Isn't it interesting that the countless oh-so-certain predictions of what Trump was GOING to do before he was even in office turn out to be totally different than what he's actually doing while in office? Does that not speak volumes about the nature of the pundits who made the predictions?

You cannot, uncritically, assess anything DJT has said about his intentions before or after taking office. We are all "pundits" trying and failing to figure that out.

I can only hope that some of the reasonable and competent members of his administration like SecDef, SecState, SecDHS, etc can modulate and stabilize policy. No guarantee of that, though.

I cannot understand the desire to proliferate nuclear weapons, each side already possess enough on their own to wipe the slate clean on planet Earth.. why increase that? The only reasoning I can see to restarting a nuclear arms race is in the hope of bankrupting Russia.

So who has expressed a desire to proliferate nuclear weapons, other than of course Obama and the Iranians?

I'll buy that. So all the doom and gloomers in this thread are actually clueless. I'll buy that, too.

Trump's call for US nuclear supremacy raises questions - CNNPolitics.com

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-...17-1?r=US&IR=T

Oh my. "Nuclear supremacy" is way way way different than "nuclear proliferation." Equating the two is either remarkably ignorant, or grossly deceptive. Which applies here?

Problem you have is Russia 2017 is not Russia 1980.

As sanctions have proven it has harmed Europeans rather than Russians and now Russians have staretd to diversify and produce what they used to buy.

Oil prices gives them a $100 billion a yeat trade surplus. Debt to GDP is 17%
US trade deficit is $502 billion and debt to GDP is 104%

TRADING ECONOMICS | 300.000 INDICATORS FROM 196 COUNTRIES

All it needs to happen is a number of countrys trade Oil other than is US $$$$ and watch it become expensive to borrow for the US.

Sadly US reminds me of the last days of the Roman Empire when the Romans became too rich to fight and subcontacted it to everybody else.

You must be have been reading a different article than I was, increasing your stockpile to attain Nuclear supremacy relies on the other guy not doing like wise to maintain the current status quo, but by increasing your stockpile you are by the said action proliferating nuclear weapons. Especially when the nutter in charge believes in this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.12ef25be29c3

Nutloose, the term 'nuclear proliferation' since about the 1960's has referred to the spread of nuclear weapons to more nations having them. Your attempt at a semantic game fails. The Non Proliferation Treaty was explicitly drawn up to prevent that spread ... with less than desired results. A variety of related arms control measures -- SALT, START, SALT II, etc ... -- have all tried to address nuclear stockpiles and in some cases, reductions of same. (with mixed success).


If Mr Trump want to increase the number of warheads, I am not sure why. If what he wants is to improve/update/upgrade the warheads currently in inventory, that makes sense. They have a shelf life.

I know that, but he wants more than capability Russia, if you see that link he is also on record wanting more countries to have them and that is.

also


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...w-start-treaty

Does not bode well.

Ummmm, those statements were all made during the campaign. Campaign rhetoric is often very very different from actual policy once the new president gets all the data. JFK for example ran on a platform of a big "missile gap" between the US and Soviet Union, which helped get him elected.. Once he got in office he learned there was no such gap and his actual policies were much different than his campaign rhetoric. Note that since winning the election Trump has talked a lot about nuclear supremacy and not at all about nuclear proliferation.

And Trump's proposed defense budget (the subject of this thread) has NOTHING to do with nuclear proliferation. Indeed it has very very little to do even with nuclear supremacy. In fact, the increase is actually quite modest, only about $19B above what Obama proposed. And to my knowledge, Obama is the only president who actively worked to proliferate nukes, explicitly allowing and financially assisting Iran to develop nukes.

As for increasing the number of warheads, Trump has said nothing of the sort since winning the election. Both Russia and the US have warhead caps and neither side has proposed increasing those caps.