Yes 2017 would be a NUKE YEAR for sure! My partner Kim & Myself will together opening ceremony for NUKE YEAR 2017, followed by the Nuke Czar Putin who will fry the Globe with his motherload strategic stockpile. Don't you dream on running away!
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
Trump asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
Matthew J. Belvedere | @Matt_Belvedere
Wednesday, 3 Aug 2016 | 8:05 AM ETCNBC.com
Donald Trump
Trump reportedly asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
Wednesday, 3 Aug 2016 | 9:55 AM ET | 01:20
Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.
"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
Scarborough made the Trump comments 52 seconds into an interview with former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden.
Watch: What are some major concerns about Trump's handling of national security? Hayden and #morningjoe weigh in.
Scarborough then asked a hypothetical question to Hayden about how quickly nuclear weapons could be deployed if a president were to give approval.
"It's scenario dependent, but the system is designed for speed and decisiveness. It's not designed to debate the decision," Hayden said.
Hayden was CIA director from 2006 to 2009 during the George W. Bush presidency. He was the National Security Agency director from 1999 to 2005, spanning the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
CNBC reached out to the Trump campaign via email and was awaiting a response.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...hould-expand-nuclear-weapons-hes-right-214546
Trump Said the U.S. Should Expand Nuclear Weapons. He’s Right.
America needs to bolster its deterrence not to start a war, but to prevent one.
By Matthew Kroenig
December 23, 2016
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
On Thursday, Donald Trump created controversy when he tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” In case anyone was confused, he followed up Friday morning with an off-air remark to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that clarified his intentions: “Let it be an arms race,” he said. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
The backlash was swift and unanimous. Critics charged that there is no plausible reason to expand U.S. nuclear weapons, that Trump’s comments contradicted a decades-old bipartisan consensus on the need to reduce nuclear stockpiles, and that such reckless statements risk provoking a new nuclear arms race with Russia and China.
On this matter, however, Trump is right.
U.S. nuclear strategy cannot be static, but must take into account the nuclear strategy and capabilities of its adversaries. For decades, the United States was able to reduce its nuclear arsenal from Cold War highs because it did not face any plausible nuclear challengers. But great power political competition has returned and it has brought nuclear weapons, the ultimate instrument of military force, along for the ride.
In recent years, North Korea has continued to grow its nuclear arsenal and means of delivery and has issued chilling nuclear threats against the United States and its Asian allies. As recently as Thursday -- before Trump’s offending tweet -- Rodong Sinmum, the Pyongyang regime’s official newspaper, published an opinion article calling for bolstering North Korea’s “nuclear deterrence.”
The potential threats are everywhere. Washington faces an increasing risk of conflict with a newly assertive, nuclear-armed China in the South China Sea. Beijing is expanding its nuclear forces and it is estimated that the number of Chinese warheads capable of reaching the U.S. homeland has more than trebled in the past decade and continues to grow. And Russia has become more aggressive in Europe and the Middle East and has engaged in explicit nuclear saber rattling the likes of which we have not seen since the 1980s. At the height of the crisis over Crimea in 2014, for example, Russian President Vladimir Putin ominously declared, “It's best not to mess with us … I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.” And on Tuesday, he vowed to “enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems.” As former Defense Secretary William Perry correctly notes, “Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War.”
The United States needs a robust nuclear force, therefore, not because anyone wants to fight a nuclear war, but rather, the opposite: to deter potential adversaries from attacking or coercing the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons of their own.
Under President Barack Obama, the United States mindlessly reduced its nuclear arsenal even as other nuclear powers went in the opposite direction, expanding and modernizing their nuclear forces. Such a path was unsustainable and Trump is correct to recognize that America’s aging nuclear arsenal is in need of some long overdue upgrades.
So, what would expanding and strengthening the nuclear arsenal look like?
First, the United States must modernize all three legs of the nuclear triad (submarines; long-range bombers, including a new cruise missile; and intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs). The Obama administration announced plans to modernize the triad under Republican pressure, but critics are already trying to kill off the ICBM and the cruise missile, and production timelines for these weapon systems keep slipping into the future. The Trump administration must make the timely modernization of all three legs of the triad a top priority.
Second, the United States should increase its deployment of nuclear warheads, consistent with its international obligations. According to New START, the treaty signed with Russia in 2011, each state will deploy no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, but those restrictions don’t kick in until February 2018. At present, according to the State Department, the United States is roughly 200 warheads below the limit while Russia is almost 250 warheads above it. Accordingly, Russia currently possesses a nuclear superiority of more than 400 warheads, which is worrisome in and of itself and also raises serious questions about whether Moscow intends to comply with this treaty at all. The United States, therefore, should expand its deployed arsenal up to the treaty limits and be fully prepared for further expansion should Russia break out — as Moscow has done with several other legacy arms control agreements.
Third, and finally, the United States and NATO need more flexible nuclear options in Europe. In the event of a losing war with NATO, Russian strategy calls for limited nuclear “de-escalation” strikes against European civilian and military targets. At present, NATO lacks an adequate response to this threat. As I explain in a new report, the United States must develop enhanced nuclear capabilities, including a tactical, air-to-surface cruise missile, in order to disabuse Putin of the notion that he can use nuclear weapons in Europe and get away with it.
These stubborn facts lay bare the ignorance or naivety of those fretting that Trump’s tweets risk starting a new nuclear arms race. It is U.S. adversaries, not Trump, who are moving first. It is a failure to respond that would be most reckless, signaling continued American weakness and only incentivizing further nuclear aggression.
The past eight years have been demoralizing for many in the defense policy community as Obama has consistently placed ideology over reality in the setting of U.S. nuclear policy. The results, an increasingly disordered world filled with intensifying nuclear dangers, speak for themselves.
Rather than express outrage over Trump’s tweet, therefore, we should take heart that we once again have a president who may be willing to do what it takes to defend the country against real, growing and truly existential threats.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Matthew Kroenig is associate professor in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and senior fellow in the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at The Atlantic Council. He is a former strategist in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and is currently writing a book on U.S. nuclear strategy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cbm-missiles-defector-us-leader-a7545011.html
Kim Jong Un 'would nuke Los Angeles' if his rule was threatened, North Korea defector reveals
Claim comes after former deputy ambassador vowed to 'dismantle' the North's murderous regime
Jon Sharman
Wednesday 25 January 2017 11:58 BST
Click to follow
The Independent Online
Popular videos
New York Mayor condemns Donald Trump's Muslim ban as 'un-American'
Petition calling on UK to cancel Trump state visit hits 500,000 names
Corbyn calls for Trump UK ban until Muslim country travel ban lifted
Bill Maher says PC Culture helped put Donald Trump in the White House
North Korea's most senior defector has claimed Kim Jong Un would fire a suicidal nuclear salvo at Los Angeles if his rule was threatened.
The dictator would "press the button" to destroy the Californian city despite the inevitable consequences, Thae Yong-ho, the former deputy ambassador in London, said.
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show he thought the dictator "will press the button on these dangerous weapons when he thinks that his rule and his dynasty is threatened".
Read more
Trump working on missile defence system to protect from North Korea
Asked if Mr Kim would act even knowing a nuclear attack on the US mainland would mean his destruction, Mr Thae replied: "Yes."
Mr Thae has previously said the Kim regime is aiming to complete its development of nuclear weapons by the end of 2017, and would not stop even if it was offered trillions of dollars to do so.
Pyongyang has asserted it will conduct its next nuclear missile test "anytime and anywhere".
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has announced the development of a "state-of-the-art" missile defence system to protect the US from Iran and North Korea, according to a statement posted to the White House website minutes after the new commander-in-chief was sworn into office.
Mr Thae added: "Kim Jong Un knows quite well that a nuclear weapon is the only guarantee for his rule. If he lose the power then it is his last day. He may do anything."
But he believes the Kim regime "one day would collapse by people's uprising".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26706...king-pearl-harbour-according-to-map-of-death/
KIM WANTS TO 'NUKE NAVY' Tyrant Kim Jong-un sets sights on nuking PEARL HARBOUR because that’s as far as his missiles will go
The historic naval base will soon be in range of the rogue's state new nuclear missiles
by JON LOCKETT
21st January 2017, 10:26 am
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Comments
TRIGGER-happy despot Kim Jong-un has set his sights on nuking PEARL HARBOUR according to a ‘map of death’ glimpsed in a North Korean war room.
A leaked photograph is said to show a map with four key US assets in the crosshairs of an attack…including the legendary Naval base targeted by the Japanese in 1941.
Pearl Harbour is the headquarters of the United States Pacific Fleet
AP:Associated Press
6
Pearl Harbour is the headquarters of the United States Pacific Fleet
A map shows Hawaii is within reach of Kim’s nukes
6
A map shows Hawaii is within reach of Kim’s nukes
Kim Jong-Un's nuclear warheads could be ready within a year (2017), it is claimed
Getty Images
6
Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear warheads could reach Hawaii within a year, it is claimed
The Japanese infamously launched a surprise attack on the base in December 1941
Getty Images
6
The Japanese infamously launched a surprise attack on the base in December 1941
Other targets included the naval fleet at San Diego, the Air Force Global Strike Command in Louisiana and the centre of government in Washington DC, reports the LA Times
However, of the sites pinpointed on the military map only Pearl Harbour is a genuine target as the others are, at the moment, beyond the reach of North Korea’s military might.
But the communist enclave is now close to developing a nuclear ICBM capable of travelling 5,000 miles and Pearl Harbour in Hawaii is just 4,600 miles away from Kim’s kingdom.
The base is a lagoon on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, west of Honolulu. It has 1.4m local residents and is the headquarters of the United States Pacific Fleet and a navy museum.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
Trump asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
Matthew J. Belvedere | @Matt_Belvedere
Wednesday, 3 Aug 2016 | 8:05 AM ETCNBC.com
Donald Trump
Trump reportedly asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
Wednesday, 3 Aug 2016 | 9:55 AM ET | 01:20
Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.
"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
Scarborough made the Trump comments 52 seconds into an interview with former Director of Central Intelligence and ex-National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden.
Watch: What are some major concerns about Trump's handling of national security? Hayden and #morningjoe weigh in.
Scarborough then asked a hypothetical question to Hayden about how quickly nuclear weapons could be deployed if a president were to give approval.
"It's scenario dependent, but the system is designed for speed and decisiveness. It's not designed to debate the decision," Hayden said.
Hayden was CIA director from 2006 to 2009 during the George W. Bush presidency. He was the National Security Agency director from 1999 to 2005, spanning the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
CNBC reached out to the Trump campaign via email and was awaiting a response.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...hould-expand-nuclear-weapons-hes-right-214546
Trump Said the U.S. Should Expand Nuclear Weapons. He’s Right.
America needs to bolster its deterrence not to start a war, but to prevent one.
By Matthew Kroenig
December 23, 2016
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
On Thursday, Donald Trump created controversy when he tweeted, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” In case anyone was confused, he followed up Friday morning with an off-air remark to MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that clarified his intentions: “Let it be an arms race,” he said. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
The backlash was swift and unanimous. Critics charged that there is no plausible reason to expand U.S. nuclear weapons, that Trump’s comments contradicted a decades-old bipartisan consensus on the need to reduce nuclear stockpiles, and that such reckless statements risk provoking a new nuclear arms race with Russia and China.
On this matter, however, Trump is right.
U.S. nuclear strategy cannot be static, but must take into account the nuclear strategy and capabilities of its adversaries. For decades, the United States was able to reduce its nuclear arsenal from Cold War highs because it did not face any plausible nuclear challengers. But great power political competition has returned and it has brought nuclear weapons, the ultimate instrument of military force, along for the ride.
In recent years, North Korea has continued to grow its nuclear arsenal and means of delivery and has issued chilling nuclear threats against the United States and its Asian allies. As recently as Thursday -- before Trump’s offending tweet -- Rodong Sinmum, the Pyongyang regime’s official newspaper, published an opinion article calling for bolstering North Korea’s “nuclear deterrence.”
The potential threats are everywhere. Washington faces an increasing risk of conflict with a newly assertive, nuclear-armed China in the South China Sea. Beijing is expanding its nuclear forces and it is estimated that the number of Chinese warheads capable of reaching the U.S. homeland has more than trebled in the past decade and continues to grow. And Russia has become more aggressive in Europe and the Middle East and has engaged in explicit nuclear saber rattling the likes of which we have not seen since the 1980s. At the height of the crisis over Crimea in 2014, for example, Russian President Vladimir Putin ominously declared, “It's best not to mess with us … I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.” And on Tuesday, he vowed to “enhance the combat capability of strategic nuclear forces, primarily by strengthening missile complexes that will be guaranteed to penetrate existing and future missile defense systems.” As former Defense Secretary William Perry correctly notes, “Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War.”
The United States needs a robust nuclear force, therefore, not because anyone wants to fight a nuclear war, but rather, the opposite: to deter potential adversaries from attacking or coercing the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons of their own.
Under President Barack Obama, the United States mindlessly reduced its nuclear arsenal even as other nuclear powers went in the opposite direction, expanding and modernizing their nuclear forces. Such a path was unsustainable and Trump is correct to recognize that America’s aging nuclear arsenal is in need of some long overdue upgrades.
So, what would expanding and strengthening the nuclear arsenal look like?
First, the United States must modernize all three legs of the nuclear triad (submarines; long-range bombers, including a new cruise missile; and intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs). The Obama administration announced plans to modernize the triad under Republican pressure, but critics are already trying to kill off the ICBM and the cruise missile, and production timelines for these weapon systems keep slipping into the future. The Trump administration must make the timely modernization of all three legs of the triad a top priority.
Second, the United States should increase its deployment of nuclear warheads, consistent with its international obligations. According to New START, the treaty signed with Russia in 2011, each state will deploy no more than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, but those restrictions don’t kick in until February 2018. At present, according to the State Department, the United States is roughly 200 warheads below the limit while Russia is almost 250 warheads above it. Accordingly, Russia currently possesses a nuclear superiority of more than 400 warheads, which is worrisome in and of itself and also raises serious questions about whether Moscow intends to comply with this treaty at all. The United States, therefore, should expand its deployed arsenal up to the treaty limits and be fully prepared for further expansion should Russia break out — as Moscow has done with several other legacy arms control agreements.
Third, and finally, the United States and NATO need more flexible nuclear options in Europe. In the event of a losing war with NATO, Russian strategy calls for limited nuclear “de-escalation” strikes against European civilian and military targets. At present, NATO lacks an adequate response to this threat. As I explain in a new report, the United States must develop enhanced nuclear capabilities, including a tactical, air-to-surface cruise missile, in order to disabuse Putin of the notion that he can use nuclear weapons in Europe and get away with it.
These stubborn facts lay bare the ignorance or naivety of those fretting that Trump’s tweets risk starting a new nuclear arms race. It is U.S. adversaries, not Trump, who are moving first. It is a failure to respond that would be most reckless, signaling continued American weakness and only incentivizing further nuclear aggression.
The past eight years have been demoralizing for many in the defense policy community as Obama has consistently placed ideology over reality in the setting of U.S. nuclear policy. The results, an increasingly disordered world filled with intensifying nuclear dangers, speak for themselves.
Rather than express outrage over Trump’s tweet, therefore, we should take heart that we once again have a president who may be willing to do what it takes to defend the country against real, growing and truly existential threats.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Matthew Kroenig is associate professor in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and senior fellow in the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at The Atlantic Council. He is a former strategist in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and is currently writing a book on U.S. nuclear strategy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...cbm-missiles-defector-us-leader-a7545011.html
Kim Jong Un 'would nuke Los Angeles' if his rule was threatened, North Korea defector reveals
Claim comes after former deputy ambassador vowed to 'dismantle' the North's murderous regime
Jon Sharman
Wednesday 25 January 2017 11:58 BST
Click to follow
The Independent Online
Popular videos
New York Mayor condemns Donald Trump's Muslim ban as 'un-American'
Petition calling on UK to cancel Trump state visit hits 500,000 names
Corbyn calls for Trump UK ban until Muslim country travel ban lifted
Bill Maher says PC Culture helped put Donald Trump in the White House
North Korea's most senior defector has claimed Kim Jong Un would fire a suicidal nuclear salvo at Los Angeles if his rule was threatened.
The dictator would "press the button" to destroy the Californian city despite the inevitable consequences, Thae Yong-ho, the former deputy ambassador in London, said.
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show he thought the dictator "will press the button on these dangerous weapons when he thinks that his rule and his dynasty is threatened".
Read more
Trump working on missile defence system to protect from North Korea
Asked if Mr Kim would act even knowing a nuclear attack on the US mainland would mean his destruction, Mr Thae replied: "Yes."
Mr Thae has previously said the Kim regime is aiming to complete its development of nuclear weapons by the end of 2017, and would not stop even if it was offered trillions of dollars to do so.
Pyongyang has asserted it will conduct its next nuclear missile test "anytime and anywhere".
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has announced the development of a "state-of-the-art" missile defence system to protect the US from Iran and North Korea, according to a statement posted to the White House website minutes after the new commander-in-chief was sworn into office.
Mr Thae added: "Kim Jong Un knows quite well that a nuclear weapon is the only guarantee for his rule. If he lose the power then it is his last day. He may do anything."
But he believes the Kim regime "one day would collapse by people's uprising".
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26706...king-pearl-harbour-according-to-map-of-death/
KIM WANTS TO 'NUKE NAVY' Tyrant Kim Jong-un sets sights on nuking PEARL HARBOUR because that’s as far as his missiles will go
The historic naval base will soon be in range of the rogue's state new nuclear missiles
by JON LOCKETT
21st January 2017, 10:26 am
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Comments
TRIGGER-happy despot Kim Jong-un has set his sights on nuking PEARL HARBOUR according to a ‘map of death’ glimpsed in a North Korean war room.
A leaked photograph is said to show a map with four key US assets in the crosshairs of an attack…including the legendary Naval base targeted by the Japanese in 1941.
Pearl Harbour is the headquarters of the United States Pacific Fleet
AP:Associated Press
6
Pearl Harbour is the headquarters of the United States Pacific Fleet
A map shows Hawaii is within reach of Kim’s nukes
6
A map shows Hawaii is within reach of Kim’s nukes
Kim Jong-Un's nuclear warheads could be ready within a year (2017), it is claimed
Getty Images
6
Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear warheads could reach Hawaii within a year, it is claimed
The Japanese infamously launched a surprise attack on the base in December 1941
Getty Images
6
The Japanese infamously launched a surprise attack on the base in December 1941
Other targets included the naval fleet at San Diego, the Air Force Global Strike Command in Louisiana and the centre of government in Washington DC, reports the LA Times
However, of the sites pinpointed on the military map only Pearl Harbour is a genuine target as the others are, at the moment, beyond the reach of North Korea’s military might.
But the communist enclave is now close to developing a nuclear ICBM capable of travelling 5,000 miles and Pearl Harbour in Hawaii is just 4,600 miles away from Kim’s kingdom.
The base is a lagoon on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, west of Honolulu. It has 1.4m local residents and is the headquarters of the United States Pacific Fleet and a navy museum.
Last edited:
