Thursday, August 4, 2016

Donald Trump and nuclear weapons

Posted By on Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:07 AM

We've been harping on the issue of whether mainstream Republican leaders will continue to back Donald Trump for president because it speaks to the big, fat question in this year's election. 

Is this a normal election between Team R and Team D? Is Trump a normal candidate? Or does he represent something much darker, something historically unusual? Would his election as president represent a risk to American ideals, to the nation, and to the world that goes beyond the ideological differences between the two parties? 

It is no secret that I think that someone like Marco Rubio would pursue policies at home and abroad that caused real harm to real people. Just as Republicans believe that Hillary Clinton would be a bad president, I think that Rubio would be a bad president. But even if I'm right, I can acknowledge that Rubio would be a bad president on the continuum of good and bad presidents in the history of the United States of America. I don't want to understate this: in any presidential election, the real-world stakes are incredibly high. But in arguing between a Rubio and a Clinton, or even a Cruz and a Sanders, we are arguing over the standard ideological tilts in American democracy, not a potential existential crisis for American democracy itself.

Put another way, our partisan fears are about different conclusions reached by informed actors with a basic respect for our shared norms and institutions ā€” not madness. 

Which brings me to yesterday's Morning Joe program, when host Joe Scarborough revealed the following: 
Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the national level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times, he asked, 'if we have them, why can't we use them?' ... Three times in an hour briefing: Why can't we use nuclear weapons? 
A chilled panel asked former CIA director Michael Hayden about the protocol and timeframe between a potential decision by a President Trump and the launch of nuclear weapons. 

Hayden replied: "The system is designed for speed and decisiveness, it is not designed to debate the decision." 

The Trump camp denied Scarborough's statement, but Trump has a detailed public history of musing about first-strike use of the nation's nuclear arsenal (and has a documented history of erratic behavior, petty vindictiveness, and utter ignorance of world affairs that makes him historically unique among major-party candidates for president of the United States of America).

Whatever you might think of a Hillary Clinton or a Marco Rubio, I think it's fair to say that the impulsive use of an unwarranted first-strike nuclear attack is essentially zero. Likewise, while I would argue that the interventionist war hawk George W. Bush did just about as much harm as a president could plausibly do, I never worried about indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons during his administration. Can we say the same about Trump?

For some perspective, take a minute and read the tweets below from John Noonan, a former national security adviser for Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, and a former nuclear launch officer in the U.S. Air Force.

Tags: , , ,


Speaking of...

Comments (14)

Showing 1-14 of 14

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-14 of 14

Add a comment

More by David Ramsey

Readers also liked…

  • Mary Steenburgen adds voice against gay discrimination law

    Mary Steenburgen, the Arkansas native actress, has added her voice to those opposing HB 1228, the bill aimed at preserving legal discrimination against gay people under the pretext of religious freedom. It would create untold other complications for all sorts of government activities to give people a religious excuse to avoid the law.
    • Mar 3, 2015
  • Rep. Nate Bell blasts adoption story before seeing it; 'rehoming' bill introduced

    Response to our story about rehoming and adoption has been overwhelmingly positive, with one exception. Rep. Nate Bell (R-Mena) has informed me that writing this story makes me the predator and Justin Harris the victim. I'm hellbound, apparently.
    • Mar 4, 2015
  • Foster family disputes key statements from Justin Harris

    Craig and Cheryl Hart were the foster parents of the two sisters who were adopted by Rep. Justin Harris and his wife Marsha and later "rehomed." The Harts say that the adoption was allowed to proceed over the objections of the foster parents and local DHS staff due to pressure exerted by Cecile Blucker, head of the Division of Children and Family Services, on behalf of Justin Harris.
    • Mar 7, 2015

Most Shared

Most Recent Comments



© 2016 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation