Sunday, February 26, 2017

Trump's call for US nuclear supremacy raises questions



In 2010 the US and Russia signed the New START Treaty which aimed to lower the amount of nuclear warheads by 2018.  Trump has recently said that the treaty is “a one-sided deal” and wants to be at the “top” and possess the most nuclear weapons.  However, many experts argue that the US is already at the top when it come to nuclear weapons, and that the government is already spending money in the coming years to modernize the nuclear arsenal.  Do you think the US is at the “top” when it comes to nuclear weaponry? What do you think would be some of the consequences if Trump went against the START Treaty? How would other countries react?


8 comments:

  1. I think Trump's casual discussion of nuclear weapons is dangerous; not only is he a lose cannon, but this topic is so delicate that it could potentially lead to a literally obliterated world. I think all nations want to be dominant and with some tension could arise over nuclear weapons as it has before in the 1900's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. His dismissal of nuclear weapons is scary and dangerous. Tensions are high enough without this added provocation. The United States spends too much money on developing weapons and expanding the military. This is a delicate topic which needs to be approached in a much more serious manner.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trump's implicit disregard for the power of nuclear weapons is dangerous. The US is already near or at the top when it comes to nuclear weaponry, and we are certainly at the top when it comes to military power anyway. If Trump were to go against the START Treaty, other countries might not follow through either, and that would only lead to a more dangerous world for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. America honestly doesn't even need to be at the top on the nuclear field. We have a history of invading countries on whims. We have enough of a reputation that we would never even need a nuclear arsenal to back up our word. Though, yes we are at the top of the Nuclear game at last count. We were destroying them as I recall but we still have quite a large inventory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is quite a scary thought that President Trump does not seem to respect the civilization-ending power of nuclear weapons. The United States already has enough military power, especially when united with our many allies, to handle any military conflict that could arise. Nuclear weapons do nothing but promote tension and arms races based on mutually assured destruction. Also, this shows his hypocrisy as a so-called conservative, since spending massive amounts of money on nuclear weapons is definitely not fiscally responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trump doesn't have any respect for the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and the blatant casualness that he exhibits when discussing them is concerning. We have enough military strength that spending more money on nuclear weapons is a dangerous and incendiary waste of time and resources. Going against the START treaty would encourage other nations to break it as well, and starting another cold war-esque arms race is unnecessary and potentially incredibly harmful.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe that we have the most destructive capability in the world when it comes to nuclear weaponry. It is a little alarming to read how against Trump is to reducing the amount of nuclear weapons we own. I think people regardless of party agree that nuclear bombs generally aren't good and we have so many.. Although, this is the first time I've seen Trump openly go against/oppose Russia. Not saying that him refusing to reduce the amount of bombs is good; just saying it seems odd.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Though the United States' nuclear warhead stockpile has declined since the height of the cold war, we are estimated to still have over 4000 warheads in storage, certainly more than enough to guard against any enemy. It seems quite clear that the US already is at the top, and that there is little chance of that changing soon; instead of worrying about that, we should worry about staying friendly with other countries, so these weapons won't be necessary to use in the first place, and we can save a huge amount of money in relation to their development. TRUMP going against the START treaty would be an incredibly bad decision, because it would make other countries less likely to follow it as well, possibly sparking another cold war.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.