Democrats fear Biden having the nuclear codes
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
Nah, I'm sure they could call a special session and have a vote before DC is vaporized.
I seem to remember Pelosi and Schumer blathering on about Trump and the nuclear codes some time in the last 2 years.
I don't think we need to worry about Biden, like Reagan he will have someone dictate to him or perhaps write them on his hand.
I think the concern with Trump was acting out of anger or vindictively... Different circumstances...
As long as his handlers have the info, the same people doing everything else will handle the football.
The “concern” was illegitimate political slander that you all drank up and shared like Kool Aid. Hopefully this isn’t the same as no CinC needs this garbage out in the public space.
The real difference here is that this is coming from his own party rather than political opponents trying to sway an election. The same people that voted to certify him in the election are now saying that he is unable to fulfill the duties they certified him for just a month ago.
Well that is your opinion. I know several people on the Hill and Trump was a real concern with people that matter.
Good for you. Just because people work for Congress doesn’t make them right. The main people putting the thoughts into public were elected officials on the hill. They may have even believed it but that doesn’t make it legitimate. Just like all of that rhetoric that you posted about how Trump was Hitler and all of the evil things that he was going to do that all turned out to be garbage. So you’ll have to forgive us if we don’t blindly agree with your point of view.
Yikes, Trigeek!!!! Boy did you get dissed!!!
The guy who believes our national election was stolen from Trump and that the insurrection he incited on Jan. 6th was actually the work of undercover Antifa REFUSES to 'blindly agree' with YOUR point of view. Ouch.
Just let him beat up his strawman. It's kind of entertaining to see someone think they're winning an argument against a person that doesn't exist. SAD!
I don't need to defend against these guys. He and they have no idea what they are talking about. Just spewing rhetoric from right wing talking heads. I can tell you that I get much of my information from sitting in the bleachers of softball games in NOVA. I'm not going to name drop but the truth is Trump is/was not held in high regard by both Dems and the GOP. He controls a large majority of hate groups and "Basket of deplorables". Yeah I said it... Just because it was not politically correct and probably a mistake. What Hillary said about Trump was correct. Right on every count. Trump, his followers and enablers inside and outside Congress are indeed an “irredeemable” “basket of deplorables” and, since his election in 2016, they have confirmed, time and again, every wretched quality she ascribed to them in her scathing address. He simply was not and remains a reprehensible human being. It's a common belief around Washington. Deny it all you want... Doesn't make you right...
What does any of that have to do with a bunch of democrat congressmen sending a letter of concern about Biden having unilateral authority to launch nuclear missles?
I brought Trump into this and he’s responding to my comment that the hysterics over Trump were nothing more than political slander.
Hillary was talking about half of our country and so are you. Your view is common around America, unfortunately, but that doesn’t make it true. You have already admitted that you paint stereotypes with an extremely broad brush. I’ve worked in Washington too and I’ve seen how it is there. You’re obviously in an echo chamber so it’s not surprising at all that you feel perfectly confident that everything you’re saying is perfectly right and true. Maybe step out of that bubble and truly meet those people that you demagogue as deplorable s and I think you’ll change your mind. Washington is the worst type of reality in our country.
I think I don't have far to look to recognize the deplorables. They were here in mass on Jan. 6th. The demographics of who supports who confirms this as well.
I'm actually OK with it insofar as it's the legislative branch trying to take back some of the power they have ceded, but its not reasonable to think that 5 people can be consulted and congress can vote on a declaration of war in the 35 minutes it takes for a nuke to get from Moscow to Washington. If this whole thing comes with the caveat of it being a preemptive strike, I'm OK with it.
It's just funny that with how small our nuclear weapons are today that this is even an issue.
It feels like you're painting all of the 10's of thousands of people that attended the rally and went home and did not march on the Capitol building with the thousand or two that did. If that's your MO, then it should follow that you have no problem with Conservatives painting every person that attended the BLM rallies as anarchists. I'm guessing that you don't believe that second part is true.
That I agree with, I've always thought it odd that the president had sole authority to launch a nuclear strike when congressional approval (though this is regularly flouted) is need to declare war. Of course, if it's in response to an impending nuclear attack, that is a different scenario and time is clearly of essence.
1. Don't confuse number of warheads or size of warheads with that ability to project force. We are still highly capable even if we don't win the numbers battle with Russia due to the habit of unilaterally following our treaty commitments in spite of the other signatories absolutely ignoring them.
2. There are already checks and balances to pre-emptive strikes and the people that I've worked with in the CBRN community are vehemently adamant that the US will never pre-emptively strike and violate reams of international laws and treaties.
3. Because of 2, I can't see how this is anything but a political move. We elect the President to lead the Executive branch and to respond to urgent situations where rapid response is necessary and the legislative bodies are too slow by their nature. We have checks and balances on those elections, such as the Senate needing to certify the election. It strains all credulity that Democrat Senators learned anything in the last month about Joe Biden that they didn't know on January 6th or before the primary, for that matter. They should've addressed this then and used those checks and balances rather than the path they took.
THis has nothing to do with Joe Biden. They are doing it for future presidents since we cant predict who those people will be.
I'm just saying that our current nuclear arsenal isn't exactly castle bravo level.
The politics of this is what I find funny. As you've said, it's curious that only few months after campaigning for his election we have democrats questioning his competence. It's pretty transparent to me.
We understand the point of this as it is the second time Pelosi has tried to get her hands on the Nuclear codes. Why is she so hell-bent on doing this now that Trump is out of office? Or is she saying that Republicans cannot be trusted to not start a nuclear war, period?
Also, the executive branch has as little as 10 minutes to respond to a SLBM attack that would cripple our capabilities. They're going to insert politicians into the process as gateways and that is going to slow response and possibly cripple it.
I know this will be hard for you but try to look at it from the other perspective. Pelosi took the opposite stance of Trump on almost every single issue. If Trump said the sky was blue, she'd have come out and said that it's got white clouds and sometimes its multicolored at sunset just to be seen to be in opposition because it met her political calculus. Is that really what we want to insert into our rapid military response?
In terms of a single nuclear warhead, no (Castle Bravo was estimated at 15 Mt.). But there's a reason for that - see the mass fallout and contamination that resulted from Castle Bravo.
On the other hand, a single Ohio Class SSBN carrying 24 Trident II missiles with up to 12 (475 Kt) MIRV'd warheads per missile means 5.7 Mt per missile or 136.8 Mt per sub. That's more than a little stopping power and unlike Castle Bravo is deployable by missile.
It is just a protective measure. You are more than welcome not to agree with it.
I haven't given my perspective on it, so not sure why you are making all the assumptions. I was just pointing out the trying to make this about Biden's competence, which is what crazy was doing, was off base.
(I think your weather example is confused though. Trump is the one who argued his inauguration had nice weather when everyone could see it was raining, might need a better example next time!)
Last edited:
Well then give your opinion rather than just comment on people that are willing to share theirs. It makes for a better conversation.
I will do as I please thanks. You will just make up my opinion for me anyway. Regardless, I stated what I wanted to state, that Crazy isn't looking at this correctly, so there ya go.
I thought that Obama left the country in a good state. If he did, then why would you be upset at Trump being rah rah positive at his inauguration? Simply because Trump was now the President?
I dont really know what this means. So pretending it isn't raining is being rah rah positive?
I know you're smart enough to realize when someone is dropping a metaphor to discuss something concrete.
I'm mad at that guy over there so let's hit them with those big things that fly in the sky. Then we can send the pony soldiers in and... I'm sorry, where were we?
Similar threads
