Over at the National Security Archive you can peruse some recently declassified papers related to briefings and nuclear war exercises that Ronald Reagan participated in during his first term in office. The experience, I warn you, will be disturbing.
For starters, it’s alarming to realize how slowly the new president was brought up to speed. It’s true that even before he was sworn in he received some vital information. For example, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman David Jones had a discussion with the president-elect on “our nuclear forces and their relationship to the Single Integrated Operation Plan (SlOP)” and a White House military aide named Major John Kline, USMC, provided “an overview of the White House Emergency Plans (WHEP) and described some of the communications procedures that we would use in the event of an attack.”
But, when Reagan was shot by John Hinckley on March 30th, 1981, he still hadn’t been fully briefed on what his options would be in the event that the Russians launched a surprise nuclear attack on our country.
The attempted assassination and Reagan’s physical recovery may have delayed further briefings, but in mid-November 1981 the president took what amounted to an accelerated course in command-and-control. On 15 November, on his way back from Texas, he flew on the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP) and received a briefing by General Philip Gast (J-3) on the National Military Command System (NMCCS). The following day, Major Kline provided him with additional detail concerning the “black bag” (or “suitcase” as the “football” was also known). Finally, on 17 November, Reagan met with JCS Chairman Jones at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) for a briefing on U.S. Strategic Forces and a run-through of a simulated missile attack conference.
That this didn’t occur until a year after Reagan was elected is disturbing, especially when you realize that less than two years later, in early November 1983, we came close to instigating a first-strike reaction from the Soviets with a provocative series of military exercises in Europe called Able Archer.
Here’s something else you probably don’t want to know:
Sharper understanding at high levels of the grave danger of nuclear war was one consequence of a Defense Department nuclear war game that occurred in mid-1983. In the “Proud Prophet” game, among the lead players were JCS Chairman John W. Vessey and Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger. According to Paul Bracken’s account, during the game Vessey and Weinberger followed standard policies constructed for crises; as a U.S.-Soviet conflict escalated, their actions initiated a major nuclear war. “The result was a catastrophe” in which “a half billion human beings were killed in the initial exchanges and at least that many more would have died from radiation and starvation.” Bracken argues that Proud Prophet had a chastening and moderating impact on the Reagan administration’s rhetoric and thinking about nuclear war, but much needs to be learned about the game and its impact. The Product Prophet report remains massively excised and it is unknown even if or when Weinberger briefed Reagan on it.
It would be nice to know if Casper Weinberger did or did not brief the president on the fact that their war games had resulted in a billion people dying.
During the recent presidential campaign, the prospect of Donald Trump having responsibility for the nuclear codes was a recurring theme, since that’s an absurdly ridiculous risk that no one should have countenanced. Many people felt the same way about Ronald Reagan, since his rhetoric was unnaturally bellicose. However, Reagan was never a fan of nuclear weapons and he grew to fear them with real urgency once he saw how he was expected to use them and came to understand how close we had come to a nuclear exchange in 1983. He made nuclear disarmament a priority.
Donald Trump, at least so far, is more interested in boosting our nuclear arsenal. His comments on nuclear weapons have been incoherent and terrifying, ranging from a lack of familiarity with the term “nuclear triad,” to a stated preference that countries as varied as Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia develop their own nuclear weapons programs, to expressing a willingness to use them against ISIS, to a recent tweet calling for the United States to “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”
There’s probably a little bit of Alex Jones in each of us, but I don’t think it’s entirely crazy to worry that Vladimir Putin might conclude that our country would be helpless to retaliate against a nuclear first strike with a captured buffoon like Donald Trump on the other end of the strike response. In 1982, when it was determined that Reagan was woefully under-informed about how to conduct a retaliatory response, it was his National Security Adviser who addressed it.
Reagan’s aides did not believe that he knew enough about the SIOP and related procedures in a nuclear crisis, so during February 1982 the new national security adviser, William Clark, made arrangements for the president to receive a fuller briefing. In addition, the dates for a high level nuclear command post exercise, IVY LEAGUE 82, were approaching (1-5 March 1982) and national security officials believed that Reagan needed more information on the SIOP so he could better understand the exercise when he sat in on some of the sessions.
But, in this case, the National Security Adviser is a man who was recently on Putin’s payroll and sat at his right hand during a dinner celebrating the anniversary of the launch of Russia Today or RT, the Kremlin’s propaganda news agency.
I don’t think Putin wants to blow up the United States, but he’s arranged things so that he might be able to do so with impunity. Let’s just say that the mutually assured part of mutually assured destruction is looking a little frayed around the edges.
We’re seriously about to give the nuclear football to a narcissistic and revenge-minded simpleton, whose disposition and top advisers are more aligned with Russia’s interests than our own.
So, yeah, you probably don’t want to look too closely at those newly classified documents at the National Security Archives. Not if you want to sleep, anyway.
I’m certainly no fan of trump and argue against all the wars being waged by Obama, but i do think this nuclear war thing is veering off into hysteria.
On the other hand, Obama has probably already dropped the equivalent of a nuke in ISIS while killing more than 50000. Perhaps all will learn to take war more seriously now. There was never any assurance that the US president and his party hacks would be smart enough to avoid wars. Not even Obama pulled it off.
I believe it’s two times that we have come “that” close to launching first strike at Russia?
And how many times have they done same?
You think Trump and Co can set $5 trillion dollars on fire without a big war to hide it? Why are you enabling his spending spree?
You write:
Once again, Booman…you underestimate Trump. Yes, he is narcissistic. So is Obama and so were Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy, just to name two of the many narcissists who have held power all over the world throughout human history. And yes, he is “revenge-minded.” “Revenge” is his tactical approach to strategic goals, which are most obviously winning as much as he can and losing as little as he can. He has been very frank about this. When he is hit, he hits back as hard as possible….the salient word being “possible” in that phrase. Street tactics raised to a very high degree.
But…he is no simpleton. This is the mistake that his opposition has made time and time and time again. You are repeating that mistake.
I ask you this obvous question. Given the likelihood that Trump wants to forge a working alliance with Russia, how on earth would a nuclear war be in either country’s “interests?” It doesn’t take some kind of genius or a bunch of cosseted war game players to realize that a nuclear war would be in no one’s interests except possibly those of an alien culture of some kind that has decided for whatever reasons that this planet needs to be seriously depopulated or perhaps even thoroughly cleansed of life as we understand it.
Short of tinfoil hat theories, what would make a seemingly sane, intelligent person write a sentence like that? A sentence that implies some idea of actually making nuclear war because it would help Russia.
The mind boggles.
is this some kind of Beltway Dem talking point?
No wonder the DemRat party is going down.
It is ludicrous on the face of it.
Unless of course Trump is the AntiChrist.
Then it makes great sense.
Sigh…
AG
You need to read about Russian nuclear de-escalation doctrine.
The fact that war is not in either side’s best interest incredibly has not stopped catastrophic wars from occurring, AG. Even against all expectations. See the run-up to the Great War, for example.
The difficulty here is that in Putin we have what appears to be a nationalist-minded Greater Russia leader who regrets the verdict of the Cold War and seeks to return Russia to its “status” as a superpower and hegemon, without having the economic or conventional military power to do so. Foreign policy seems his main preoccupation. He is a very clever and calculating man.
In aiding Trump in the election, he sought to saddle the US with an inexperienced buffoon who has been seen as a world clown figure for quite some time. This undermines the image of America from day one of the Trump presidency. And given Trump’s past dealings, Putin perhaps sees Trump as the sort of adversary that he can buffalo and cajol, especially with Trump seeking to “prove” the brilliance of his unconventional Russian strategy.
The worry is, as Trump permits one Russian move after another, he begins to see he has been taken for a fool, and for an extreme narcissist this is unendurable. So, far from having a more “cooperative” and unfrozen relationship, we end up with one of ever-escalating tension, with our side led by a blustering unqualified naif advised by neocons. Everyone in the room is intemperate, rash and reckless. When you have to place your hope in the restraint of ex-generals, you are in trouble, historically.
If you want to remain sanguine over that prospect, be my guest. A nuclear strike somewhere in the next four years will not be surprising IMO.
Could be, euzoius. Could be…
The future is beyond my control, therefore I don’t really worry much about it. We all die sometime…
All I can do is see the present for what it appears to be. To me. And then perhaps suss out tendencies of the very near future based on the proclivities and talents (or lacks of same) belonging to the main actors.
You write:
I think the scope of WW I shocked and surprised its perpetrators. I cannot believe that they expected the ruin that ensued when they began hostilities. WW II? Hitler’s obvious insanity explains that. After he took it out, the rest of the world had to either ally with him in the hope of surviving or oppose him. Both choices predated the real possibility of nuclear war.
The same cannot be said about today. Only the craziest of the crazy can be “sanguine” about surviving a nuclear conflict
I do not believe that either Putin or Trump are functionally insane as we generally use the word. Shrewd? Yes. Both of them. Pitiless? Perhaps. Suicidally unhinged? I do not think so.
Later…
ASG
P.S. By the way, the etymology of the word “sanguine” is quite interesting:
God, the situation is awful enough without more nonsense from Arthur Gilroy, who, as always, expends maximum portentious language to build up to his big point: that we’re going to find out what happens next.
Never has someone so utterly devoid of insight or reason been so insistant that he be listened to while he expresses the ultimate inanity: that the future will arrive.
If it was up to people like you, the future would never arrive…just the same PermaGov bullshit, over and over and over and over again.
Groundhog Day, Dem version.
AG
How can the future “not arrive”?
Are you so scatterbrained that you can’t even realize that your beloved, repeated “whatever will be, will be” observation is a truism?
Well, according to Eric Barker for Time Magazine, these scatterbrained tendencies of yours may actually determine how smart you are. Citing Steven Johnson’s book “Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History Of Innovation,” Barker presents a theory that says messiness is an indicator of intelligence. The basis of the theory hinges on the idea that a more congested, idea-cluttered brain will lead to more potential breakthroughs.
You’re such an uptight fucking idiot it’s just unbelievable … keep on troll rating me for just about any comment I make … who the fuck do you think you are … you don’t own this place, so try to behave and stop policing comments of others with troll ratings … you are a dead weight moron.
(Since you felt the need to resurrect that ugly diary and thread, which would have been better left, like John Brown, a-mouldering in its grave; I’ll fully endorse boo’s comment in direct reply to the diary. I’d extend that to nearly all the whining and bickering about ratings around here.)
Downrating is not trolling (at least not inherently so), it’s downrating. Nor is an explanation of a downrate owed anymore than for an uprate. (And responding with a troll rating — as you did repeatedly in that unfortunately-resurrected thread — amounts to “you trolled me by calling my comment trolling, so I’m going to troll-rate you for troll-rating me for trolling”; i.e., it’s silly, infantile, AND hypocritical, all in one fell swoop.)
Only two of the five available ratings are explicitly about trolling. (I suppose “2-Warning!” could at least arguably be “warning” that you’re treading very close to the trolling borderline.)
I suppose a case could be made against a “0” or “1” rating of a comment that clearly displayed no element of trolling behavior though, in my view, it’d be childish to make it. (I, at least, have no trouble ignoring a negative rating, especially from someone who’s convinced me s/he is an idiot. Writing a comment to protest, condemn, or wail and rail against a downrate would never even occur to me. Who cares?)
Noting, I repeatedly troll-rated nalbar during the heat of the primary season (to which the decline in this place seems to date, imo) for repeated comments along the lines of “cue the Hillary-haters to [whatever]” when that was completely unresponsive to anything in the top-post, and no such comments had yet appeared in the thread. IOW, I could see no purpose of the comment other than to provoke the occurrence of precisely what it was condemning — quintessential trolling in my view. Intent to provoke (as distinct from engage, discuss, debate, reason, etc.) being the core defining element of trolling in my view (supported by, I think, every attempt to define trolling that I have ever seen). Sorta like grabbing the nearest stick to whack the hornets’ nest cuz you’re bored.
Related, see also
I don’t have any beef with you … I surely don’t need an interlocutor.
Yep I wrote that diary and have no regret whatsoever. Indeed, Booman wrote his comment and I heeded his advice!! Just look at the timeline for the facts. Both nalbar and marduk were at it again in a matter of hours as I recall.
From the early months when Martin created the dream pond in 2005, I have been a steady contributor on a daily/weekly basis. In more than a decade, we didn’t downrate comments of fellow bloggers here at the pond. Surely we had our differences on policy and opinion, but we never, ever troll rated anyone!!
These two assholes continue their policing of the blog and I can’t recall Martin has ever hired these two to intervene on his behalf in this community. If it has become usance and acceptable, I will vent my opinion to the contrary.
what I had to say directly to you.
100% of which I re-affirm.
Obviously, booman built the site to include the option of troll-rating from the outset, anticipating that potential need, and even built in a function by which enough troll-ratings would suppress visibility of a comment to at least some users.
You’ll note I did not childishly downrate your comment in a tit-for-tat retaliation against your childish downrate.
Pretty pathetic when someone who whines and rages about being downrated does exactly the same thing to his perceived enemies.
« click for more
History of the Pond
. . . nalbar and marduk were at it again in a matter of hours as I recall.”
Throughout this nonsense, your complaints have rested on repeated claims that their use of negative ratings is somehow in violation of site rules or standards — a case you have completely failed in attempting to make (again, review boo’s smackdown of that diary; note the complete absence of support — or even modest sympathy expressed — for your thesis; you presented him with a ripe opportunity to endorse your interpretation of ratings use/abuse; he declined; harshly; you seem determined to ignore the implications of that).
Not just ignore the implications; he appeared to take Boo’s comment as a full-throated endorsement of the tantrum.
“…but a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest….”
you miss the irony of this:
Yet here you are “policing” the blog by trying to impose your interpretation of what’s acceptable/unacceptable use of ratings. I can’t recall him ever hiring you for that either. I do recall, though, that when you attempted to do so in that diary, he smacked down your attempt about as harshly as I’ve ever seen him reply to anyone.
You ask:
Yes indeed. I am a scatterbrain.
Me and George Santayana both.
You appear to be a loyal Democrat of some sort. Look where your loyalty to representatives of the corporate-owned Permanent Government has gotten us, Jordan.
Look, fer chrissake!!!
Look around at the culture of the U.S.
Look at what is happening in the streets of our cities.
Look what has happened to our federal government.
Look at what has happened to our real economy…not the economy that the nattering nabobs of bullshit fling out at you out from the depths of the corporate advertisng-supported media, academia and so-called “think tanks”, the real, in-the-streets-and-in-our-pockets economy. Almost everything I need to buy in order to be able to live and work is several times more expensive than it was just before Bill Clinton got his hands on things and sold the remnants of our manufacturing system down the globalist river so that corporate profits would…at least temporarily, until the inevitable, multiple bubble bursts…soar. Meanwhile, real wages have not kept up with that inflation.
And now? Now we have the beginnings of a classic strongman takeover reaction to runaway inflation. A takeover that has been made possible largely by the various presidential shortcuts around the constitution that Barack Obama…who was warned over and over again about what would happen if those shortcuts became common practice and a less “benevolent” president started to us them…instituted in the names of foreign policy and security. A permanent war foreign policy which produced a massive terrorist system that requires massive “security” to combat it.
Yes, the future always arrives, Jordan.
The only problem is that all too often it is just the past, draped in a set of Emperor’s New Clothes.
Here we go again…
Watch.
AG
Oh, God, please be quiet.
No. I will not be quiet.
If you do not like what I am saying and/or the way that I say it, please feel free to not read my posts.
No skin off my teeth.
AG
[to the Bacharach(?) melody] Scroll On By
= what I’ve been doing for quite some time now, on nearly all occasions, as soon as the . . . er . . . “inimitable” (and thank FSM for small favors!) . . . er . . . “style” makes the . . . er . . . “author”‘s identity clear.
With rare exceptions, e.g., when something begging for smacking down grabs my eye mid-scroll.
As if it’s all Vladimir Putin’s fault that the US people voted for Donald Trump—for whatever reason. The Democrats have gone into mass psychosis mode. What a bunch of bedwetters the Democrats are. I’m ashamed.
Neoliberal excuses for EU disintegration = Putin did it.(per Soros) You would be surprised to see how many articles promoting that have been seeded around.
Has nothing to do with economic feudalism, loss of sovereign control to Brussels, nor thousands of North Africans that NATO turned into refugees.
Putin made them do it.
Me too…except that I have not been a “Democrat” since Gore backed down in the face of a stolen election. Really? Earlier. I began being very doubtful when Clinton proved that his dick was mightier than his mind in the Oval
Orfice…errr, ahhh…Office. I have had my own sexual adventures…and misadventures as well… but on that level? Sometimes you just gotta put a holster on it.That kind of lack of self control in a man whose (other) fingers were caressing the nuke button?
Basically right in front of his Secret Service people?They had to know what was going on!!!
The chances of one way or another getting ratted out?
About 200%
Bet on it.
Please!!!
AG
You are bending over backwards to find an argument that is not being made.
Are you saying that Putin’s efforts had no effect whatsoever on any US voter?
Do you really believe this?
what you accurately describe (somehow, in their minds) “merits” top ratings from 4 regulars (and, I can only presume, “trusted users”) here. <shakes head in depressed wonderment>
Donald Trump”.
Pretending otherwise is shameful.
Facts matter.
You focus on Trump without enough focus on the real villain and controller here: Putin.
He is basically in control of our country at this point, through a combination of factors including blackmail. The idiots in charge of our Situation Room not only owe him their positions, but seem to trust him and to doubt his willingness to fuck as hard as possible.
They’re committed to looking wise for selling out to Russian geopolitical ambitions and chumming up to his white nationalist Christianist bullshit in order to shred the EU, NATO, and postwar liberalism and pluralism in Europe.
Putin can do whatever he wants with these puppets, probably including attacking them without them being mentally prepared to respond.
Might the Russians have said that Bill Clinton and his finance cronies was in charge of their country during the administration of Boris Yeltsin? BooMan, The US will be controlled from January 20, 2017 by a bunch of homegrown crackpot Americans, your fellow countrymen, as much as you don’t seem to want to recognised that fact. Deny it at your peril. The threat is right in the US in plain sight. So what is everyone going on an on about. Hillary Clinton lost the election because of Vladimir Putin? She has never failed, only can been ‘failed’ by everyone around her. She did not fail the Democrats by running an incompetent campaign, no way. Add Barack Obama in for good measure: the worst political situation for the Democrats since 1920, I believe. The Democrats managed to wipe out most of the gains of the New Deal in one fell stroke, which will quickly become evident after the inauguration.
You want to argue with me, I guess, which is fine. But you’re arguing with something I didn’t say. I didn’t say that the only reason that Clinton lost was because Putin was leaking damaging information about her non-stop. It didn’t help, certainly, but it wasn’t the sole cause.
“…Hillary Clinton lost the election because of Vladimir Putin? he has never failed, only can been ‘failed’ by everyone around her. She did not fail the Democrats by running an incompetent campaign, no way….”.
BooMan addresses the off-base nature of this claim downthread, but I’d add to his response that this is not an either/or. Clinton ran a flawed campaign which nevertheless gained nearly 3 million votes more than Trump AND the Russians/WikiLeaks ran in parallel lanes with the FBI to influence the electorate away from supporting Clinton and other Democratic Party candidates, with substantial cooperation from a fatally flawed media.
It is weak to argue in such a hostile manner that expressing alarm with these successful propaganda operations = absolving Democratic Party candidates and institutions of all responsibility and criticism. These two views are not equivalent.
“…The Democrats managed to wipe out most of the gains of the New Deal in one fell stroke…”.
That’s a preposterous claim. The ACA is a strong addition to the New Deal and Great Society programs, a staggering achievement. President Obama and the Dems saved and strengthened the safety net while pulling us away from a second Great Depression single-handedly.
The voters placed Republicans in charge. If the New Deal and Great Society programs are eviscerated, the Republicans will be the only ones providing the votes. Congressional Democrats won’t have a finger in it.
Yoi really believe this, don’t you. Booman. You’re a smart guy with an in on a lot of info I probably don’t get, so I’ll keep an ear to the ground.
But…so far I am not nearly convinced.
This whole “The Russians did it!!!” media routine is looking more and more like a pre-covert coup operation.
Like a Watergate sting being set up.
We shall see…
Won’t we.
If some little John Dean-type rat suddenly shows up and spills the supposed beans…and there are plenty of little rats like him running around on the alt. right, bet on it…or if an anonymous “Deep Throat” type starts talking to a longtime intelligence media asset?
Case closed.
I suppose on the other hand if Trump manages to stay in power and produce a new detente w/Russia while simultaneously preventing the entire country from falling into a depression to rival the 1930s? And no great wars break out in the meantime, complete with nukes?
Case closed the other way.
Like I said…
We shall see.
Sonner rather than later, I’m thinking.
AG
No AG — Trump is a simpleton. He beat the other GOP simpletons because he’s more skilled at simpleton-speak than they are. Very powerful when half the GOP primary voters are also simpletons. The others knew a little bit about some things, but not enough to clearly articulate that for the audience. What they knew nothing about or what they were completely wrong about, they tried to fake with big-words, salad-speak, and standard GOP speak (Reagan, lower taxes, abortion, etc.) On the latter, the teabaggers weren’t in the mood to hear that one more time or at least not in this election cycle; they wanted something new.
Simpleton-speak is also effective against a mid-level opponent because it’s outside the low to mid-level skill sandbox. Such players only know how to parlay and volley against those within the sandbox. Simpletons are too erratic and inconsistent, but like all novices, can get in a lucky shot or two. Solid mid-level players like Gore and Kerry struggled to get a draw against the simpleton GWB. Another solid mid-level player is Biden, but his comedic streak reduced his earnestness enough for him to dispatch the simpleton Palin as she wrapped a rope around her own neck.
Part of Trump’s simpleton play is straight out of the GOP playbook of the past eight years: if Obama is for hit, he’s against it. That served him well in the election: anti-China, pro-Putin, anti-Iran, pro-Israel. As president those four positions don’t hang together. And he won’t have Obama or Clinton to kick around. Then there are his positions on domestic policies which are also incompatible as are the factions in the GOP that support those various positions. He won’t learn that the real world isn’t like his dumb reality TV show, but a majority of the public will soon seen that he’s a Chauncey Gardiner.
Booman, this is from the FAQ for this site.
What’s This Site All About?
This site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party. However, the Democratic Party is the only institution in this country that is capable of combatting the Bush administration’s agenda, or of offering a realistic alternative to the GOP’s control of both houses of Congress.
Therefore, this site is committed to building the Democratic Party, raising money for the Democratic Party and its candidates, finding and promoting promising candidates for state and local offices, helping to shape the Democratic Party’s agenda, and holding Democratic office holders to account for their votes and their ethics.
The site is also committed to doing some of the investigative work that is so desperately needed with the GOP in control of the oversight committees.
If I don’t consider myself a Democrat, am I welcome at the site?
Yes. You are. Everyone is welcome at the site regardless of political self-identification. I don’t care how you are registered to vote, who you have voted for in the past, or who you plan to vote for in the future.
The only restriction on non-Democrats is that they be respectful of the mission of this site, that they don’t post Bill O’Reilly-like talking points, and that they don’t engage in trollish behavior.
If you are pro-life or anti-gun control, no one should down-rate your posts or make you feel unwelcome at this site, or in the Democratic Party. This site is not for the enforcement of any orthodoxy on its members. Principled disagreement is always allowed. Just don’t act like Sean Hannity and be an idiot.
AG is calling the Democratic Party DemRat, while there is a D-con ad on a continuous loop exterminating mice. Does that language meet your criteria for building the Democratic Party?
You are allowing dehumanizing language of most of the people that still frequent this site. You are ok with the demonization of people you supposedly think can hold the Republicans and Trump accountable. This enabling behavior creates bigger problems the longer it is not addressed. Not sure how you can decry the decay in the American political system and the inadequate response to Russian meddling, when you can’t even be bothered to do the necessary pruning and maintenance to keep a website healthy and not exploited by a ratfucking operator.
I am starting to wonder if this is a False Flag operation with your post on Friday. It was frankly incoherent with the “we don’t have to compromise on our values to regain certain Obama coalition voters” gibberish. One example, Obama was really against gay marriage in 2008, but in 2012, once the polling stated it was safe to trial balloon a Biden ‘gaffe” on the issue he “evolved”? Obama lost 4 million votes from 2008-2012, there is a delicate tug of war in terms of balancing exactly how far you can go to the left on any economic or social issue. Too many of your stories remind me of a critique of ESPN The Magazine by Andy Pollin when the magazine launched. “It is a magazine for sports fans that can’t read.” Your stories are for political junkies that don’t understand how politics actually work.
Are you really that naive or do you think your readers are? I am currently in Southern VA and the rise in the flying of confederate flags since the AME massacre is disturbing. People still have their Trump Pence signs up. I am surrounded by assholes in real life. I don’t need to frequent a website that engages them in a quixotic endeavor when they are on their best behavior and ignores their more reprehensible language. AG might self identify as an anarchist, hell he might actually be one in his disorganized mind. However, all he does is spew RW talking points and memes while utilizing words designed to treat us as the other. Either update your FAQ or start regulating the infractions. Not sure how you can lecture the Democratic Party to clean house or make necessary corrections, when you can’t be bothered to do it yourself.
Perhaps in this instance it is in the national interest if Trumper is NEVER brought up to speed…
And in the same vein, maybe Trump’s disinclination to sit and listen to intelligence briefings for 15 minutes turns out to be a boon!
Well, if Trump doesn’t understand the systems, the motivations of the nuclear nations and the geopolitics, then he’ll be unable to execute his duties properly. Unless you’re suggesting that you believe someone else in the Administration will or should be in charge of the launch commands. As bad as Trump is, I can’t say that prospect provides me any comfort at all. And it would be an unacceptable precedent to boot.
I concede we’re choosing from a set of bad options here.
My comment was an attempt at dark humor and sarcasm in the face of a very worrying situation.
It failed, apparently.
It is interesting, however, that the history Booman presents indicates that the (unelected) national security apparatus apparently thinks it may be prudent to keep newly elected prezes in the dark for quite some time after their election. And also not provide them with information crucial to their understanding of nuclear issues.
I suppose this is a little better than VP Truman, who had no idea that nuclear weapons even existed until presented with an argument that he should use them!
Reading some of the comments in this thread reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago at a party with a young man. Somehow the subject of electromagnetic pulse came up, which he hadn’t heard of. I explained what it was and what effects it could have on electrical and telecommunications infrastucture, also the likelihood that civilian infrastructure couldn’t be protected.
His reaction? Horrified denial. “No! That can’t be true! That would never happen!” “Why not?” “Because… because they wouldn’t let it! No!”