Donald Trump

joelsim

Pinno wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

This nationalism thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

https://www.ft.com/content/7e5c8ce0-c85 ... 34c07b46ef

You'll have to copy/paste the article Joel, I am not a subscriber.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have separately called for a strengthening of their nations’ nuclear capabilities, sparking more uncertainty around US-Russia relations four weeks before the New York mogul is inaugurated as the 45th US president.

Sample the FT’s top stories for a week
You select the topic, we deliver the news.

Select topic
Enter email addressInvalid email
Sign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.
Speaking at a meeting of his defence chiefs, Mr Putin said Russia must “strengthen the strategic nuclear forces . . . [to] develop missiles capable of penetrating any current and prospective missile defence systems”, according to the Tass news agency.

Several hours later, Mr Trump said the US should expand its nuclear capabilities. “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” Mr Trump tweeted.


Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said it was unclear whether Mr Trump was just backing the existing US nuclear modernisation programme — which will not increase the size of the arsenal — or whether he was talking about adding to the total number of nuclear warheads.

Mr Kimball said the tweet was likely a “ham-handed” effort to back the modernisation programme following a meeting he held on Wednesday with Michael Flynn, his national security adviser, and some of the top military brass from the Pentagon.

Emerging markets investing
Investors pile in as Russia comes in from the cold
Post-Opec oil surge and signs Donald Trump may thaw US-Russia relations aid sentiment

“[But] he also said we must strengthen and expand our nuclear capacity, which implies that he is thinking about, or wants to build new nuclear warheads . . . which would be a radical departure in US policy that goes back decades,” he added.

Asked about the tweet, Jason Miller, the Trump transition team spokesman, said he was “referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it — particularly to and among terrorist organisations and unstable and rogue regimes”.

“He has also emphasised the need to improve and modernise our deterrent capability as a vital way to pursue peace through strength,” added Mr Miller, without explaining whether Mr Trump wanted to increase the actual number of US nuclear warheads.

Mr Kimball stressed that it was “very irresponsible” for Mr Trump to use a short tweet to “encapsulate the future direction of policy of the worlds’ largest nuclear superpower”.

It was unclear whether Mr Trump was tweeting because of something he heard in the briefing on Wednesday, or whether it was a kind of response to the Russian leader.

The comments by Mr Putin — who also claimed that Russia was “stronger than any potential aggressor” and could repel any threat — follow the most intense nuclear posturing by Moscow since the end of the Soviet Union.

Russia has cancelled three nuclear deals with the US, while Russian state television recently warned that the US was about to start a war, comparing tension over Syria with the Cuban missile crisis.

Some analysts saw Moscow’s nuclear posturing as an attempt at intimidating the incoming Trump administration, as well as bolstering Mr Putin ahead of elections in 2018.

Eugene Rumer, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment, said Mr Putin had made similar comments about Russia’s strategic nuclear forces in 2014 and 2015 because of concerns that the US was building missile defences that would threaten the ability of their nuclear forces.

Russian politics
A reversal of fortunes for Russia and the west
The world looks very different since the fall of the Soviet Union 25 years ago

“However, this time, right after he spoke about the need to maintain their strategic nuclear forces, he also spoke about the need to raise Russian strategic non-nuclear forces to a qualitatively new level that will make it possible to deal with any military threats to Russia,” said Mr Rumer. “That is an area where Russian military analysts have long viewed the United States as far superior to Russia.”

The Russian posturing comes at an important time in US-Russia relations. The Obama administration has accused Mr Putin and the Kremlin of orchestrating cyber attacks on the Democratic National Committee in Washington, although Mr Trump has confounded US experts by dismissing the conclusions of the CIA as “ridiculous”.

Despite huge spending on military modernisation in recent years, Russia’s conventional forces remain a fraction of the size of Nato’s. But its nuclear arsenal is on a par with America’s — though both are far smaller than at the height of the Cold War — allowing it to level the playing field.

Russia’s armed forces have been deployed in Mr Putin’s stand-off with the west over Syria and Ukraine. In 2014, they took the Crimean peninsula and last week helped Syrian government forces retake Aleppo, a key flashpoint in the country’s five-year civil war.

In Syria, Russian armed forces have killed 35,000 rebel fighters and destroyed 725 training camps since Moscow intervened on behalf of president Bashar al-Assad’s regime last year, according to Sergei Shoigu, Russian defence minister. He added that Moscow had carried out 18,800 sorties and 71,000 strikes in Syria.

The Russian military has used 162 different weapons systems in the conflict, which has served as a showcase for much of the new equipment developed under Mr Putin’s modernisation drive. Mr Shoigu also said Russia would produce five new strategic bombers and add three new units to Russia’s nuclear forces.

Follow Max and Demetri on Twitter: @maxseddon and @dimi

joelsim

Basically both Russia and the US have both said they are going to strengthen their nuclear armoury, which given they can both blow he entire world up several times already isn't a good thing. Nationalistic posturing and whatever follows from that. Whilst at the same time we want to disengage from the EU. Duh.

pinno

Let's have another cold war. It would be great wouldn't it?

Hopefully it's just posturing on both sides.

briantrumpet

Pinno wrote:

Let's have another cold war. It would be great wouldn't it?

Hopefully it's just posturing on both sides.

The Cuban Crisis was just posturing...

veronese68

Matthewfalle

Joelsim wrote:

Basically both Russia and the US have both said they are going to strengthen their nuclear armoury, which given they can both blow he entire world up several times already isn't a good thing. Nationalistic posturing and whatever follows from that. Whilst at the same time we want to disengage from the EU. Duh.

Good job Top Gear have a new test track then......

Matthewfalle

Anyhow, how are Russia going to afford all the big stuff? It's sheer strength of numbers they've got. Same principle as North Korea: all their stuff is massively outdated but there's billions of them.

bendertherobot

I'm just shocked he hasn't said nucular yet.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Anyhow, how are Russia going to afford all the big stuff? It's sheer strength of numbers they've got. Same principle as North Korea: all their stuff is massively outdated but there's billions of them.

I think the multiplier effect of Russian spending on the military is quite large - its two biggest industries which I think make up 70% of GNP is oil & military.

So rather like during the cold war, their military spending can be tolerably proportionally higher than it can in other, more balanced, nations.

But yes, you're right, he probs can't afford it. But it's no coincidence the surveillance state, political oppression and international belligerence kicked in not long after the price of oil collapsed.

pblakeney

Good for business, is war.
For some, obviously.

bianchimoon

Pinno wrote:

Let's have another cold war. It would be great wouldn't it?

Hopefully it's just posturing on both sides.

A Cold War? Its probably trumps idea of a solution to global warming

bendertherobot

Trump heart Israel.

bianchimoon

bendertherobot wrote:

Trump heart Israel.

yes, should rename the US, 'Greater Israel', the way Trumps going on

mr_goo

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

Are you suggesting Obama should let Russia off the hook for illegally hacking government files?

First.Aspect

Mr Goo wrote:

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

No they are just trying to squeeze in some last minute governance before the twitter-buffoon step in, destabilizes the middle east, pushes up oil prices, becomes best friend with as many totalitarian states as possible before falling out with as many totalitarian states as possible, initiates a nuclear arms race and is then impeached for tax evasion/sexual assault/fraud*.

*Delete as applicable

mr_goo

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

Are you suggesting Obama should let Russia off the hook for illegally hacking government files?

Not at all. However no concrete evidence has been presented by the US security agencies. So at present it is alleged hacking.

mr_goo

First Aspect wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

No they are just trying to squeeze in some last minute governance before the twitter-buffoon step in, destabilizes the middle east, pushes up oil prices, becomes best friend with as many totalitarian states as possible before falling out with as many totalitarian states as possible, initiates a nuclear arms race and is then impeached for tax evasion/sexual assault/fraud*.

*Delete as applicable

The Middle East state of destabilisation is mostly down to US intervention. Started out with Kissinger screwing up things in 70s. Downhill from then on. So to upset the only true friendly state in the region is damned stupid.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

Are you suggesting Obama should let Russia off the hook for illegally hacking government files?

Not at all. However no concrete evidence has been presented by the US security agencies. So at present it is alleged hacking.

Well that's just a Trumpian lie.

Fair enough if you want to believe that guff.

Truth is irrelevant nowadays isn't it?

bendertherobot

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Is Obama and his soon to be defunct administration executing a scorched earth programme for Trump and Co to try and pick up the pieces from? In a period of time when an outgoing president normally does nothing, he sure is sticking his oar in.

Are you suggesting Obama should let Russia off the hook for illegally hacking government files?

Not at all. However no concrete evidence has been presented by the US security agencies. So at present it is alleged hacking.

To who? The public? Kicking out that many isn't likely to be a knee jerk reaction.

rick_chasey

Decided Russia did hack the US election yet Mr Goo?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-r ... SKBN14P0G5

he top U.S. intelligence official said on Thursday he was "even more resolute" in his belief that Russia staged cyber attacks on Democrats during the 2016 election campaign, rebuking persistent skepticism from Republican President-elect Donald Trump about whether Moscow was involved.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said he had a very high level of confidence that Russia hacked Democratic Party and campaign staff email, and disseminated propaganda and fake news aimed at the Nov. 8 election.

"Our assessment now is even more resolute than it was" on Oct. 7 when the government first publicly accused Russia, Clapper told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

TheBigBean

I'm going to sound all tinfoil hat here, but...I think it is a mistake to blindingly believe anything coming out of the intelligence services or the military. Sure, Russia could have released some e-mails, but so too could a disgruntled Republican hacker or a rogue NSA agent. Remember, the NSA managed to justify (badly) spying on the congressional enquiry into itself. Either way, I'm not sure it made much difference.

The problem for me in these situations is that the NSA and GCHQ have done everything they can to weaken security online, and there is a strong argument that this is not in the interests of their citizens.

Also, complaining that a foreign power meddled in US elections will have many picturing stones being thrown from a glasshouse

Separately, I've been amazed that Trump is continuing the way he campaigned. I thought he might have toned it down a bit.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm going to sound all tinfoil hat here, but...I think it is a mistake to blindingly believe anything coming out of the intelligence services or the military.

Do you believe it in this instance?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'm going to sound all tinfoil hat here, but...I think it is a mistake to blindingly believe anything coming out of the intelligence services or the military.

Do you believe it in this instance?

I don't have any beliefs on the subject at the moment.

orraloon

He really is batsh!t crazy. Ambassadors, Out!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... ebook-post

ballysmate

Anyone else struck by the irony that the US has meddled in elections and engineered regime changes over the years gets into a hissy fit when it's on the receiving end.

rjsterry

It is a bit rich; countries have been trying to influence other countries' elections for as long as there have been elections. Maybe not quite as brazenly, though.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

It is a bit rich; countries have been trying to influence other countries' elections for as long as there have been elections. Maybe not quite as brazenly, though.

2 wrongs etc.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

Anyone else struck by the irony that the US has meddled in elections and engineered regime changes over the years gets into a hissy fit when it's on the receiving end.

That is quite funny really.

On the question of who did it, we're being asked to take the side of either the Russian military or the US intelligence services. So like I said that choosing between Clinton and Trump was like choosing between sh1t and sh1t, we are now left contemplating which habitual liars are telling the truth (or more accurately guessing, seeing as they're unlikely to produce any evidence, and even if they did, most of us wouldn't understand it anyway).

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

Anyone else struck by the irony that the US has meddled in elections and engineered regime changes over the years gets into a hissy fit when it's on the receiving end.

Yep, Al Gore comes to mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... oter-fraud

..and if the Grauniad isn't your thing

https://www.fastcompany.com/3065386/ele ... -elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Unit ... in_Florida