Trump? Maybe the problem is the NUCLEAR ARSENAL itself ...

Fifty GOP leaders oppose Trump, warning of danger if he controls nuclear weapons. Are they opposed to thermonuclear monarchs in general? Or just this one?

Donald Trump, December 2015:
"Why bother having nuclear weapons
if you are afraid to use them?"
(ICAN graphic)

I am perplexed reading the letter by 50 of the most powerful people in the world -- and they are, considering their inside role in the US political and national security establishment -- in which they warn about Donald Trump becoming president.

Really? A letter? That's the best you can do?

Without putting too fine a point on it: these are 50 of the people most responsible for propping up the current balance of terror, and now that it occurs to them that a catastrophe might occur, they give us a letter?

Make no mistake, even though they soft-peddle it, their ultimate fear is clearly what Trump might do with nuclear weapons:

Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President. In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads; must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation. A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.

In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities. He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood. He does not encourage conflicting views. He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. (highlighting added)

So now it occurs to you that there's a problem? Up until now, you've assumed the US president would always be self-controlled enough, reflective enough, consistent enough . . . foolproof enough . . . that the nuclear thing would just kind of stay safely under wraps where it belongs?

If you really grasped the risk, you would be standing alongside President Obama urging him to negotiate complete nuclear disarmament as fast as he possibly can, and talking to everyone in Congress you can possibly get to support him.

See OBAMA: First stop, Hiroshima; second stop, Moscow.


Related posts

Elaine Scarry demonstrates that the power of one leader to obliterate millions of people with a nuclear weapon - a possibility that remains very real even in the wake of the Cold War - deeply violates our constitutional rights, undermines the social contract, and is fundamentally at odds with the deliberative principles of democracy.

(See Reviews of "Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom" by Elaine Scarry )










Do we have a way to immerse ourselves in the experience of what the use of those nuclear weapons would really mean -- prospectively -- so that we can truly cause ourselves to confront our own inaction?

(See Stop engaging in risky behavior )

Any advocacy for the elimination of nuclear weapons must sooner or later get around to the specifics of the steps by which we get to zero. U.S. nuclear strategists recognize that 311 is still a large number of strategic nuclear weapons for the U.S. to hold. Shouldn't our minimum demand be to get U.S. to this level (or below)?

(See Why Are These Military Experts Saying CUT CUT CUT Nukes? )