New York Times
Scientists who study the risk of nuclear war recently moved the hands of the symbolic Doomsday Clock to 2½ minutes before midnight — meaning they believe that the world is closer to nuclear catastrophe than it has been since 1953 after the United States and Soviet Union tested hydrogen bombs. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which created the clock in 1947, says that President Trump is the main reason for this worrisome development.
Mr. Trump came to office with little knowledge of the vast nuclear arsenal and the missiles, bombers and submarines it contains. He has spoken, alarmingly, about deploying this weaponry against terrorists and about expanding America’s nuclear capabilities. He has said he values unpredictability, meaning presumably that he wants to keep other nations on edge about whether he will use nuclear weapons.
“Let it be an arms race,” he told a television interviewer in December. During a debate three months earlier he contradicted himself, saying that “I would certainly not do first strike,” then adding, “I can’t take anything off the table.” What’s worrisome about all this is that it is the opposite of what Republican and Democratic presidents have long sought, which is to ensure that these weapons are not used precipitously if at all.
The bill would not undercut Mr. Trump’s ability to respond on his own authority to a nuclear attack, an authority all presidents have had and should have. It has support from leading arms control advocates, including former Defense Secretary William Perry. And while it won’t go anywhere in this Republican-led Congress, it sends a clear message to Mr. Trump that he should not be the first since World War II to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump could more usefully deploy his energies engaging with Russia to further reduce both countries’ nuclear arsenals, maintaining the Iran nuclear deal and finding new ways to curb North Korea’s nuclear program.
A Pentagon advisory board recently proposed that the United States consider building more lower-yield nuclear weapons to provide an option for “limited use” in a regional conflict. The only legitimate role for nuclear weapons is deterrence. The absurd notion of a “limited” nuclear war, which could make it easier for a president to use lower-yield weapons, needs to be rejected. The country has enough advanced conventional weapons to defend against most threats.
Mr. Trump commands about 4,000 weapons that he alone is empowered to launch. Any decision responding to an attack would have to be made quickly. That kind of life-or-death choice would test any leader, even those well-schooled in arcane nuclear doctrine, the intricacies of power politics and the importance of not letting tensions get to the point where a nuclear exchange becomes likely. But none of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers are known to be nuclear experts, the president has yet to put together a nuclear strategy and, as the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board warned last month, Mr. Trump “has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice.”
With Mr. Trump, sound decision-making may be an even greater challenge, given his disruptive, impulsive style. There is also the fact that he has assumed office at a particularly unstable time, with the Middle East in turmoil and Russia and China acting more aggressively. This is a time for restraint and careful deliberation, and for leaders who clearly understand that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to be brandished as a cudgel.
can-led Congress, it sends a clear message to Mr. Trump that he should not be the first since World War II to use nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump could more usefully deploy his energies engaging with Russia to further reduce both countries’ nuclear arsenals, maintaining the Iran nuclear deal and finding new ways to curb North Korea’s nuclear program.A Pentagon advisory board recently proposed that the United States consider building more lower-yield nuclear weapons to provide an option for “limited use” in a regional conflict. The only legitimate role for nuclear weapons is deterrence. The absurd notion of a “limited” nuclear war, which could make it easier for a president to use lower-yield weapons, needs to be rejected. The country has enough advanced conventional weapons to defend against most threats.Mr. Trump commands about 4,000 weapons that he alone is empowered to launch. Any decision responding to an attack would have to be made quickly. That kind of life-or-death choice would test any leader, even those well-schooled in arcane nuclear doctrine, the intricacies of power politics and the importance of not letting tensions get to the point where a nuclear exchange becomes likely. But none of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers are known to be nuclear experts, the president has yet to put together a nuclear strategy and, as the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board warned last month, Mr. Trump “has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice.”With Mr. Trump, sound decision-making may be an even greater challenge, given his disruptive, impulsive style. There is also the fact that he has assumed office at a particularly unstable time, with the Middle East in turmoil and Russia and China acting more aggressively. This is a time for restraint and careful deliberation, and for leaders who clearly understand that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to be brandished as a cudgel.
Oh please. Just the headline is enough—tldr.
This newest president is as big an Israel ass-licker as the last one. Maybe more-so. So stop it with your nonsense and loose-talk, aka LIES.
ed note–in the world of scientific/rational thought and all the disciplines that come from therein–there is this process of developing a thesis and then using facts to prove that thesis. One cannot simply say ‘the earth is flat’ and then offer no supporting evidence other than placing a ball on the ground and showing how it does not roll as ‘proof’ that the earth is flat.
Now, within this entire drama involving Trump, there has been an entire brigade of people who have used superficial evidence in ‘proving’ Trump is ‘owned by the Jews’, but they do so while ignoring entirely this huge piece of counter evidence–the daily screeching campaign on the part of organized Jewish interests, both on the left and the right–who have been tirelessly working to bring him down.
Why is it that you folks refuse to address this glaring issue? Everytime we give you an opportunity to address it in a fair, balanced, rational platform of discussion, you simply side-step it as if it weren’t there, similar in many respects to the same tactics that the Jews themselves utilize when people bring up the impossible forensics of the Hollerco$t, and who, rather than refuting the counter-evidence with facts of their own, either ignore the challenging forensics or else engage in the typical business of slurs such as ‘NAZI’, ‘RACIST,’ ‘BIGOT’, ‘ANTI-SHEMITE’, and ‘DENIER’, all of which leads me to question whether the entire ‘Trump is owned by the Jews’ paradigm is in fact a Judaic operation in and of itself, similar to other past Zionist-engineered smear jobs alleging that Khadafi was a Jew, Ahmadinejad was a Jew, Arafat was a Jew, etc, etc, etc.
TLDR. Can you cut down the words to something that actually means something in the way of PROOF? If you can, please do.
ed note–LOL. thank you for making my point and proving me correct. You are more mouth than brain and more ideology than evidence. The PROOF which you obviously wanted to emphasize by using caps has been blaring 25/7 for the last year, so much so that barely anything else gets mention, save of course some starlet’s ass size. The jooz don’t like trump and want him gone YESTERDAY but the fact that he says a few politically expedient things seemingly in favor of OJI is what takes the lead within the narrative you have constructed.
A vulgar but I think fitting euphemism is in order here when understanding/describing the pponderance of ‘experts’ in this movement–‘opinions are like assholes–everyone’s got one’
Is that right?
I remember when Mike was alive. He could never show anything related to PROOF either. He was all projection as well, just like you. This is why I don’t usually click you from Kenny’s Sideshow.
ed note–lol. Mike Piper never used ‘proof’. A dozen books, a career spanning 35 years, thousands of articles, tens of thousands of hours on radio, tv, etc. Met with world leaders at their invitation, and you, a nobody, using a fake internet name, want to comment no Mike Piper never ‘proving’ anything? Tell me, what’s it like to be such an intellectual coward? What’s it like to hide behind a disguise, pretending to be smarter than you are, trolling sites and leaving your ‘commentary’ like a dog taking a shit in a field? No wonder you are so full of yourself, with credentials like that.
MCP is no longer with us, and has a legacy that speaks for itself. (I really hate it when people speak ill of the dead).
Also,mg has not dismissed the notion that Trump could be controlled.
I think we can make a case that Trump is a liar, and compromised even if he is not controlled he is the other side of the Two headed problem the compromised (led astray) Christian Zionists.
He surrounded himself with neocon Israeli Firsters/ dual citizen Zionists even if he is not of them he is impacted by them. Someone was saying Deep state A is at war with deep state B since deep state B (more America First) is in the presidency.
He called Iran the biggest supporter of terror when we all know that Israel is the biggest supporter of terror.
We can agree that Trump is still interventionist and that whilst their are checks and balances internally in the US, externally the issues are chaotic and worrying we are in for Civilization Wars.
Here is a look at the lies:
EXPOSED: The Greatest Puppet Show On Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwW312b1NI
THIS is How You Can Tell If Trump is The REAL Deal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMgxokINMc
Mike Piper never proved anything? As someone who has every one of Mike’s books and never missed an article he wrote or an interview he gave, the only thing I can conclude from such a moronic statement is that its author is either too intellectually deficient (fancy way of saying stupid) to absorb or understand Mike’s work or is just a troublemaker.
I’m betting it’s a combo of both.
Mark Glenn, I respect you and your work, please open your eyes – Trump is an evil man, you guys should be more aware than this. Its not worth losing your respect for this kosher president.
ed note–we’ve never said he as a ‘good’ man, in fact, what we’ve always said is the opposite–that he is a man of highly questionable morals, and that is putting it mildly. In point of fact, what I have always said personally is that I would not want to shake his hand, invite him to dinner nor welcome the news that he was seeking the hand of one of my daughters in marriage. If these very clearly and oftenly-repeated statements have somehow missed your attention, than you need to adjust your ears, your eyes or your thinking ability.
What we have said, and what we will continue to maintain until evidence to the contrary is presented is that there is a different game being played here besides the same old/same old, the most obvious proof of which is how much that organized Jewish interests hate him and want him either removed from office or killed. These Jewish interests have not just whispered this a few times, but literally have been in full screech mode now for over a year, and no, I don’t think it is an act.
Now, if you can come up with a reasonable, credible explanation as to why I should ignore this wall of noise on the part of these Jewish interests and somehow just ‘fall in line’ with the rest of the sheep who can’t seem to bleat anything other than ‘Trump is a Zy-nist…Trump is a Zy-nist…Trump is a Zy-nist…’ based upon a few superficial criteria (which I believe he has deliberately put out there for public consumption in order to insulate himself from the typical biz that comes out of the magic wand of Judea, Inc) then of curse I will carefully consider you position, but if all you can throw into this is that he is ‘kosher’, despite the fact that those who decide whether someone is Kosher or not have already signaled that he is not in their estimation, then I’m sorry, you just haven’t ‘sold me’ on it.
The author is a blow hard, wordsmith and in love with his own long-winded rhetoric. Besides, he doesn’t, apparently, understand the definition of “contradiction”, in saying, ,,,”“Let it be an arms race,”” and then, …“I would certainly not do first strike,” then adding, “I can’t take anything off the table.” and saying Trump contradicted himself. The 1st statement DOES NOT contradict the 2 subsequent. Different issues, MORON!