cphite wrote:No. This is something that a lot of people seem to worry about but it really doesn't work that way. There are no circumstances under which any president can launch nukes simply by saying so; and there isn't even a "button" in the sense that most people seem to think. The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that, and frankly even if there wasn't there is no way that the chain of command is going to kick-start the end the world just because Donald Trump says so on a whim.
Yes, yes, he can't by a word nuke a country, but his decision whether or not to use nuclear weapons would be hugely important nonetheless. If the chain of command is split, for example, then he would be able to do something horrible like that. And besides, that someone so stupid, terrible, and silly has such an important voice in whether or not we use weapons which can END THE WORLD should be scary enough by itself!
If the chain of command is that
split on whether or not to launch a nuclear strike, Trump being in the room isn't going to make that big a difference. For one thing, the decision would have to be predicated by a threat; either a confirmed launch from someone, or a sincere belief that one was imminent. We aren't going to launch preemptively based on an angry conversation.
North Korea is run by a true to life super-villain and even they manage not to actually nuke anybody.
Donald Trump has abused his position and powers whenever he could for his entire life, for his own benefit or worse, to satisfy his enormous ego. This is a man who has been in near-continuous frivolous lawsuits for decades, who's pettiness borders on sociopathy. Do you REALLY think he won't abuse his presidential position to attack everyone and anyone who's ever slighted him? He'd be the most corrupt and destructive president in the last century. Just the suggestion that such a man could be elected should be a shocking wake up call for American democracy. And yet here he is, a serious candidate with a serious chance to gain the office.
I don't disagree... but do you honestly not see the same thing in Clinton?
This is a woman who used her political clout as first lady to attack and destroy the credibility of women who accused her husband of rape. Dozens of people who've been in position to harm her politically have wound up dead, or suddenly charged with crimes, etc. There is evidence that she's used the Clinton Foundation - to trade political favors, ranging from job appointments to contract bids being approved... and this includes dealings with people and governments in countries considered hostile or unfriendly.
During her tenure as Secretary of State, she pushed for military intervention in Libya which has left that country in utter ruin... Qaddafi was bad, to be sure, but things are clearly worse now - for our own national interests and for the people who live there. She not only voted for but actually pushed for the invasion of Iraq... She's definitely one of the most hawkish Democrats out there.
She allowed highly sensitive national secrets to be placed on a private, unsecured server - gross negligence or otherwise - and there is reason to believe that at least one person who was serving the US died because of that incompetence. All because it was more convenient somehow?
Honestly, the suggestion that either
of these two assholes is going to be the next president makes me sick.