The Glade 4.0

Because he won't have that kind of power. The President cannot launch a first strike without confirmation from SECDEF or another elected or confirmed person.

If you actually think that this person would do so - or that even Trump would do so - for entirely trivial reasons - you are entirely too stupid or too concerned with confirming your own prejudices to have opinions at all. Cynicism is not analysis. Donald Trump is rude, boorish, insensitive, crude, and a number of other socially objectionable attributes. He is not the least bit interested in seeing the country reduced to a pile of rubble. That's just being silly. When Donald Trump asks "if we have them, why can't we use them?" that does not mean "I want to use them", it means "I don't understand why we don't." This should not be a surprise - he's a businessman. Even the President doesn't need to know all the ins and outs of targeting, attack options, etc. - that's all worked out in advance by people pouring over maps with pie cutters all day.

Having one's figure on the nuclear trigger tends to moderate temperments. Castro was egging the Soviets on to nuke the U.S. in 1963 - the men with the nukes backed down. Mao used a lot of aggressive rhetoric - nuclear China suddenly became very reserved. India and Pakistan eye each other warily, but their wars are pretty much slapfights these days. Israel in 1973 fearing total collapse prepared its weapons for use in such a way as to be easily detected, hoping to get the Soviets and the U.S. to put an end to things - they were trying to avoid having to actually use one.

The fact that at a Presidential debate a reporter would actually ask whether another candidate thinks that because Trump said something mean about her, does she therefore think he would start a nuclear war is proof positive that no one seriously thinks he would actually do it. If people seriously thought Trump would start a nuclear war - if there were ANY real indicator of that - no other issue would be newsworthy. You're not even worried about it. It's something you say on the internet. Our entire nuclear force is atrophying and decaying and has been for decades but no one cares about that; "lol lookit Trump gunna start sum nuke **** don't vote 4 him" is evidently way more fun.

And I'm taking a page from Coro's book and not giving a class on nuclear weapons. I've spent hundreds of hours both professionally and personally on these and related issues. I've spoken to some of the pie-cutter professionals mentioned above. I am not teaching a course on nukes for **** free.

"Highly functional nutjob" is just another way of saying "he was portrayed as a nutjob to win an election." He was running against LBJ after all.

He appeared to be a "nutjob" because he was a Major General in the Air Force Reserve and knew an awful lot about nuclear weapons that the public didn't, and made his statements on that basis. What he forgot was that made him vulnerable to TV ads with little girls counting flowers because the public wasn't about to suddenly gain that understanding.
{snip}

I'm not asking you to give a course on nukes. I differ from you in that I fully believe that The Donald would willingly use nukes on the Middle East(ISIS owns like that whole area right? And everyone there is a goddamned terrorist right?) (for example) and that his question wasn't a curious "Why don't we use nuclear weapons?" but more a "Why the hell don't we just **** nuke the ****?"

Our first strike ICBM force is atrophying, but I'm sure we retain enough "tactical" weapons to turn the ISIS held areas into a glowing parking lot, should we elect a "leader" who is so inclined.

So perhaps the question then is "What would *stop* Trump from using nukes on a whim?"

Oh, I was referring to Nixon, actually.

I just told you what - the President cannot order a first strike without confirmation, and no appointed official will give it simply for a quick solution to ISIS for fear of triggering a wider war. It isn't going to happen.

I don't really care that you believe it. It's so ridiculous its almost impossible to start debunking it. Never make a negative comment about religion again if you actually think this.

He just needs confirmation from a dude he appoints right? Like the SecDef? I'm sure he could find a dude that would be willing to put his finger on the button as well.

My concern with Trump and nuclear weapons is because his campaign has dedicated itself to near-lolbertarian levels of "avoiding foreign entanglements" and not invading other countries. Combine that with his vehement anti-Muslim rhetoric and overt racism and I seriously wonder how he will react if a major terrorist attack occurs. How, exactly, do you deter major terrorist attacks if invasion and occupation are out of the question? The only way I can see that working is if one responds with extreme brutality, and Trump's other rhetoric seems to indicate he has no problem with this option. He's publicly advocated for killing the families of terrorists, for example. While that admittedly doesn't require the use of nuclear weapons, using the conventional military to enforce a quick and dirty Carthaginian peace isn't going to be much better.

We're not talking about finding a yes-man for building an ill-advised casino; we're talking about finding a yes-man for potentially ending the **** world.

I agree it's extremely unlikely that any President would be able to launch a full scale nuclear war without a level of justification that's at least in the ballpark of reasonable. I'm less sanguine, however, about Beltway norms being sufficient to prevent a President from launching an irresponsible small-scale attack (e.g., a couple of warheads on a specific target) against a non-nuclear opponent (i.e., one who couldn't nuke us back). For example, nuking Mosul and/or Raqqa would be a terrible idea, but if the President decided he was done dicking around with ISIS and wanted to take out their strongholds quickly and decisively, I'm not sure the "system" would stop him.

I could also see a somewhat broader use of nukes being ordered after a gradual escalation triggered by an irrational President's actions. For instance, I think this is a plausible scenario: North Korea rattles its saber at us, and President Trump reacts by rattling his saber right back. Rhetoric escalates and we get some Cold War style provocations between our Navies and Air Forces in international waters. The North Koreans take it too far and actually fire on one of our patrol boats, killing US personnel. Trump overreacts by ordering an airstrike on NK territory (say, the naval base where the NK ship docks) because no one **** with the US on his watch. The NKs respond back by shelling South Korean territory, killing a couple hundred civilians and a few dozen US personnel along the DMZ. Trump says **** that and orders airstrikes against NK artillery, CnC, and air defense targets all along the DMZ while publicly threatening to blow North Korea to hell if they don't back down. The NKs start mobilizing in a serious way, and Trump orders the use of nukes to quickly decapitate the regime before they can launch their nukes against SK or Japan.

Can't happen. Jack Ryan would fix this somehow.

Can't happen. Jack Ryan would fix this somehow.

Ben Affleck Jack Ryan or Harrison Ford Jack Ryan? Or Alec Baldwin Jack Ryan?

Don't forget Chris Pine Jack Ryan.

Anyway, regardless of which Jack Ryan is best, HFRO is far and away the best of those movies.

Don't forget Chris Pine Jack Ryan.

Anyway, regardless of which Jack Ryan is best, HFRO is far and away the best of those movies.

I agree it's extremely unlikely that any President would be able to launch a full scale nuclear war without a level of justification that's at least in the ballpark of reasonable. I'm less sanguine, however, about Beltway norms being sufficient to prevent a President from launching an irresponsible small-scale attack (e.g., a couple of warheads on a specific target) against a non-nuclear opponent (i.e., one who couldn't nuke us back). For example, nuking Mosul and/or Raqqa would be a terrible idea, but if the President decided he was done dicking around with ISIS and wanted to take out their strongholds quickly and decisively, I'm not sure the "system" would stop him.

I could also see a somewhat broader use of nukes being ordered after a gradual escalation triggered by an irrational President's actions. For instance, I think this is a plausible scenario: North Korea rattles its saber at us, and President Trump reacts by rattling his saber right back. Rhetoric escalates and we get some Cold War style provocations between our Navies and Air Forces in international waters. The North Koreans take it too far and actually fire on one of our patrol boats, killing US personnel. Trump overreacts by ordering an airstrike on NK territory (say, the naval base where the NK ship docks) because no one **** with the US on his watch. The NKs respond back by shelling South Korean territory, killing a couple hundred civilians and a few dozen US personnel along the DMZ. Trump says **** that and orders airstrikes against NK artillery, CnC, and air defense targets all along the DMZ while publicly threatening to blow North Korea to hell if they don't back down. The NKs start mobilizing in a serious way, and Trump orders the use of nukes to quickly decapitate the regime before they can launch their nukes against SK or Japan.

So disappointed, Diamondeye.

You ignored the actually important thread-derail about Jack Ryan to comment on an irrelevant political opinion buried many posts deep.

I know right. I declare this thread to be about Clancian presidents and their reactions.

imaginary nuclear wars.

That was the Sum of All Fears.

Or even Red Storm Rising.

That's Clancy, but not Jack Ryan.

That was the Sum of All Fears.

Trope averted in that one.