that too, huh?

It's realism.

If we can't stop China, Pakistan, and North Korea from having nukes, we better have the best fucking nukes in the solar system, the best nuke defense, the best MIRV decoys, everything.

If the game can't be stopped, you have to be prepared to win.

>I get they have prevented large scale wars

They really didn't. The Cold War caused a million different proxy wars in Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, and the middle East. The only war prevented has been the so-called "war to end all wars" aka US vs Russia, but that's a pot nobody wants to piss in.

Nukes are a tool of peace.
Every country should have nukes to stop war forever.

Politics is not about logics.
A good politicial is pragmatic.

And by the way:
Nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace.

I'm not going to try defend the Russians annexation, my analogy still stands regardless.

globalresearch.ca/how-america-double-crossed-russia-and-shamed-the-west/5475209

Not an answer to my question

Yes I understand the factual situation. How should we respond to it? Do you realise that throughout the entire election I was backing american military hegemony 100% and you were all decrying it and saying fuck nato and fuck overseas military bases and america first and let's stay out of other people's backyards? And now trump's in office and all of a sudden he cares about being world police because he's woken up to himself and realised other people's backyards can pose threats to national security. So NOW you all want to have every other state kowtow to america and respect its authority.

Way to come to your senses about nukes m8.

Guarantor might be a stretch.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls

it's really easy to argue when you decide who you're arguing against. lol. you're deluded. i can't believe you don't get tired of people telling you that like everyone but you is wrong all the time.

Why not, we need enough to extinct the russians and not leave even 20 people to repopulate the place

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

O'Brien from 1984

Trump never wanted to disband NATO, he wanted the countries that had American troops and bases to pay for that protection. Which is a pretty reasonable thing. Why should the US pay the most?

He is a good president for the United States, not the rest of the world. People are just used to the U.S acting as a world police.

Precisely.

Okay, let's try this. Let's say that we had START III, and IV and V, but way earlier and Russia, America, and all other nations had completely disarmed by 2010. Now imagine we're where we're at now, and like the other guy said, North Korea is trying, China is trying again, Pakistan's there, and Iran is totally just making rockets to just only send satellites up, totally. And for fun, let's say someone lied and kept most of their nukes.

What then? Now we're open for attack, and except in a couple scenarios, an attempt to strike and stop them would lead to a nuclear attack, which is immediately worse because they have free reign and no fear of nuclear retaliation.

I'll just stop there, but really, man, it's a complex issue that's been a problem for the better part of a century. There's a reason we're balanced between disarming and rearming, why things like START III failed, and why its an issue in the first place. Stamping your feet and asking why America isn't going for immediate total disarmament just looks like you don't understand what you're talking about.

There's a price America has to pay to maintain it's global hegemony

When you frame it like this it sounds like the US is compensating for the lack of defence spending in certain nato countries, when in reality it just happens to be the case that america is a military hegemone who spends a fuckload on defence because of all their overseas military interests. Germany doesn't need an enormous defence budget, in fact, Germany and a number of other european powers militarizing would probably be seen as threatening by other states (see: ). The more sensible approach to nato would be to reduce the required defence spending targets rather than force other countries to start spending more on their capabilities
Answer my question, what ir theorists are pro-"security through peace"?

>If the game can't be stopped, you have to be prepared to win


You're right in a sense, but there really is no winning this game. Total nuclear disarmement is obviously a fairy tale, but openly announcing that you intend escalate the situation isn't the better option.

Peace talks like SALT I and II in the 70's are really the best options but Trump is too hotheaded for rational negotiations.

I'm disappointed in myself for taking the bait:

Trump does not want the United States to be the first one to lower their gun in a Mexican stand-off.

He wants to let the other nations lower their guns or decide to keep them raised--so that if something does happen--the U.S. won't be left defenseless.

Now tell me you don't understand that or disagree with the defensive sentiment in any way at all.

>Answer my question, what ir theorists are pro-"security through peace"?
i have no idea and it doesn't matter. you don't get to make up the necessary criteria for winning an argument.

Mutually Assured Destruction you tards, if a fucker has gun you're not going to assault him without one. If a fucker has a nuke, you're not going to assault him even with one because of what the end result may and probably will be.

conan obrien is a patriot

Peace Through Strength is the better version of it, Deterrence has always been Defensive Logistics 101, hence the progression of military technologies.

You'll kneel before us or the Chinese, I'd suspect you'd rather keep speaking english then have to learn Mandarin.

Yes. It's the same position used by all U.S. leaders from Eisenhower onwards.

The belief that the U.S. must maintain a Total Fucking Destruction Monopoly until other countries Bend The Knee...I mean "Come To Their Senses".

Kennedy did it. Ironically Nixon backed off on it a little, and then Reagan came in and double down.

Why? The US not only bailed out Europe of its second war, it also lent money for Europe to rebuild itself through the Marshall Plan.
American troops and presence through NATO ensured war did not flare up again.

It was the NATO countries that wanted american presences in the first place. NATO is not an american constellation, why should the US be the ones to shell out the most. NATO or an alliance like it is needed more than ever in these days.

When was I "stamping my feet and asking why America isn't going for immediate total disarmament"?

I'm just laughing at how circular Trumps logic managing to accuse 'the world" of not being sensible about nukes while in the very same tweet calling for strengthening and expanding America's nukes. That's all.

Yeah, and one of the benefits of paying it should be those who we protect bending the fucking knee and pulling their weight instead of funding refugees, socialist states, and fart rape awareness programs because they aren't funding their treaty-defined portion of defense, while they constantly call us barbarians and idiots for spending too much on defense and not bending over for the rest of the world because we pick up the slack.

Much like Trump not wanting to leave NATO while being critical, people aren't pissed we're in NATO, people are pissed we're the assumed shield to get drug into a conflict if Turkey pokes Russia hard enough, or whatever other trouble Europe manages to get itself into, while they don't pay their clearly-defined, agreed upon dues.

That's the other thing, I feel like because nato is primarily in the european theatre, it can sound like the us is just contributing to it out of altruism rather than because it actually gets anything out of it. That ups the unfairness subtext to all "fair share" to 11, when in reality, having a european security community is critical to US interests.
lol
But realists don't present a prescriptive theory, just a descriptive one. They say it's a reality that states are power maximizers, not that states ought to be power maximizers, and actually that under international anarchy it's this sort of state behaviour that makes conflict an inevitability.

The idea, and it's one that has been held by the U.S. since the invention of the Nuke, is that the U.S. MUST have dominance, because everyone else is dangerous/unhinged/potentially threatening and therefore the U.S. must be able to police them.

It's literally the same idea as to why the police force should have weapons but citizens should not.

It's literally part of the reason the U.S. is mockingly referred to as the "World Policeman".

I'm not even criticizing it. U.S. global hegemony has meant we've gone 70 odd years without any major nation state conflicts.

>i've never heard of deterrence theory
>i do not understand concepts and theories of international security even in the slightest

But what the fuck do we care about Europe? We're essentially immune to any hypothetical invasions thanks to total hegemony over the oceans, If Europe fears a resurgent Russia, why are they not helping out footing the bill to defend themselves?

America has proven to be responsible with them. Other nations have an average iq of 80. Iran being one of them.

really it would be nice if nuclear disarmament was achievable but clearly it isn't happening

Disarmament of other countries *
Because the US isn't going to use nukes (its on the other side of the world) unless its threatened by other countries.

Erm, we're supposed to knock off the nukes because we're upsetting others, and they might smite us... fucking dumb assess...

Also, OP you're a tard, the fact that you're concern trolling just allievates me to make a better point against anyone who legitimately thinks this way.

>WW3 gonna start becuz more nukes.

If you understood that we seem to be the worlds fucking police force by now it would be evident that trying to police Russia without muscle would lead us to getting ignored and humiliated on the world stage. You have no fucking clue that globalism is a false ideology and an insurmountable unachieveable death wish that leads to the complete annihilation of the human race simply because of cultural differences and advanced change within a short period of time. Its the whole reason why we have a fucking weird as hell political situation in the states. The left is so out of their fucking mind that they demonize a openly supportive gay president who's not even a real republican by republican standards and constantly bashes the fuck out of an ideology that would oppress gays. That's libertarian as fuck and I find it sad that you have to constantly fucking post this meme garbage every 5 hours.

Sorry let me get this straight, you think America having over 800 nuclear and military bases in other countries is beneficial for those countries because it prevents them from getting into wars?

He can't "know" that, but it's the position taken by the greatest minds ON the subject. So it's the one that people parrot.

The belief, as shared by just about everyone who matters across the globe, since WW2, is that Nukes and the threat of their deployment, has prevented the major powers from moving from proxy and cold wars to all out conflict.

It's what stopped WW3 in 1962, at any rate.

Many within the U.S. military agitated for it, operating under the belief that the Soviets wouldn't ACTUALLY respond nuclear weapons, while the political class decided that the chance that they would respond was too great to take and that diplomacy was the route.

Nuclear weapons are good. Keep them, downsize your army, expand and modernize the navy, close down overseas bases and focus on nationbuilding at home

Off-Shore Balancing / Strategy of Restraint at its finest. Posen, Mearsheimer and Walt actually know whats up

MAD. Basic game theory.

Then again, we're talking about theories created by a guy with paranoid schizophrenia. So he might have had some trust issues.

As dank as the "evil USA" memes are, there are other world leaders who could feasibly be substantially more reckless with their nuclear programs than us. Mutually Assured Destruction only works if we have a functional nuclear program.

It's looking as if the Iranian nuclear program could finally mature out of its embryonic stages. If that's the case, the United States needs to have the best equipped nuclear program it can afford.

Either that, or liberals need to find a portal to their alternate reality where humans can just get along.

The Iranian and Russian governments are not sensible. They need to be kept in line.

ahhh ya

youtube.com/watch?v=zMGZtkMS3sQ

You do grasp your own country is only still speaking English because of American presence, yes?

If you carry a big enough stick nobody will even dare to pick up another stick, incase you beat the shit out of them for provoking you.

Yes. The US needs to expand and update their nuclear capabilities since they never used its nuclear stockpiles. We could have Fallout like world should the nukes launch. The problem is most of Sup Forums here will be dead or become feral ghouls. Also, no vault to save most of the people.

What is it about that scenario you don't understand?

If only some countries have nukes or troops or weapons, and other countries do not. The countries that do have arsenal can band together and launch their attack - without the fear of any retaliation.

If Iran decided they want to attack someone with nukes today. Within minutes it would be wiped of the face of the earth by the attacked countries allies.

Only if you imagine leaders as cartoon villains that wants to annihilate their enemies by also going down themselves would you believe nukes are evil.
No leader would risk their entire existence just to take down a nation when they know that is their doom as well.

>country one has nukes
>country two has not
>country one nukes country two
>country two can't respond
>country two loses

>country one has nukes
>country two has nukes
>either can not win
>no war

Trump's demands to "break up NATO" were blatant gambits to try and get those under his rule to pony up more cash and to adhere to U.S. hegemony. He would speak at once about making nations like Japan stand on their own, while immediately promising a trillion dollars to help finance fleet expansion in the South China Seas.

It's like a boss walking around threatening to fire everyone (unless they agree to a pay cut and longer hours).

>Oh man, I'm going to have to shut down this business and you'll have to get a new job, unless I can save some money...maybe you can help by working more for less...man, I'd hate to shut this business down.

Also;

>Mattis

He pushed hard to put Mattis in charge, and Mattis is pretty much the definition of protecting U.S. and (Israeli) global hegemony.

t. the only country to have ever nuked another

>One country has to fucking baby the rest of the world because it's younger generations can't read history books and come to the conclusion that communism and socialism just don't fucking work.

>pulling their weight
Literally what does this mean. The US spending well over what nato requires has little to do with nato and everything to do with the perpetual state of war (in addition to "war") your country is in with smaller states. What does Germany need to pull its weight to do? Build a shitload of missiles and tanks and guns and armoured vehicles and camo gear? What for? Is there a world war iii coming? What's russia going to do when Italy doubles its military spending to over 50 billion USD, which is what they'd need to do to meet their nato target? That seems pretty threatening, no?
It's the old nato is obsolete line. It's like saying "I've locked my car every day of my life and it's never been stolen once, what do I car about locking my car?" Europe, before 1945, went to war with each over every other decade as a matter of course. Germany and France and England and Italy and fucking Spain and every other nation therein are historical enemies. If they're not cooperating on security through nato, and if their economies aren't tethered to one another through the EU, and if they don't have a common lifetime ally with the US, who knows where we'll be in 50 years from now?

If Europe goes to war with itself, the US's basic interests - economic, security, diplomatic - are forfeit.

Daily reminder that no matter where you live, there's one earmarked for you. Australia, nz, doesn't matter where. When daddy Trump decides to fuck you you will get fucked.

I agree with nearly all of this but no major nation state conflicts for 70 odd years? What do you call the cold war, or the two Iraq wars, or Vietnam or all the other countries the US has invaded since WWII?

What's the only country to ever use nukes?

Does Russia have the right to nuke the US or Europe if it's been threatened?

Agreed. Russia isnt nuking itself anytime soon. He needs to set up the arsenal for a candidate who does it in the future.

>Why should your King pay to rule over you

I mean, I get Trump's point, but it's galling - It's not like there are OPTIONS here.

NATO is a U.S. puppet. Japan and Germany are under the thumb of the U.S.

These countries don't have the military might they could have because the U.S. doesn't WANT them to have it.

It's pretty Jewy tbqh.

>You should pay for my new guns

>Fuck off, I'll buy my own.

>Soz, you're not allowed. Now give me my cash.

...

>I WAS BORN IN A SMALL VILLAGE

>Does Russia have the right to nuke the US or Europe if it's been threatened?
no they should probably ask before they do that i think we'd rather be prepared

until it is possible for one to destroy any incomming missiles

>Obama was provoking countries like China and Russia on the boarders of their soil to try to cause trouble before he left office

Also, clearly, the only response is to bring some good ol' fashioned Democracy to Canada... Day of the RAKE anyone?

Fucking small potatoes compared to what WWIII would be.

This is actually unreadable, are you dyslexic?

I think most of your point are already being argued though, maybe read the post before you begin your autistic screeching

"O Bomb I love you
I want to kiss your clank eat your boom
You are a paean an acme of scream
a lyric hat of Mister Thunder
O resound thy tanky knees
BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM
BOOM ye skies and BOOM ye suns
BOOM BOOM ye moons ye stars BOOM
nights ye BOOM ye days ye BOOM
BOOM BOOM ye winds ye clouds ye rains
go BANG ye lakes ye oceans BING
Barracuda BOOM and cougar BOOM
Ubangi BOOM orangutang
BING BANG BONG BOOM bee bear baboon"

>but no major nation state conflicts for 70 odd years? What do you call the cold war, or the two Iraq wars, or Vietnam or all the other countries the US has invaded since WWII?

Literally examples demonstrating what I just said;

>No major nation state conflicts

Vietnam for example (and Afghanistan for the Soviets) are the perfect example. That was a war, at it's base, between the U.S. and the Soviets. But neither side in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario can be seen to be openly going to war with each other. So they choose Proxy backgrounds. The U.S. goes to war with the North Vietnamese. Who everyone and their mother knows are being supplied and supported by the Soviets, but never officially on paper. Same with China Vs. The U.S. in Korea.

Hundreds of thousands of dead Chinese soldiers on the ground - Marked as "vigilantes" or "volunteers" who were never officially acknowledged by the Chinese.

The Cold War, again, is CALLED the Cold War because it avoided the major conflict that was brewing. In part thanks to nukes.

>Two Iraq Wars

...Literally not a major conflict between major nation states? Iraq was a tin pot dictatorship. A third world backwater.

It was a "police action", just like Korea.

The world hasn't seen a hot conflict between major powers since WW2.

You are just jealous that Australia doesn't have nuclear capabilities that can compete with the big boys.

wtf
im with her now

>you guys can't have nukes but we can

>That first paragraph

I don't understand why you're so confused about it. Upon formation of NATO, everyone set the required amount of spending per-GDP, or whatever the exact metric was, to keep it running and functional. Most of Europe is under their particular target. The US, theoretically, overspends to maintain hegemony and to be able to pick up the weak, underfunded slack of Europe's forces should Article 5 be invoked, because it clearly can't stand on its own while it's not meeting its target.

>What's Russia going to do
What's Europe doing now while Russia acts more aggressively and moves closer and closer to their borders? Apparently, under-fund, dismantle, and criticize their militaries and just assume the US will save them, such as their constant calls to put US troops in Europe like they've been doing ,as of late.

New Zeland quit your shitposting. You've been BTFO by like 6 different countries right now.