Loads more money to be spent on nukes, loads of money to be spent on a wall and apparently someone is going to need to be paid to invent a Muslim detector device too. Hope the Trump supporters are going to be happy with their massive tax increases.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...pons-arms-race

Well he's made it even less clear, and stupid.

Trump would not allow an arms race, because he would stop other countries from increasing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

But he has no means of stopping anyone else - only three of the other 8 nuclear powers size their nuclear forces on a requirement to target America, They look at each other and future threats like Iran. And the 3 will continue to build to whatever they think is a big enough deterrent to deter America . 2 of the 3 also target Us cities, so the size of, and survivability of, the US nuclear force has no impact on their needs.

“‘Let it be an arms race’,” Brzezinski said. “‘We will outmatch them at every pass.’”



But the US has nothing ready to build , it can't suddenly start up, dead and gone, production lines that closed in the 60s or eighties,

New submarines would take a decade - even if you could use the old submarine design. The first of the new replacement subs can't arrive till 2031,

The new bomber is a bit more advanced, and doesn't take as long to build, so that may be available in a nuclear role by 2027 - when Trump is over 80 and long gone as President. The full force , let alone an expanded one, won't be around till a decade later.

The replacement for the ancient Minuteman ICBM comes in also in 2027-2034.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/stra...an-replacement

Bottom line - the US has no ability to deploy its new nuclear weapons under Trump. All it can do is put some more reserve warheads on existing missiles , and put some spare missiles in silos.

But thats dumb , because Russia has working production lines for a new submarine missile,a new submarine, several ICBMs, and new cruise missiles - plus bigger reserve stocks of warheads . Russia can currently outbuild the US if the treaties are broken - not the other way around.

This is what you get when you have an ignoramus - who thinks like a five year old - my dad is bigger than your dad - heading to the Oval Office.

He'll do what Putin does, declare Democrats and anyone who he decides he doesn't like today as Unamerican and confiscate everything they own. Then he can move onto to Hispanics, Blacks, Chinese, Muslims, Jews and atheists and declare them as enemies of the state.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Yeah I mentioned the 6th of January in my post above, so there is not any condensation there from me, just a little bit of a Christmas giggle that is all!

If that was the post I was quoting when I mentioned the condescension then you'd be right. But since that had nothing to do with the point I was making when I made that comment, your claim is weird. I didn't say anything about you not mentioning the 6th January, I mentioned your idiotic claim that the majority of Americans voted for him and how that should probably mean you should wait more than a couple of hours before "joking" about someone else getting something wrong.

To say that the US has elected a loose cannon would be a massive understatement. This is what happens when you vote for a radical who says he is going to tear the establishment down and "drain the swamp".

The best way to keep the piece is to have the ultimate deterrent. I'm not sure about increasing the number of warheads but I do believe they should be upgraded to compete with Russia's Satan 2 platform. Trump is just what we need, a leader who is willing to invest in the military and also keep Islamic terrorists "the hell out of our country" better to start now than end up like Europe where terrorist attacks are common place and police walk the streets of London with automatic weapons.

I haven't heard a single thing from Trump's which will keep the US safer. Have heard a few alarming ones which will make it more dangerous and open to terrorist attacks though.

Nobody is arguing that Trump didn't win the race, or that he won more electoral college votes, the fact is that while he did win those things, he did not win the popular vote and therefore doesn't have a mandate.

Hell Obama beat Romney by both and Republicans claimed he was illegitimate and didn't have a mandate, so you can't have it both ways.

(you keep glossing over that he complained about the very same thing when he thought it was happening with Romney)


That's just the way it is. You can keep defaulting to the EC, but that's not what we're talking about.

Who am I to have a go at someone for changing their mind over something, I have been known to do it on the odd occasion, so if Trump has done so in this regard, then that is something that he will have to live with doing.

It is interesting this debate, just what is the definition of a mandate, if someone winning the electoral college vote by a very healthy margin doesn't get, or deserve one?
What is required in some people's opinions to get one, as to me I do think if you win by a good or wide enough margin, then you should or deserve to get one.
Trump I think did that, the popular vote should not really come into things, as that is an analysis tool, rather than something that is important, as it doesn't decide who becomes President, there is only one set of figures which do.

Trump didn't "change his mind", he's just benefiting from the system so he's keeping his mouth shut. If he had won the popular vote and lost the EC, he would have thrown a fit.

EC is a geographical win, Popular vote is a popularity win. If you think you can have a mandate (which implies being given authority by an electorate) via a geographical win and not a popular win, I think you misunderstand what a mandate is.

If Clinton or Sanders or someone else would have won in a similar manner, you would be crying that they did not govern with the will of the people. I 100% think that you only are saying that he has a mandate and because you like Trump, not because you are looking at it realistically.

A mix of airbursts and groundbursts over Washington , to take down Marine 1, and hit the bunkers, should indeed drain, or evaporate, the Washington swamp

It only made sense for 13 similarly sized and populated states. Once you introduced mega states - like california, new york and texas , it becomes profoundly democratic. And when mini states - with few people , like the Dakotas, and Alaska - gained Senate equality with California , it just became plain silly.

Surely Trump as you say "throwing a fit" by getting beat on electoral college votes, but not the popular vote, would be understandable, seeing as that would have meant Hillary would be President elect, and not him?

I am just going by the rules are, they currently only elect Presidents by the method of Electoral College votes, is that a fair and just system, well that depends entirely on your own personal viewpoint.
Does it give too much weight to the big states, perhaps, but it is tricky to think of a system that people will change to if they were ever to stop using this current method,kwhich would be fair for all of the states and counties.

If Clinton or Sanders, or Jeb Bush, or Ted Cruz, or whomever had won the right to become President with the same, or similar figures as Trump, then I would be saying the exact same thing, as all I am doing is using the numbers that matter.

As for Trump, I find him different from the usual stereotypical politician, and I am intrigued as to what he will do whilst he is in charge, does that mean I like him, or I am a die hard fan or supporter of his, no, not really, I am just interested in the different way in which he will do things.

Are you really advocating the killing of multiple humans??

Well they did it to Saddam and he didn't have any nukes so fair game really.

He's done literally nothing different than any other right-wing politician has done, other than openly give his supporters high ranking positions (corruption) and use Twitter. All of his positions are pretty standard Republican positions other than Trade policy, where his positions would flunk you out of a basic econ 101 course.

I legitmately don't think he's even the one driving policy, it's probably all Pence, given what he's been saying and doing. So to say he's going to be a 'different kind of politician' is laughable.

He himself would be saying that the results are illegitimate if he had won the pop vote and lost the EC, and he was priming the pump before the election by being wishy-washy on conceding. Plus either way, he doesn't have the support of the majority of the voters and, thus, no mandate. Luckily for him he has a spineless GOP Congress
who will rubber stamp anything he wants. Luckily for Democrats, all of the screw ups for the next two years can be laid cleanly at the feet of the GOP.

Wouldn't be too sure on that. There was no logical way Obama could be blamed for the bill that allowed families of those killed on 9/11 could sue Saudi Arabia and Mitch McConnell still managed to claim it was all his fault. In two years they'll just claim that the Democrats blocked them from doing anything productive and even though that makes no sense at all, they'll still get people to buy it.

I also agree that he's not really shown anything to say that he'll be that different in terms of policy and the differences that do exist in terms of style (the tweeting, the rhetoric etc) are all terrible. The fact that he doesn't seem to be capable of thinking before tweeting is pretty terrifying.

Given Washington is built on a swamp wouldn't destroying it create a swamp

That needs to be told to Putin too - http://tass.com/defense/921420

Trump is only responding to the initial provocation which, as ever, comes from Putin.

I think Trump is responding to the claims he owes his election victory to Putin, by trying to appear to not be Putin's poodle. I expect tough talk on military issues and friendly deals as far as sanctions and trade.

This is where things will get interesting. As the President-elect, Trump will now be getting full national security briefings about Russia's real actions and intentions including details of intercepted transmissions, reports from undercover operatives and so on and so now he will be under no illusions about what Putin is really like and what he has actually been up to.

Satan isn't very useful - unless you break the arms control treaties and stick lots of warheads on it. When 100 Satans can take out 99% of US ICBM , and most of the bomber force, and still leave Russia with 500 other unused ICBMS , it becomes significant. Otherwise, the big warhead version just melts the city rubble more and takes down more surrounding countryside, or provides overkill against the US 's few remaining bunkers.

Trump isn't going to do anything new that isn't already in Obama's nuclear replacement programme . The problem iis that US current weapons need replacing - they are 20- 56 years old , and already planned to last till they are 42 to 80 years old.

But Obama has that all covered, already, with programmes to replace everything . If Trump tries to expand the force as well , he breaks the arms control treaties, and will find out that you can't buy what you haven't yet developed. If he tries, he's going to make the US fall behind the Russians - till the mid 2030s.

It evaporates whats there , but you are right the water then probably comes back