Posted on 08/03/2016 7:57:25 AM PDT by DCBryan1
Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.
"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
Scarborough made the Trump comments 52 seconds into an interview with former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden.
Scarborough then asked a hypothetical question to Hayden about how quickly nuclear weapons could be deployed if a president were to give approval.
"It's scenario dependent, but the system is designed for speed and decisiveness. It's not designed to debate the decision," Hayden said.
Hayden was CIA director from 2006 to 2009 during the George W. Bush presidency. He was the National Security Agency director from 1999 to 2005, spanning the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
CNBC reached out to the Trump campaign via email and was awaiting a response.
Most college students think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as radioactive wastelands. Amarillo, TX has a higher radiation count than modern day Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Air burst nuclear weapons are relatively "clean" today vs. the crude nukes used in WWII. I say use them. We should have used them on Tora Bora, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Raqqah.
Hiroshima at night
As if it were that easy for something that is based on (evil) spiritual principles, not on reason. Mad Mo managed to whip together most of his force before Mecca had been invested with a religious significance, if I read the story right.
Just as a scientific wild-ass guess: The answer, to world Islam, would likely look like an angry suicidal jihading of the West intended to induce their Allah to rebuild what had been destroyed.
Easy answers won’t work here.
Nagasaki today.
Waiter! More popcorn please.....
I thought that our threat of using tactical nukes was the reason that the Russian tanks haven’t stormed through western Europe for the past 70 years.
Why do you suppose there is any validity to any of this? Falling for the media narrative I see.
That’s exactly what the media wants us to envision, that another Hiroshima will happen somewhere due to Trump having a hair trigger response to some world crisis.
Let ISIS imagine what we might do. Don’t tip our hand.
I’ve heard many say that there was significance to the hostages in Iran being released on Jan. 20, 1981, just as Reagan was being inaugurated as president. The significance was that the Iranians were afraid of what Reagan might do.
I remember Reagan was caricatured as wanting to start World War III and all that. Maybe the Iranians were truly afraid of him.
I also remember Reagan saying sometimes that the hostages in Iran were prisoners of war, and that he considered the Iranian captors to be barbarians.
If we can keep the enemy off balance, that is a good thing. Don’t stress so much about nukes, but also, don’t let the enemy know what we might do, and don’t take things off the table entirely.
anonymous source.....
Nukes are like any other defensive weapon: I don’t want to kill you but if you attack me I will.
What this latest set-up is all about is an attempt to portray Trump as ignorant of the power of nuclear weapons and that he would be a negligent “cowboy” in the use of said weapons.
The Left has used this tactic against tough and/or conservative Republican candidates for over 50 years.
I’ll quote Blue Turtle: “Reasonable question to us...but trying to continue the narrative of ‘unfit’”
What’s next.
A “Girl picking daisies” ad?
Interesting. Appears someone who was advising Trump (which I assume is supposed to be confidential like other candidate/advisor communications), selectively breached that confidence in order to stab Trump in the back?
Scarborough needs to out this source.
Remember when W’s debate prep package was leaked to the Democrats?
It’s a reasonable question from a man who wants to be our President. I would expect him to ask that question. He is a man who builds things and wants results. A nuclear weapon is a tool.
Only an idiot Democrat would sit in the closet sucking her thumb and snuggling her blankie while she hyperventilated about a subject she knows nothing about.
If we say we won’t use them then the whole point of nuclear deterrence is lost.
Every president since WWII has said....everything is on the table....
But it’s probably going to have the actual effect of defusing worries about Donald by letting him put his responses in context. He’s already said he was no fan of attacking Iraq as an answer to 9/11, and the uncomfortable geopolitical reality seems to be that the Saudis, if anyone, had a more culpable finger than Iraq in the particular terrorist effort that brought about 9/11.
In addition, we could say that Iraq needed a democracy about as much as a fish needed a bicycle. The culture is wrong for it. Installing a stern but fair kingdom would have been both easier and made more sense.
Nukes, even tactical nukes, are a heck of a lot, lot, lot bigger in blast effects than a simple fa device.
‘Bout time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.