2016 elections - because it's never too early

[The Minsky Moment]

George Will leaves the GOP because of Trump

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/26/columnist_george_will_leaves_gop_over_trump_s_mexican_judge_comment.html

Who?

No silly, Who's on first.

[Razgovory]

George Will leaves the GOP because of Trump

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/26/columnist_george_will_leaves_gop_over_trump_s_mexican_judge_comment.html

Who?

The baseball guy.

[Razgovory]

Honesty I don't think Donald Trump would be that bad as the US president. I can't see him fucking up the USA more than our leaders have in the UK.

Trump actually scares me most on foreign policy, because the President's power has a lot of limitations on domestic policy. If he were to win he'd likely win with a Republican Congress, but the Republican Congress frankly has domestic policy goals somewhat out of step with Trump's, and they wouldn't be a rubber stamp. Even W. Bush only had a rubber stamp from Congress briefly after 9/11, and often failed in initiatives when he tried things that didn't match up with what the Republican Congresses that existed during his Presidency preferred. They blocked immigration reform and several other significant Bush domestic policy initiatives.

But our constitution makes the President far more powerful on foreign policy, tantamount to a monarch in fact with few checks (other than he can't get involved in wars without congressional funding, and can't enter the most powerful types of treaties without congress.)

But Trump has suggested things like:

1. U.S. disengagement from NATO (he hasn't said it in just those words, but the words he use would all but necessitate this as the outcome.)
2. U.S. disengagement from traditional Pacific allies, to replace our troop commitments with aiding South Korea and Japan's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Which Japan would likely/definitely refuse, but I'm not sure about South Korea if it faced true abandonment from the U.S. military and was told "here's some nukes."
3. Taking actions that would essentially result in a trade war with China.

These would all cause grave consequences.

This is also what bothers me about Trump, but he has another problem that makes him poorly suited in foreign affairs (besides pig ignorance, and arrogance).  He reacts emotionally and often vindictively. If his foreign policy reflects the sort of decision making he has demonstrated so far we could easily end up at involved in a war.  A war with Iran would be undesirable, a war with North Korea could be catastrophic.

[jimmy olsen]

This is also what bothers me about Trump, but he has another problem that makes him poorly suited in foreign affairs (besides pig ignorance, and arrogance).  He reacts emotionally and often vindictively. If his foreign policy reflects the sort of decision making he has demonstrated so far we could easily end up at involved in a war.  A war with Iran would be undesirable, a war with North Korea could be catastrophic.

Shouldn't that be the other way around? NK can't actually deliver their nukes, while the Iranians could shut down the Persian Gulf and send the price of oil through the roof.

[Berkut]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

[jimmy olsen]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

Since when have they been able to miniaturize their warheads enough to fit them on their shitty missiles?

[CountDeMoney]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

The United Parcel Service specifically prohibits the shipping of such items.  They are very adamant on this issue.

[Razgovory]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

Since when have they been able to miniaturize their warheads enough to fit them on their shitty missiles?

It's not like they let us see them.  They have not been able to demonstrate ICBM capabilities, but they have weapons that can reliably hit any target in South Korea and Japan.  The wise assumption is that can hit those targets with nuclear weapons.  It would be extremely stupid to get in a fight with them and hope they lack that capability.

Some nations routinely insult the US or its leaders, and the US routinely ignores these insults.  Trump seems to be unable to allow insults to go.  Papers that print news stories he doesn't like get their press credentials revoked.  In his speeches he rants obsessively over any perceived slight.  When angry he frequently says things without thinking them over.  He's very much a "fire from the hip", type of guy.  What if the North Koreans get his goat?  It's not difficult see him state that if the North Koreans continue with a missile test he'll bomb targets inside North Korea.

[jimmy olsen]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

Since when have they been able to miniaturize their warheads enough to fit them on their shitty missiles?

It's not like they let us see them.  They have not been able to demonstrate ICBM capabilities, but they have weapons that can reliably hit any target in South Korea and Japan. 

Reliably? Have we been watching the same series of tests?

[Razgovory]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

Since when have they been able to miniaturize their warheads enough to fit them on their shitty missiles?

It's not like they let us see them.  They have not been able to demonstrate ICBM capabilities, but they have weapons that can reliably hit any target in South Korea and Japan. 

Reliably? Have we been watching the same series of tests?

You mean the ones that fire over Japan? Than yes.  They have Scud Missiles, we know what they can do.  Sometimes you are so goddamn stupid.

[Berkut]

Of course they can deliver their nukes - what ever gave you the idea they could not?

Since when have they been able to miniaturize their warheads enough to fit them on their shitty missiles?

Psst. Here is a secret. You don't have to put a nuclear warhead on a missile to deliver it. Have you ever heard of the Enola Gay?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, delivery of a nuclear missile via a North Korean bomber would have a really high failure rate. Raz is right though, medium-range missiles the Norks have pretty reliable technology. They're testing longer range missiles now--those are the ones that much more often than not are exploding during launch, but it would be very unlikely we could reliably stop a nuclear strike against Japan or South Korea from North Korea. We do have some ABM infrastructure in place, but that shit is largely unproven. Some older ABm systems had pretty poor results in Iraq II--we did successfully stop some missiles in flight. But said missiles also tended to  break apart and fall as debris to the earth, causing collateral damage. When there's a nuclear warhead involved, depending on where the intercept happens, it could still be bad news.

[Berkut]

I agree that trying to deliver a missile via bomber would not work well, nuclear or otherwise.

Simply dropping a bomb however, I suspect would work just fine.

Or for that matter, putting it in a truck and driving it to Seoul.

[Malthus]

As far as nuke delivery systems go, I have always thought the most dangerous was the easiest: put the nuke into a shipping container, ship it into a port; set it off there.

I can't see any easy way to stop that. Containers get inspected once in port, and once in port it will be too late.

Oddly enough, this possibility was mentioned in the very first letter that started the US nuke program.

A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter

Of course that letter assumed wartime conditions, in which it would be possible to keep enemy ships out of port. In a sneak attack, the ship could sail right in no problem.

[as an aside, this bit from the article was funny:

Szilárd dictated the letter in English to a young departmental stenographer, Janet Coatesworth. She later recalled that when Szilárd mentioned extremely powerful bombs, she "was sure she was working for a nut". Ending the letter with "Yours truly, Albert Einstein" did nothing to alter this impression.

]

[Legbiter]

The Trump mole is at it again.