Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[The Romulan Republic]

Most of congress doesn't get regular classified briefings, or really anything at all as far as detailed intelligence on North Korea missiles and nuclear capabilities. If you look at the public policy documents congress self generates for itself many of the sources are still from over a decade ago, or else basically based on parade videos; many date to a time in fact when some of the North Koreans missiles now being tested and sorta working, were not even positively known to be real. Past history indicates that the US had some really good intelligence on certain program at an early point but revealed nothing further. So considering NOrth Korea really might just be one more nuke test and realistically two or three more missile launches away from a nuclear IRBM, if not a nuclear ICBM, and it's actually built an SLBM that actually works from underwater, some kind of closed session is probably justified, no matter its actual reason, of course we won't know the true content. Still do remember one good possible US response is just to spend a lot more money actually fielding proven missile defense hardware. This would require adding very few troops too, unlike say, adding a fighter wing or ship, but its a huge amount of money up front for the hardware. Nothing North Korean can build the US can't afford to shoot down with high assurance, its only a question of bothering to pay for it. Trump did say he wants more war department budget.

Major increases in missile defence are really the only area where I support large increases in military expenditure, and if Trump did this, well, he's still a despicable, despotic buffoon who sold out his country and undermined our democracy, but I'd have to give him credit for at least doing one thing right.

[Simon_Jester]

Given that any ICBMs fired at the United States by foaming-at-the-mouth types are very likely to be dialed in so that Donald Trump's bloated, repugnant form is right in the crosshairs of said nuclear missile...

I'm not entirely sure he deserves extra credit for considering this to be a problem that needs attention. It's more like I want to take opponents of missile defense aside and shake them and yell "you morons, even Trumpolini isn't dumb enough to screw this up!"

[Flagg]

Given that any ICBMs fired at the United States by foaming-at-the-mouth types are very likely to be dialed in so that Donald Trump's bloated, repugnant form is right in the crosshairs of said nuclear missile...

I'm not entirely sure he deserves extra credit for considering this to be a problem that needs attention. It's more like I want to take opponents of missile defense aside and shake them and yell "you morons, even Trumpolini isn't dumb enough to screw this up!"

I think people worried about "ICBMs fired at the United States by foaming-at-the-mouth types" need to learn a skill called "focus".

[Simon_Jester]

In your opinion, is Donald Trump not deficient in this skill?

[The Romulan Republic]

Given that any ICBMs fired at the United States by foaming-at-the-mouth types are very likely to be dialed in so that Donald Trump's bloated, repugnant form is right in the crosshairs of said nuclear missile...

I'm not entirely sure he deserves extra credit for considering this to be a problem that needs attention. It's more like I want to take opponents of missile defense aside and shake them and yell "you morons, even Trumpolini isn't dumb enough to screw this up!"

Well, apparently he's asking South Korea to pay for it. While his rhetoric endangers their safety.

Trump's idea of foreign policy often resembles a protection racket.

[Flagg]

In your opinion, is Donald Trump not deficient in this skill?

Of course. But you appear to think we need missile defense in case some rogue dictator magically gets working ICBM's and functioning nuclear bombs to put on them while also being a suicidal maniac.

[Flagg]

In your opinion, is Donald Trump not deficient in this skill?

Frankly in the scenario you posited, President Pussygrabber sounds more like the foaming at the mouth one.

[Simon_Jester]

In your opinion, is Donald Trump not deficient in this skill?

Of course. But you appear to think we need missile defense in case some rogue dictator magically gets working ICBM's and functioning nuclear bombs to put on them while also being a suicidal maniac.

No, I think Trumpolini will think that way. I think he'll imagine some foaming lunatic who's too 'stupid' to be deterred by his threats, and who will therefore take a shot at him.

But that's not what I think about when I talk about missile defense.

Me, I think that we need ballistic missile defense to discourage powers with small nuclear arsenals from trying to use their nuclear deterrent against US civilian territory at all. Large countries with thousands of missiles may well be able to saturate any defense network we can afford to build. But small countries with arsenals of, say, ten missiles, or twenty, or even a hundred? That is a different order of problem.

A country with ten missiles to fire can aim them at ten different cities. Statistically, some of the missiles will probably fail, but having even half of them impact would be, well, I'll borrow the orange one's phrasing. It would be the biggest, hugest disaster, you're not gonna believe what a disaster it would be.

This allows an extremely poorly equipped country to have a near-absolute deterrent against even a very large opponent. There is no situation where it would remotely be a favorable deal for the US to accept five destroyed major cities as the price of fighting North Korea or Iran, for instance. We'd be idiots to attack Iran if we thought they could blow up five or six major US cities in the first two hours of the war. Even if "we know that they know" that the result would be the nuclear annihilation of the Iranian government... well, they still have a deterrent.

Furthermore, we would also be deterred from retaliating with nuclear attacks against them if they launched a limited nuclear attack against our own forces in the field. Suppose an Iranian nuclear-tipped antiship missile blows away one of our aircraft carriers. Do we retaliate by nuking Tehran? We can at least credibly threaten that this is what we'd do right now. We cannot make that threat so credible if the Iranians say "well yeah, and if you nuke Tehran, we'll nuke New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Washington." Sure, if those five cities were destroyed, the US would still exist and would still be able to utterly defeat or even annihilate Iran as a fighting nation. But so what? It doesn't matter how much damage they take; in terms of the damage we took, we've lost the war even if Iran loses it harder.

...

Long story short, a very limited nuclear arsenal, if it has the range to hit the continental United States, is a very relevant deterrent. Even if it isn't nearly enough firepower to literally 'destroy America' the way that a Cold War Soviet attack might have done.

But a ballistic missile shield neutralizes these "small deterrents." The ability to shoot down only ten missiles fired at the US, or the ability to shoot down a single missile fired mistakenly, is an extremely valuable form of security. Especially in a world where nuclear proliferation becomes more likely. In a world with only two or three mutually hostile nuclear-armed blocs, mutually assured destruction is a reasonably safe bet. In a world with dozens of such power blocs, it's not, because sooner or later someone will do something stupid, or push a button by accident, or try to use their nuclear deterrent as an offensive bludgeon to force other countries to make concessions.

...

So that's why I think we should have more ballistic missile defense. But I don't think Trump thinks that way, because I'm pretty sure he's mentally incapable of some of the thoughts involved. For him, it's about stopping a bomb from falling down his own personal chimney.

[Flagg]

i seriously have a hard time believing any country with an ability to attack the US with nuke tipped ballistic missiles will have leadership crazy enough to use them (or their military willing to launch them) knowing that the response will be that future generations will be able to see their former country glow from Mars.

I see the "defense" as a way for future US leaders to be able to attack countries with small nuclear arsenals that were formerly a deterrent.

[Ralin]

i seriously have a hard time believing any country with an ability to attack the US with nuke tipped ballistic missiles will have leadership crazy enough to use them (or their military willing to launch them) knowing that the response will be that future generations will be able to see their former country glow from Mars.

A lot of hard to believe things have happened in the past year. Case in point, Donald Trump is president of the United States.

Things that seem like they should be obviously crazy and/or stupid can seem perfectly rational to some people in some situations. Some of those people could be national leaders. I don't immediately see a lot of scenarios where a country is likely to do what you just described. If having a hedge against the situation is viable it's a good idea to have it up and working before that changes, because however much it costs would be less than the cost of gambling and being wrong. Unknown unknowns and all that.

[Simon_Jester]

i seriously have a hard time believing any country with an ability to attack the US with nuke tipped ballistic missiles will have leadership crazy enough to use them (or their military willing to launch them) knowing that the response will be that future generations will be able to see their former country glow from Mars.

I see the "defense" as a way for future US leaders to be able to attack countries with small nuclear arsenals that were formerly a deterrent.

If you can't imagine some country with a twenty-missile nuclear arsenal starting shit with its neighbor and trying to use said twenty missiles as a deterrent to hold the world at bay...

Well, let's just say that a lot of people can imagine that happening, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them has a twenty-missile arsenal some day.

[Flagg]

i seriously have a hard time believing any country with an ability to attack the US with nuke tipped ballistic missiles will have leadership crazy enough to use them (or their military willing to launch them) knowing that the response will be that future generations will be able to see their former country glow from Mars.

I see the "defense" as a way for future US leaders to be able to attack countries with small nuclear arsenals that were formerly a deterrent.

If you can't imagine some country with a twenty-missile nuclear arsenal starting shit with its neighbor and trying to use said twenty missiles as a deterrent to hold the world at bay...

Well, let's just say that a lot of people can imagine that happening, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them has a twenty-missile arsenal some day.

Like Israel?

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, if Israel were to, say, randomly invade Jordan without provocation and threaten to obliterate the five largest cities of any country that tries to stop them in a nuclear first strike, that would be an example, hypothetically.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking about the stuff Israel actually does? Because compared to the sort of things a nuclear arsenal can let you get away with in principle, if no one actually calls your bluff and risks megadeaths to stop you...

Well, Israel barely even shows up on the radar. For now, at least.

[Flagg]

Yeah, if Israel were to, say, randomly invade Jordan without provocation and threaten to obliterate the five largest cities of any country that tries to stop them in a nuclear first strike, that would be an example, hypothetically.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking about the stuff Israel actually does? Because compared to the sort of things a nuclear arsenal can let you get away with in principle, if no one actually calls your bluff and risks megadeaths to stop you...

Well, Israel barely even shows up on the radar. For now, at least.

Israel knocked the shit out of Lebanon several years ago under the impetus that it would get back 3 kidnapped soldiers. You think that would have happened if they didn't have a nuclear arsenal? And what minor power in a region is under threat of an expansionist regime that would require the US to have a missile defense system? The only country I can think of is NK on a worst case basis, and we aren't exactly leaving SK undefended.

[Highlord Laan]

Yeah, if Israel were to, say, randomly invade Jordan without provocation and threaten to obliterate the five largest cities of any country that tries to stop them in a nuclear first strike, that would be an example, hypothetically.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking about the stuff Israel actually does? Because compared to the sort of things a nuclear arsenal can let you get away with in principle, if no one actually calls your bluff and risks megadeaths to stop you...

Well, Israel barely even shows up on the radar. For now, at least.

Israel knocked the shit out of Lebanon several years ago under the impetus that it would get back 3 kidnapped soldiers. You think that would have happened if they didn't have a nuclear arsenal? And what minor power in a region is under threat of an expansionist regime that would require the US to have a missile defense system? The only country I can think of is NK on a worst case basis, and we aren't exactly leaving SK undefended.

I think it has less to do with Israel's (probable) nuclear armaments and more to do with it's neighbors knowing that six of them combined lost a war, and that Israel is even more heavily armed now. Oh, and backed by the US to and even higher degree than before.

I'm not a backer of Israel's antics in any way, but I do think the other nations in the area are fully aware of the power dynamics at work.

[Simon_Jester]

Israel knocked the shit out of Lebanon several years ago under the impetus that it would get back 3 kidnapped soldiers. You think that would have happened if they didn't have a nuclear arsenal? And what minor power in a region is under threat of an expansionist regime that would require the US to have a missile defense system? The only country I can think of is NK on a worst case basis, and we aren't exactly leaving SK undefended.

The biggest issue is Iran and second order consequences of Iran getting nuclear weapons.

[Please read the rest in full before deciding on how to respond. Imma explain]

This is not about any "mad mullah" crap or stereotyping of the Iranian government as fanatical, irrational, or a suicide bomber writ large.

Basically, the problem is more one of proliferation resulting from one power in a region getting nuclear weapons. This has been a well-known issue with nuclear weapons proliferation going back at least sixty years. Every new country that gets The Bomb triggers an incentive for all neighbors who fear conflict with that nation to get The Bomb themselves.

As far as I can remember, almost every historical case of a country developing nuclear weapons was motivated in part by fear of an enemy acquiring them too. Nazi Germany (in effect) triggered the US by raising the specter of a Nazi bomb. The US triggered Russia, Russia triggered Britain and France. The US and Russia both triggered China, China triggered India, India triggered Pakistan. The US triggered North Korea, in effect.

About the only countries that worked seriously to acquire nuclear weapons to defend itself against purely conventional-armed states were Israel and South Africa, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that back during the days of the Israeli nuclear program, they were wondering "what if Egypt gets it" or something.

Many of these 'triggerings' are NOT the fault of the 'triggering' nation, and often not the fault of the nation being triggered either. This is not about blame, it's just a thing that happens when nations try to secure themselves in a nuclear-armed world. Practically the only things that have stopped this process from rocketing completely out of control are...

1) Efforts by major nuclear powers to place smaller countries under their deterrent umbrella, e.g. by guaranteeing their independence and backing their security with the threat of nuclear weapons. This is why, for instance, Japan and Taiwan haven't needed nukes to defend itself against China.

2) Active efforts by major nuclear powers to prevent proliferation.

The reason all the big nuclear powers have agreed on (2) is that as nations trigger one another in the same area, the risk of accidental nuclear war rises exponentially (just because there are more possible nuclear wars that can happen and more risk of a screwup). And the risk of one of those countries (or just some of those countries' nukes) falling into the hands of irrational or incompetent actors increases.
_____________________________________

The Israelis getting a nuclear arsenal very nearly triggered this arms race already in the Middle East. In a parallel universe not far from this one, I suspect that the Israeli nuclear program could have triggered "NUKES FOR EVERYBODY" escalation across the region, and by now it's entirely possible that a long list of other countries would have The Bomb. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and (oh god no) Syria could plausibly all have acquired nuclear weapons if it weren't for various forces slowing them down.

There are several reasons this didn't happen is because there is actually a fairly straightforward way to avoid having to worry about getting nuked by Israel: Do not attack them, either directly or by proxy. Lebanon got invaded- and you will note that Hezbollah was actually raiding into Israel across that border, there were physical territorial intrusions going on.

I'm not saying this to paint the Israelis as a bunch of righteous people, it's just a brute force practical thing. If you are a sovereign country bordering on Israel, you CAN avoid conflict with them, by not poking them. Therefore, it is not a matter of desperate necessity to acquire a nuclear deterrent to cancel out their nuclear deterrent.

The problem is, Iran has a history of getting involved with other countries in the region. This isn't even a criticism of them, it's just a thing they do. Iran has been involved in Iraq (with its Shi'ite majority), in Syria, and so on. Even if you don't poke Iran, Iran may poke you, or try to set up a puppet regime in your neighbor's territory. This makes an Iranian nuclear arsenal much more alarming than it would be if the Iranians were a bunch of isolationists. As a brute force practical matter, it incentivizes other nations near Iran to make sure they have an arsenal that can deter any Iranian threats or action... which means that if Iran gets nukes, they will want nukes too.

[Flagg]

Yeah but the thing is... Israel has nuclear weapons and is in the same region. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and shares a border with Iran. The corks off the bottle.

[Simon_Jester]

The cork is in the process of coming off the bottle. Pakistan has their nuclear arsenal (originally to counter India, but it motivates Iran's program). Israel does indeed have one too (though the immediately surrounding states seem NOT to have reacted by building their own nukes). You're right about proliferation continuing to go on. You're right about the cork coming off the bottle- or if you're not entirely right yet, you will be soon enough.

Moreover, let's extend the analogy. In the Middle East, the cork is coming off the bottle. And the bottle has been aggressively shaken up for decades by many people (including, but by no means limited to, the US).

What do you do when some idiot shakes up a two-liter soda bottle and uncaps it? You don't wait, wondering what will happen next. You yell "OH SHIT!" and grab a towel, that's what you do.

Ballistic missile defense systems are the towel.

...

In the decision to expand and develop ballistic missile defense... We may have finally found a decision even Donald Trump is unable to fuck up. He's probably doing it for the wrong reasons, but I have to concede, grudgingly, that as yet it seems as though he's not fucking it up.

[Flagg]

The cork is in the process of coming off the bottle. Pakistan has their nuclear arsenal (originally to counter India, but it motivates Iran's program). Israel does indeed have one too (though the immediately surrounding states seem NOT to have reacted by building their own nukes). You're right about proliferation continuing to go on. You're right about the cork coming off the bottle- or if you're not entirely right yet, you will be soon enough.

Moreover, let's extend the analogy. In the Middle East, the cork is coming off the bottle. And the bottle has been aggressively shaken up for decades by many people (including, but by no means limited to, the US).

What do you do when some idiot shakes up a two-liter soda bottle and uncaps it? You don't wait, wondering what will happen next. You yell "OH SHIT!" and grab a towel, that's what you do.

Ballistic missile defense systems are the towel.

...

In the decision to expand and develop ballistic missile defense... We may have finally found a decision even Donald Trump is unable to fuck up. He's probably doing it for the wrong reasons, but I have to concede, grudgingly, that as yet it seems as though he's not fucking it up.

When you have the power to glass a country with impunity, don't you think the likelihood of it happening is more likely?

Drip dry, motherfucker.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd respond to this, but I can't parse it to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Could you clarify?

[Flagg]

I'd respond to this, but I can't parse it to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Could you clarify?

When a country with nuclear weapons can obliterate another country with nuclear weapons without having to suffer reprisals in the form of nuclear fire, don't you think they will be more likely to do so?

[Ralin]

When a country with nuclear weapons can obliterate another country with nuclear weapons without having to suffer reprisals in the form of nuclear fire, don't you think they will be more likely to do so?

Able to fend off reprisals does not mean a certainty of fending off reprisals. That's an important distinction considering the consequences of missing one or two.


The US has consistently declined to obliterate countries vis nuclear weapons that could not feasibly stop it or retaliate thus far. I think you over-estimate how likely a working missile defense system is likely to change that.

[Flagg]

When a country with nuclear weapons can obliterate another country with nuclear weapons without having to suffer reprisals in the form of nuclear fire, don't you think they will be more likely to do so?

Able to fend off reprisals does not mean a certainty of fending off reprisals. That's an important distinction considering the consequences of missing one or two.


The US has consistently declined to obliterate countries vis nuclear weapons that could not feasibly stop it or retaliate thus far. I think you over-estimate how likely a working missile defense system is likely to change that.

At some point missile defense will work just as intended. Because it's a fucking trillion dollar (hyperbole, I hope) boondoggle now, doesn't mean the turd cannot be shined diamond bright and expanded upon.

But the greatest danger of the US getting nuked is if the air force shits the bed transporting them.

[Simon_Jester]

"Trillion dollar" is hyperbole; "boondoggle" is flat wrong. The technology works. It has worked for forty years if not more. It is not a waste of money, it is not a 'turd' in need of polishing. It always worked to one level of reliability or another, generation after generation of anti-missile missile has been designed, built, and tested with increasing degrees of success. It is simply a matter of the will to build the system, and the desire to do so.

I'd respond to this, but I can't parse it to figure out what you're actually trying to say. Could you clarify?

When a country with nuclear weapons can obliterate another country with nuclear weapons without having to suffer reprisals in the form of nuclear fire, don't you think they will be more likely to do so?

It depends on the country and the circumstances. The answer is not 'duh yes' as you seem to think. Nor is the answer 'duh no.' The answer can be any of the following:

1) Yes
2) Mu, because the odds are zero percent either way
3) Mu, because this country is so shambolic they're likely to blunder into a nuclear war by accident.

In particular, options 2 and 3 are relevant and I'm not sure you really considered them. Now, that's my response to the question you actually asked. If you're trying to bait me into agreeing with some thesis of yours, kindly state that thesis so that it can be addressed on its merits.

It SOUNDS like you're sort of indirectly passive-aggressively trying to argue that the only effect of ABM would be to make the US more inclined to launch nuclear first strikes on countries with small arsenals. This is basically you flat-out ignoring everything I said, so I'm irritated by it... But I may be misunderstanding, or you may have just not gotten around to explaining the nuances of why you think everything I've been saying for days is so irrelevant as to not merit being directly addressed. Or, again, I may be misunderstanding.

Would you mind expanding on your views?

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-06/t ... em/8502512

Trump admits Australia has a superior health system. To which I say, no shit Sherlock, but good luck getting right wing retards to admit that.

Donald Trump does not think US should copy Australia's health system, White House says
By Washington correspondent Zoe Daniel, wires
Updated about 4 hours ago

As Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull flies back to Australia following a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the White House has clarified Mr Trump's comments calling Australia's universal healthcare system "better" than the US system.

Mr Turnbull flew out of New York after a breakfast meeting with business leaders, including billionaire Michael Bloomberg, following his 45-minute private meeting with Mr Trump on Thursday.

The meeting happened almost three hours late after Mr Trump postponed it to remain in Washington while a bill to overturn much of former president Barack Obama's signature healthcare law passed the House of Representatives, a move further away from a guarantee of universal coverage.

The US leader raised eyebrows when he told Mr Turnbull shortly after the bill passed that Australia had "better health care than we do".

But the White House has since clarified those comments, saying the US President was simply saying nice things to an ally and did not think his country should adopt a similar approach.

"The President was complimenting a foreign leader on the operations of their healthcare system. It didn't mean anything more than that," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a news briefing.
"I think he believes that they have a good healthcare system for Australia. What works in Australia may not work in the United States," she said.

Mr Trump also tweeted on Saturday that "everybody" had better health care than the US, but the system would "soon be great".

Independent scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office have not yet analysed the bill passed on Thursday.

But they estimated an earlier version would have led to 24 million fewer Americans with insurance coverage than under current law.

Turnbull hails 'history and strength' of alliance

Mr Turnbull described his meeting with Mr Trump — the pair's first meeting since a testy phone call over a refugee deal struck by the Turnbull Government and the Obama administration — as very positive.

He said North Korea, the Islamic State group and global trade were all discussed.

"We talked about the relationship, the alliance — we talked about its history and its strength," Mr Turnbull said.
White House officials said the US-Australia refugee deal still stood, but remained a "raw nerve" for Mr Trump.

The pair also attended a gala dinner commemorating the 75th anniversary of the battle of the Coral Sea, while white house and prime ministerial staff also met separately.

Mr Trump said he would "absolutely" visit Australia as President, with a possible window in November when a series of leadership summits are scheduled in the region, but no dates have been set.

ABC/wires

And this.

"The President was complimenting a foreign leader on the operations of their healthcare system. It didn't mean anything more than that," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a news briefing.
"I think he believes that they have a good healthcare system for Australia. What works in Australia may not work in the United States," she said.

It won't work in the US because people won't support it. Just like those who benefited from Obamacare didn't want it, including someone who posted on facebook celebrating the demise of Obamacare while proudly boasting he was on the Affordable Care act without realising they were the same thing.

The words socialised medicine alone will scare the beejesus out of most Americans. But hey, at least Trump is telling the truth, only to have the White House spokesman saying he was lying, er I mean had to clarify what he said. Good job White House.