Trump's Reuters interview.

[ringpriest]

Reuters interviewed U.S. President Donald Trump, questioning him on a variety of topics, from nuclear weapons and national security, to trade and domestic policy.


Raw audio (via USA Today).

Highlights of the Reuters interview.

ON HIS DECEMBER TWEET SAYING THE UNITED STATES SHOULD EXPAND ITS NUCLEAR CAPABILITY

"We've fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity. And I am the first one that would like to see ... nobody have nukes, but we’re never going to fall behind any country even if it’s a friendly country, we’re never going to fall behind on nuclear power. And I did tweet that. It would be wonderful, a dream would be that no country would have nukes, but if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.”

ON NEW START DEAL WITH RUSSIA

"It's a one-sided deal like all other deals we make. It’s a one-sided deal. It gave them things that we should have never allowed. ... Just another bad deal that the country made, whether it’s START, whether it’s the Iran deal, which is one of the bad deals ever made. Our country only made bad deals, we don’t make good deals. So we’re going to start making good deals.”

ON RUSSIA'S DEPLOYMENT OF A CRUISE MISSILE IN VIOLATION OF ARMS CONTROL TREATY

“To me, it’s a big deal ... If I meet (Putin), if and when we meet, I would bring it up. It’s a big deal. Because it’s a violation of an agreement that we have.”


ON NORTH KOREA'S MISSILE PROGRAM

“It’s very dangerous and something should have been done about it years ago. It’s very dangerous and very unacceptable. ... And very unfair to Japan.”

ON TALK OF ACCELERATING MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM FOR JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA

"There's talks of a lot more than that. We’ll see what happens. But it’s a very dangerous situation, and China can end it very quickly in my opinion. ... It’s one of many things that can be done. Missile defense is one of many things that can be done.”

Several things should be absolutely clear: one, that Trump is a blithering idiot, and two, Trump is a dangerous blithering idiot - he answers virtually all questions just like the kid in class who didn't read the book and now has to stand up and give a report on it, and appears to be utterly unable to consider that the things he says (or worse, does) have real impacts on the real world.

In a single interview he: threatened to violate/abandon START and increase the US nuclear stockpile (stupid, dangerous, and expensive), blamed Obama for everything (for practical purposes, you get one such mulligan as a national leader - Trump using his to cover up the fact that he's a stupid ignoramus is, well, stupid and ignorant), contradicted himself (both within the interview and from claims he made on the campaign trail), carelessly smacked the collection of carefully balanced spinning plates that is North Korea (at one of many less-than-ideal moments to do so), gave global markets jitters, threatened to increase the employment rate in the US by 66% (not really possible without mass slave labor and turning the country into a Spartan hell on Earth), talked up his secret healthcare plan, and nattered on about his intent to turn NATO into an anti-terror organization (while lying about many details) which doubtless made Putin quietly delighted.

[fengosa]

You get what you vote for

[NYC17]

Haha...man that post makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

[Tijuana]

You get what you vote for

Eh, those who can't do, teach.

[Wyrt]

Um, does he know the US has more nukes than every other country right?

[Theodarzna]

Trudeau read a solid wikipedia article before hand. I guess that is marginally better?

[Noogai131]

Um, does he know the US has more nukes than every other country right?

Amount of nukes doesn't equate to a nuclear capacity.

If you have a million warheads, and only 5 systems to fire them from (system being both the missile and the silo that houses it), and your opponent has a thousand warheads and a thousand systems, you don't have more nuclear capability, you have more liabilities. It gets even worse when you realize a lot of the United State's nuclear capable systems are frankly out of date. IIRC the launch device still uses a floppy disk or some other hilariously outdated garbage.


There's nothing wrong with modernizing your nuclear options. In fact, it actually ends up being safer in terms of accidents and environmental hazards.

[Zecora]

I feel myself becoming dumber just from reading Trumps drivel...

[Skroe]

Reuters interviewed U.S. President Donald Trump, questioning him on a variety of topics, from nuclear weapons and national security, to trade and domestic policy.


Raw audio (via USA Today).

Highlights of the Reuters interview.




Several things should be absolutely clear: one, that Trump is a blithering idiot, and two, Trump is a dangerous blithering idiot - he answers virtually all questions just like the kid in class who didn't read the book and now has to stand up and give a report on it, and appears to be utterly unable to consider that the things he says (or worse, does) have real impacts on the real world.

In a single interview he: threatened to violate/abandon START and increase the US nuclear stockpile (stupid, dangerous, and expensive), blamed Obama for everything (for practical purposes, you get one such mulligan as a national leader - Trump using his to cover up the fact that he's a stupid ignoramus is, well, stupid and ignorant), contradicted himself (both within the interview and from claims he made on the campaign trail), carelessly smacked the collection of carefully balanced spinning plates that is North Korea (at one of many less-than-ideal moments to do so), gave global markets jitters, threatened to increase the employment rate in the US by 66% (not really possible without mass slave labor and turning the country into a Spartan hell on Earth), talked up his secret healthcare plan, and nattered on about his intent to turn NATO into an anti-terror organization (while lying about many details) which doubtless made Putin quietly delighted.

OH MY GOD Where to begin with everything he got wrong in the interview.

(1) "The US has fallen behind in nuclear weapons". No, we haven't, Idiot President. Christ. At the end of the Cold War, the US built both the Ohio class SSBN and the Trident II SLBM to arm them with, that were a leap forward from their predecessor. The country spent the 1990s retiring old subs, building more Ohios, and well into the 2000s, equipping them with Trident IIs. And the Trident IIs, which make up most of our nuclear weapons capacity, is being modernized. The Trident IIs were such a good design, so forward thinking, that even Russia's latest SLBM, the Bulava, lacks critical features it has. We won't need a new SLBM for decades because the Navy built pretty much the perfect SLBM, 25 years ago.

In terms of ICBMs, we had an advanced, but costly ICBM in the form of the Peacekeeper MX, but because of START I and SORT, the decision was made (rightfully) to put most of the country's warheads inside SLBMs, which made Peacekeeper too big for their mission. So they were retired while the older Minuteman III was maintained. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The Minuteman III ICBMs have been largely rebuilt from the ground up over the last 6 years. They are 50 year old missiles only in name. Their casing is new. Their guidance is new. Their warheads are new. Their engines are a mix of new and old, but that hardly matters.

THe country is building the B-61 mod 12 nuclear bomb right now. It's going very well reportedly.

The only way you can improve US nuclear weapons - all of whom have recieved GPS and more advanced guidance over the last decade, or will recieve them over the next decade - is to reduce the cost of ownership. That's the impetus behind a new ICBM, for example... to establish parts commonality, perhaps with Trident II, tgo reduce cost of ownership.

(2) New START a bad treaty? Bullshit. Obama got away with murder in NewSTART and the Russians were desperate for it.

The fact is, the US didn't need NewSTART. Russia did. Russia could not spend money to modernize it's conventional armed forces while still paying the immense amount of money it was to continue to own it's START I level nuclear force. But Russia was unwilling to make unilateral cuts, and the US was looking to spend less on nuclear weapons (more on why momentarily). And the inspectuion regieme under START I needed to be preserved. So NewSTART was needed. So in that sense, yes, with Russia's strapped finances, Russia benefited more than the US did.

However in every other sense, the US benefited. Counting bombers as "single launchers", the overall launcher count, and prompt global strike weapons not being counted as "launchers" were all the steal of a life time, and it's remarkable Putin agreed to it. The US has a huge launcher advantage over Russia, and to this day, under NewSTART, deploys the capped number of warheads on hundreds more launchers than Russia. Why? Cost. Launchers are essentially space vehicles, and the most expensive part of Nuclear upkeep. The US has 700 and hundreds of spares ready to go. Russia has 450-550. This means more warheads on fewer launchers for Russia. This means more eggs in fewer baskets for Russia.

How did the US get away with this? Under the terms of NewSTART it de-nuclearized the B-1B and opened up some of it's systems to a one time inspection. But the US was deep in preparing to repalce the B-1B and B-52 with the "Next Generation Bomber" or "Long Range Strike Bomber", now known as the B-21 Raider, when NewSTART was signed. The US essentially gave away nothing.

An then comes Prompt Global Strike weapons. If the manages to deploy a conventional hypersonic cruise missile that allows a strike from half an ocean away, or even the United States, it will represent an existential threat to Russia's strategic security. Because they aren't counted as launchers under NewSTART, the US could target Russia's nuclear deterrent with as many of these conventional weapons as it could build, which would in turn drastically increase the number of US targets Russia would have to try and destroy in an nuclear exchange. The strategic calculus is apocalyptic for the Russians.

The Russians ARE flagrantly violating NewSTART and the US should consider walking away with it because of that. But on the basis of the deal he got, Obama won decisively on that treaty because of the launcher question.

(3) He should order the deployment of Tomahawk-Ds retrofitted with W-80 nuclear warheads to destroyers around Europe, if he is so pissed about it. Retrofitting the newest Tomahawk with the second generation Tomahawk's stockpiled warhead will take a few years though.

(4) North Korea has been on every administration's problem list since 1994. There is no solving North Korea unless we're ready to nuke the North Korean side of the DMZ and do regime change.




Trump is an idiot. An all round idiot. I'm in favor of nuclear weapons modernization... but not because it makes us "stronger", but because it'll reduce costs over programmatic lifetime. He favors it because he thinks it makes him look tough.

[Adamas102]

Trudeau read a solid wikipedia article before hand. I guess that is marginally better?

That he prepared? Wanted to be knowledgeable on a subject of interest? Spoke clearly and in complete sentences? No, that isn't "marginally better". That is, unfortunately, light years beyond where Trump seems to always find himself.

[Ulmita]

Amount of nukes doesn't equate to a nuclear capacity.

If you have a million warheads, and only 5 systems to fire them from (system being both the missile and the silo that houses it), and your opponent has a thousand warheads and a thousand systems, you don't have more nuclear capability, you have more liabilities. It gets even worse when you realize a lot of the United State's nuclear capable systems are frankly out of date. IIRC the launch device still uses a floppy disk or some other hilariously outdated garbage.


There's nothing wrong with modernizing your nuclear options. In fact, it actually ends up being safer in terms of accidents and environmental hazards.

He is missing the fact that USA as well as Russia, as it stands they have enough nukes to completely destroy each other several times over. He is completely uniformed on all issues.

[Theodarzna]

That he prepared? Wanted to be knowledgeable on a subject of interest? Spoke clearly and in complete sentences? No, that isn't "marginally better". That is, unfortunately, light years beyond where Trump seems to always find himself.

That is a very skin deep sort of thing. Is it that Trump administration policy is bad or is it just about presentation?

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Amount of nukes doesn't equate to a nuclear capacity.

If you have a million warheads, and only 5 systems to fire them from (system being both the missile and the silo that houses it), and your opponent has a thousand warheads and a thousand systems, you don't have more nuclear capability, you have more liabilities. It gets even worse when you realize a lot of the United State's nuclear capable systems are frankly out of date. IIRC the launch device still uses a floppy disk or some other hilariously outdated garbage.


There's nothing wrong with modernizing your nuclear options. In fact, it actually ends up being safer in terms of accidents and environmental hazards.

We maintain and slowly update those systems and missles overtime. We were planning to update our arsenal anyway under Obama but Trump felt the need to announce it to everyone anyway...

Hypersonic missles look them up.

[Gref]

I will definitely show this to my junior high students to increase their confidence. They can clearly see their English vocabulary and grammar is far superior to Trump's.

[Mormolyce]

Eh, those who can't do, teach.

And those who can neither do nor teach, inherit.

[Edge-]

I honestly can't understand how anyone can read those responses and not be absolutely terrified that this man has the codes to our nuclear arsenal.

The fact that he doesn't accidentally order a nuclear strike every night is a small miracle.

This man barely speaks at a middle school level, and the content of his words is barely higher.

[jdbond592]

Amount of nukes doesn't equate to a nuclear capacity.

If you have a million warheads, and only 5 systems to fire them from (system being both the missile and the silo that houses it), and your opponent has a thousand warheads and a thousand systems, you don't have more nuclear capability, you have more liabilities. It gets even worse when you realize a lot of the United State's nuclear capable systems are frankly out of date. IIRC the launch device still uses a floppy disk or some other hilariously outdated garbage.


There's nothing wrong with modernizing your nuclear options. In fact, it actually ends up being safer in terms of accidents and environmental hazards.

Is that what Trump is saying? That we need an upgrade? I thought we were already doing that? I get confused every time Trump speaks. Only his voters tend to get it. So...he is talking about an upgrade that is already on table?

[Skroe]

Amount of nukes doesn't equate to a nuclear capacity.

If you have a million warheads, and only 5 systems to fire them from (system being both the missile and the silo that houses it), and your opponent has a thousand warheads and a thousand systems, you don't have more nuclear capability, you have more liabilities. It gets even worse when you realize a lot of the United State's nuclear capable systems are frankly out of date. IIRC the launch device still uses a floppy disk or some other hilariously outdated garbage.


There's nothing wrong with modernizing your nuclear options. In fact, it actually ends up being safer in terms of accidents and environmental hazards.

US nuclear weapons are significantly more advanced than Russia's. And significantly more costly.

The US has hundreds more launchers than Russia though. The US only MIRVs (puts multiple warheads) on it's Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBMs). It's ICBMs (land based missiles), since 2005, had only had a single warhead. This is genius because Russia has to aim at all 500 ICBMs (they act as a "spounge) with 2-3 warheads each, which comes out to 1500... just shy of the NewSTART cap. The US's strike ability is mostly in it's heavily MIRV'd Trident II ICBM, it's most advanced system. All in all the US has about 700 launchers with hundreds more in storage.

Russia relies far more on land based launchers. Russia's at-sea deterrent infrequently patrols and it's missiles are very dated or less capable compared to the US. Instead Russia heavily MIRVs it's land based launchers and puts them on trucks. This makes them survivable... more so than a silo, but less so than a submarine. The result is that Russia has 1550 warheads on 400-500 launchers. Why? Cost. Launchers are expensive.

The key point in understanding why this matters is that every "aim point" on the US or Russia's list of target will be hit by 2-3 warheads. Why 2-3? In the case of silos, the explosion may have to dig, so the first warhead would create a crater, than second warhead a few seconds later will deepen it and destroy the silo. The other reason is reliability: there hasn't been a weapon system created where every shell, every warhead, every engine works. It is likely that there is a failure rate in the nuclear arsenal that would only be known if all launched at once. Imagine if 5% of 1550 warheads fizziled or failed somehow? That's 78 Warheads that don't hit their targets... kind of a big deal when the thing you're shooting at is probably an enemy nuclear weapons launch site. So launching 2-3 warhead ensures that, even if one or two warheads fail or are intercepted, the third will probably make it there.

So in having 700 launchers, the US forces Russia to aim it's authorized warhead at a huge number of targets, which means fewer warheads per target. By contrast, because Russia has fewer launchers, the US can aim more warheads per target.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that what Trump is saying? That we need an upgrade? I thought we were already doing that? I get confused every time Trump speaks. Only his voters tend to get it. So...he is talking about an upgrade that is already on table?

We're already doing that. Congress's cost for passing NewSTART was a 20 year, $1 trillion nuclear modernization.

We're deep into it. The B-61 Mod 12 bomb is coming along quickly. The B-21 Raider stealth bomber is making rapid progress apparently. Late last year the Navy authorized the beginning of drawing up detailed plans for the Columbia-class Ohio replacement submarine. Work has begun on the new Air Launched cruise missile that will replace the AGM-86. The Navy has been upgrading and modernizing the already-in-great-shape Trident II D5 for a few years (and in fact, launched 4 of them in a test earlier in the week).

Oh and on top of that the country is developing a whole new family of warheads to economically replace what it currently has.

Trump would have had a point... if he were running for President in 2008.

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013...n-for-Warheads

[Adamas102]

That is a very skin deep sort of thing. Is it that Trump administration policy is bad or is it just about presentation?

Well, in this case it's pretty much both. The presentation is at least amusing. The policy is just sad.

[May90]

My granddad, when drunk like a sailor (which was most of the time), spoke more intelligently than this guy...