Trump and nukes?

Wat?

Pick one.

Swallow the nuclear red pill already Holla Forums, nuclear weapons are the second biggest hoax in history.

Got anything supporting how it is false? Prior statements by Trump maybe. This is being reported as truth in Sweden right now, the media assblasting over here is insane at the moment.

It's reported that Sweden doesn't have an immigration issue.

Russia actually views the use of nuclear weapons as a deescalating action in war. Their ability to eradicate large numbers of troops, whole enemy positions, industrial sites, or cities abruptly halts any active conflict in the blast zone.

Interesting. Know where I can read on Russian nuclear doctrine?

I have no idea, but if nobody knows ITT, then ask >>>/k/ There are even some actual Russian there who might not frequent this board normally.

it's a bomb. it's bigger and badder than other bombs.
you need to assess the consequences and determine if it's the best way to solve a problem.
it's quite limited, as you can imagine. most problems are solved with precision. however, hornets nests can get fucked when they sting my nephew.

I heard X from someone say that Trump said X.

That's a fucking bullshit source and they are screaming it as true.

If you think about it, Trump asking is the sign of how successful people work. He probably doesn't know the extent of the current US nuclear capabilities (no one the public probably does), so he asks, informs himself and comes out better for it. An unsuccessful person would just assume, risking being wrong and making the wrong decisions.

I think I'll go ask >>>/k/, thanks user.

Well, obviously. That doesn't help with normies though.

I assume they mean tactical nukes though, which in that case makes sense because they're lower yield meaning it's poses minimal fallout risk.

I wonder if Trump was actually inquiring about using tactical nukes should this story be true.

*it poses

They need to name the (((expert))) or shut the fuck up.

In that case you should ask here: >>>/k/394173

Why have them if you refuse to use them? They are a strategic deterrent. If you promise not to use them, you get ISIS.

He didn't ask three times. He asked 666 times.

sage
report all correct the record shills

...

Nuclear weapons are always poisonous. The environmental impacts of nukes are bad, bad, bad.

I know that much of Holla Forums couldn't give a flying fuck about the environment, and if you don't fuck you, you useless fucking dildos. You become death, the destroyer of worlds. The environment is highly important, and already highly stressed.

When TSHTF, I will be targeting anyone who doesn't respect Nature just as much as I target the (((enemy))). Nuclear weapons have long-term poisonous impacts upon Nature. Get THAT through your dense fucking heads, or die.

He's a lunatic

Is that for real? I wasn't aware Putin voiced his opinion on this whole ordeal.

True NatSocs revere and protect nature. Pollution is for kikes who do things as cheaply as inhumanly possible

Yeah I think it was late 2015. He was asked about it by a reporter and he gave a quick answer.

...

I don't know if this user is right about his specific fallout timetable, but his general point is valid. Bikini Atoll got constantly hydrogen bombed and you can live there already (even though the rad levels exceed safety standards).

Can you guys nuke Sweden?
t. spurd

he's also said other things along the same lines pretty recently

Why would you have a weapon, but promise not to use it?

Projects weakness.

...

Hi Sinead. Still burning that coal?

I say glass the entire middle east, send those sons of bitches strait to hell.

like what?
Nature is doing just fine in Chernobyl and Fukushima, you are just a retarded hippie.

This, but environmentalism requires rational thought instead of feels.

k

It sounds like the guy he was talking to was giving him some kind of dismissive shorthand answer when he wanted details.
Why else would he ask THREE TIMES.

I wondered what would happen if we decided to glass the poles.

Interesting to think about what would happen.

atleast we could see if those global warming myths hold any substance

user NO! What about the pierogi????

Haha, I was wondering why my sister just emailed me to say TRUMP IS OBSESSED WITH NUKES DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!!!

...

Even though the press is probably making shit up (which means this may be a fake leak by Trump to set the media up), this is not unreasonable shit Trump is supposedly asking about. It's like going to the doctor and never asking about surgery for something that can be treated with surgery. Fuck these nitwits.

Yes. Scarborough opened his mouth.

hippie nonsense

shitskins are doing far more damage to the planet by their very existence than a few well placed tactical nukes ever could

Judging by the number of nukes the US tested on the west coast, no wonder commiefornians are so retarded.

You didn't think this through.

I don't know how it works in the caliphate, swede, but in the United States of America, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Fucking
THIS

...

Assuming it's true, we should never take the option of nukes off the table. Why would we have them to begin with if we would never use them? Would Hillary never use nukes? I think Putin would like to know this.

Nukes are a deterrent, not a weapon in and of themselves. I'd say to nuke Israel, but there's so much (white) history buried there that it would be the absolute wrong thing to do.

Something tells me Trump dominated that meeting

What a one way road.

It'd be better to nuke historical land sites than insure their eventual destruction through negligence and cruelty under the rule of Jewish landlords.

You're a fucking moron if you think nukes are the sizes used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today the standard nuke is 10-50 times more powerful and could potentially destroy

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Just the (((media))) pushing the "trump is a warmonger" again, always accuse your enemies of what you are doing.

...

stupid weeb poster

I don't like anime either, but we're on an imageboard. Get over it already.

Saging since I'm not really adding anything.

You're not doing it right, user.

If you take the nuke option off the table, then the whole idea of deterrence falls apart. As long as people still think a nuclear attack will lead to escalation and MAD, then nuclear war won't happen. But once one side states they'll never use their nukes and won't do a second strike or retaliation, then one side will start using them liberally.

Sinead, the Earth isn't flat.