Author Topic: Arms Race?  (Read 5448 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Arms Race?
« on: December 23, 2016, 12:50:07 PM »
Putin
"We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems,"
Trump
The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

Its all very confusing.

Never expected to ever hear Republicans defending and or down playing Russia growing aggressiveness and now talk of restarting the arms race? Its schizophrenic?

Trump spin team says Trump tweets are about preventing nuclear proliferation. Yet I think we have enough evidence to state that Trump means just what he tweets which seems to be that restarting the arms race will prevent nuclear proliferation.

Is Trump playing the useful idiot for Putin? Was Hillary right when she said Trump would be Putin’s puppet with the USA looking away in hope of short term economic gain.

JoshCrow

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2016, 01:06:47 PM »
I only wish he had been talking about nuclear energy rather than arms. He might have had me on board.

As it is, this is just all so embarrassing. I continue to predict he will be impeached (largely by his own party) for something or other within 2 years and will leave office in disgrace.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2016, 01:11:38 PM »
I also thought it was power.  I read a second hand blurb first.  I'm like, "there's no way he did what they are saying.  This must be out of context."  So I find the tweet...  and see the "spin" from his team...

Nope, he meant weapons. 

I don't think he is being Putin's puppet in this rightleft22.  That suggests Putin is holding Trump's strings.  I don't think that's it at all.  I think this statement fits with a businessman/showman who's use to shock and intimidation as his two primary tools.  Will Putin be able to exploit this for his own gain?  If he's half as savvy as I think he is, sure.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2016, 01:30:16 PM »
Today Trump clarified his comment to allay people's fears about what he would do if other nations expand their nuclear capabilities:

Quote
“Let it be an arms race,” Mr. Trump said, according to Ms. Brzezinski, who described her conversation with the president-elect on the morning news program moments later. Mr. Trump added: “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

I feel *much* better now, but only if I ignore the direction of US international arms policy over the past 20 years and the fact that nuclear threats from other countries have diminished during that time.  It's also good to note that Trump is helping Obama set international policy while he's still in office.  Other nations will recognize that Obama needed help and that Trump is going to drop the hammer on them as soon as he gets in office.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2016, 01:36:42 PM »
The Russians won the arms race long ago, and we only won the cold war because Sting was right. I guess we're about to find out what are the Russians still love their children

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2016, 01:52:53 PM »
As infuriating as some of Trumps actions have been comma, it's hard to beat let's reduce the size of our Armed Forces while antagonizing Russia

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2016, 02:08:02 PM »
" Never expected to ever hear Republicans defending and or down playing Russia growing aggressiveness and now talk of restarting the arms race? "

Facepalm.

Please, please go read Justice Jackson's opening to the Nuremberg tribunals before you use the word "aggression" to describe Russian ESPIONAGE during the election.

Espionage, particularly remote electronic surveilance, is not aggression.

In fact, by Nuremberg standards, it could be construed as aggression just to accuse Russia of aggression without justification.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2016, 02:23:59 PM »
right. aggression is the wrong word.
perhaps assertiveness is the better word

My feeling is that we are seeing the beginning of a change in the spheres of influence

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2016, 02:42:10 PM »
Nuclear sabre rattling by Twitter. I want to vomit.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2016, 05:53:53 PM »
Nuclear sabre rattling by Twitter. I want to vomit.

Want to play a game?

Quote
How about Global Thermonuclear War?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2016, 08:01:56 PM »
At least me now know what time period Trump's wants to bring the US back to so it can be 'great again'
I missed those days, hiding under a desk... wait if  those desk are now made in china will they still protect our children!

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2016, 08:44:59 AM »
Quote
right. aggression is the wrong word.
perhaps assertiveness is the better word
rightleft22, you do realize you didn't actually use the word "aggression" in your post, notwithstanding the fact that it placed in quotes, right?  The word you used was "aggressiveness".  The two words are not synonyms, not any more, as aggressiveness has come to describe a tendency, and aggression for the most part describes actions.  Aggressiveness and assertiveness are actually closer synonyms.

Proclaiming that one is strengthening strategic nuclear forces is aggressive. Engaging in risky flight maneuvers near opponents' aircraft and naval vessels is aggressive. Invading the Ukraine, OK, that is both aggressive as well as aggression.  Increasing support within the context of the Syrian civil war is aggressive, as it pertains to maintaining or increasing Russia's sphere of influence.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2016, 09:03:57 AM »
Proclaiming that one is strengthening strategic nuclear forces is aggressive. Engaging in risky flight maneuvers near opponents' aircraft and naval vessels is aggressive. Invading the Ukraine, OK, that is both aggressive as well as aggression.  Increasing support within the context of the Syrian civil war is aggressive, as it pertains to maintaining or increasing Russia's sphere of influence.

I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. In the case of the politics of war aggressiveness can also be an aggression. Sabre ratting can be a defining act in tipping the scales towards a particular outcome. Especially in the realm of nuclear weapons, almost all acts should be considered acts of aggression even if they involve no destruction. Placing missile bases in the Ukraine bespeaks aggressiveness but is an act of direct aggression, for instance. The difficulty in your definition as such is that a country could claim to be against escalating through aggression and yet maintain an arsenal encircling a foe following an aggressive foreign policy. Unlike regular hostilities the nuclear option has a binary result: it's either been used, or it hasn't. It's not like troops where they can be deployed and even fire some shots but then back off, making that a minor act of aggression. With nukes the aggression starts far earlier than when the weapons are actually used.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2016, 11:51:39 AM »
Donald is right. I foolishly read "aggression" into rightleft's reasonable post, and face palmed him unfairly. Apologies to RL and thanks to Donald.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2016, 01:21:01 PM »

Espionage, particularly remote electronic surveilance, is not aggression.


Of course it is. If you don't think so, check the microphone I put in your house.

The word means this:

ready or likely to attack or confront; pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2016, 02:32:29 PM »
So I guess the U.S. wanting to host the United Nations Headquarters was an act of aggression since it served a two-fold purpose: Increase our "international prestige" for hosting it. And because it would better facilitate our ability to spy on foreign governments because all message traffic not sent via sealed diplomatic courier would have to transit through U.S. controlled infrastructure?

...But then, this cycles back to why the Snowden leaks weren't very shocking on many fronts.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #16 on: December 26, 2016, 02:49:03 PM »
Locating the UN seat wasn't aggression, but bugging it sure was. Of course the entire existence of the UN Security Council permanent members could be called aggression. One should not pursue one's aims and interests forcefully. That is aggression.  Pursuing one's aims and interests in an even-handed manner is just fine.

If we had demanded that the UN be headquartered or we wouldn't join it, that's aggression. At the time, the US was a consensus choice.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #17 on: December 26, 2016, 04:27:10 PM »

Espionage, particularly remote electronic surveilance, is not aggression.


Of course it is. If you don't think so, check the microphone I put in your house.

The word means this:

ready or likely to attack or confront; pursuing one's aims and interests forcefully


Facepalm.  You go to the bloody  *dictionary* to get a legal definition of a concept that's key to maintaining international peace?

Lincoln wept

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2016, 04:32:02 PM »
For purposes of international law, the crime of aggression is defined in Justice Jackson's introduction at Nuremberg. That's the most authoritative relevant case law.

You're drawing on a definition more related to aggressive ping pong playing than international politics.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2016, 10:18:58 PM »
Fair enough, Pete. The UN uses aggression in a very limited way to describe armed conflict, and I get the point.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Arms Race?
« Reply #20 on: December 27, 2016, 11:01:57 PM »
Fair enough, Pete. The UN uses aggression in a very limited way to describe armed conflict, and I get the point.

Not just the UN. the concept predates the UN by centuries, although it was expanded crystallized, and prosecuted to an unprecedented level at Nuremberg.  It's very important that we all use this word correctly while we have a president that has one finger on his cell phone and the other on the nuclear football