He's a hypocrite? I'm shocked!
How is he a hypocrite? (Note: This is an honest question, I don't see it so if you would point it out I would be very appreciative.)
He isn't even in office yet, and he's already the crappiest president ever (sorry JFK!)
How is he bad? He has not even had a chance nor done anything, yet people sit here and criticize him.
(The following is from AppleDumplingHead, just need to divide the following in to smaller quotes.)
Okay, I'll admit I was wrong there, I meant Armed Forces, not nukes.
"kind of". The USA ballistic missile silo program is on a system disparate of current world wide web technology, as it should be. It gets its own upgrades and those are subject to such privacy, they're never the subject of data that could possibly be in legitimate media. This is a percentage of nuclear launch capability, I will 100% guarantee you ballistic subs, cruisers and strategic bombers do not run on floppy disks.
So, "No one out side the government can't know this for sure, but I can sit here and tell you that this is 100% not the case." No, just no. That statement is conflicts with its self.
Why not? You are saying that is okay to let other nations surpass us in nuclear tech?
no. A modern military in terms of sheer numbers is no indication of projectable force. China, for example, can't project far past its borders. There's also the concept of a decentralized command and control, and this effectively makes militaries mince meat when the lights go out. Without these important considerations, a list is meaningless. In '91, Iraq had the 3rd or 4th "largest military", and it was dead in the water (sand?) within 48 hours.
To be fair, the article said it was quite hard to determine and only looked at sheer numbers. Everything else is Strategy.
I'd just like to put this as a side note. (Again, sorry China and nothing against you, but I just have to look at the facts.) China has a huge advantage over us in all points for one big reason, our economy. If China wanted to, they could put a ban on trading with us which would then cause our economy to collapse. This would be even more devastating if we had a Liberal President as the first thing to be reduced would the armed forces. Anyway we could no longer sustain our economy for at least a few months (I'm just guessing there, but it sounds about right to me if we had a good present (aka: Trump) and a government that is willing to work with him/her.) that is plenty of time for us to near collapsing and a perfect time to invade. (Again, nothing against China, its just matter of time before someone who thinks like that comes into power for any nation.)
Thanks for the click bait, though.
What click bait?
(The next round is from Timsup2nothin, just need to brake it down again.)
There are two critical points here.
One: The idea that nuclear weapons is a numbers game where having the most is the important factor.
An effective nuclear deterrent is enough nuclear weapons that you can deliver reliably on target to make attacking you a non-starter. Since we could kill about 80% of the population of either Russia or China using less than half of our nuclear capability there is no doubt that we have more than enough. A cost effective nuclear deterrent means enough nuclear weapons and no more than is enough. Nuclear weapons themselves are very high maintenance. Not that they are terribly complicated, but they irradiate the material around them, and irradiated material becomes unreliable. And the cost of maintaining them, in terms of radiation exposure to the workers, is very high. So the idea that we need more than we have is patently absurd.
I never said we need more, I said we need newer nukes.
Two: The floppy disk panic rhetoric.
They run on floppy disks. So what? Military capability is actually not measured in technological wow factor. Can the existing system reliably deliver nuclear destruction? Why, yes, it can. That is all that matters.
Because it is a parallel that I am familiar with: the only thing that matters in submarine warfare is silence. The quieter ship wins. EVERY time. When I served, US submarines were the most quiet in the world. By a huge margin. Technological marvels. One of the major systems I was responsible for ran on magnetic amplifiers. Mag Amp technology was obsolete before even I was born. The guy who invented them rode to work on a HORSE. That system performed its function, and imposed no limitations on the effectiveness of the ship.
First off, I was never panicking. I was just stating a fact.
Second, I agree with you on the "technological wow factor", but surely the 60 mil we spend on maintenance for the old tech would be cheaper for newer stuff. (Yes, I am aware of the security holes and I'm not an expert [more accurately, I have barely any knowledge it that area.] but I'm sure they could come up with something.)
Third, if what we have is sufficient, then why are other nations upgrading their nukes to more modern tech and we aren't?
Fourth, so you're saying running around with old tech is okay? I would bet your using a computer that is at least halfway modern, so why not use an old one?
And one final note (To everyone I quoted.) these are honest questions, I don't understand the Anti-Trump logic, but I would very much like to, even if I don't agree with it.
