Should the use of nuclear weapons be off the table?

Posted on April 4, 2016 by Robert Ringer Comments (27)

Font:

Over and over again Republican candidates, especially Donald Trump, have said things that have brought a torrent of criticism from the media that have left me scratching my head. The brouhaha over the use of nuclear weapons was especially interesting, because Trump’s words mirrored what has been my position as long as I can remember.

Specifically, Trump said (not what the media said he said, but what he actually said) that his first option would be to have Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, et al pay the United States much more for defending them. Anyone who thinks that’s an unreasonable request is hopelessly trapped in the 21st century mind-set that rejects anything remotely connected to either reality or common sense.

The second part of this issue is Trump’s suggestion that, if necessary, we should let other countries develop their own nuclear arsenals. The media is still having a field day with this one, which only magnifies their stupidity.

Granted, it’s sometimes hard to tell what Trump’s positions are, but, just in case I decide to run on a third-party ticket, here are my three main thoughts on the issue — clearly stated:

First, it’s none of America’s business if any country — especially peaceful, civilized countries — decide to build nuclear weapons. We are not in charge of the world.

Second, in keeping with his anti-American agenda, Obama has already, in effect, made a pledge to Iran that it can continue its program to develop a nuclear arsenal. Thus, that country’s rulers are continuing to do just that, and there’s a 101 percent chance they will use those weapons shortly after they are built. (Unlike the U.S., however, Israel will be ready — and will not hesitate to act preemptively.)

Third, in addition to France, the U.K., and other crumbling Western societies, Pakistan, China, Russia, and India already have large nuclear arsenals. Further, it’s a certainty that many other countries, many of them hostile to the United States, will develop nuclear weapons at some time in the future. To think otherwise is not only naïve, it goes against the indisputable historical evidence.

So let’s get real here. Speaking for myself, I’d feel much safer if Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons. They would serve as a deterrent to the crazies and evildoers like North Korea, Iran, and Muslim terrorists groups, because, unlike the U.S., the bad guys would know that such countries would actually use them if they felt it was a matter of “us or them.”

The bottom line is that, even though I’m a pacifist at heart, it seems odd to me that any country would ever announce that using nuclear weapons is off the table. If they are truly off the table, what’s the point in bothering to have them in the first place?

Ringer Dealmaking Rule No. 287: Never take anything off the table until the deal is closed. And in a world saturated with nuclear weapons, the nuclear deal is never closed.

Next subject.

Robert Ringer

+Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

27 responses to “Should the use of nuclear weapons be off the table?”

  1. Steve says:

    Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who didn't.

  2. Leedees111@hotmail.com Lee says:

    I sure wish our 'leaders', those that profess to be conservatives, had familiarized themselves with the wisdom contained Ringer Dealmaking Rule No. 287. Of course that requires a foolish belief that they had anyone's interest at heart other than their own petty interests. I can't recall the specific Rule No. on that but I know I learned it from RJR.

  3. ROBERT,
    I'm a political Conservative. Used to be a Republican, but since The Obama Regime promised to, and succeeded to/in "Fundamentally Change" ing {Ruining} "America"–it does not mater any more! Our America, the one You and I Loved is Finished! Your earlier Books correctly predicted
    this too, so my answer has nothing has NOTHING to do with my Political Beliefs.

    It is just that "Dealmaking Rule # 287" makes total, logical sense!!
    So, of course, No Sane person wants ANY Nuke activity to occur–EVER!

    BUT, only a Religious Nut would say anything like "I would never use one if Putin or 'Kim Jong Moron'
    launched one and actually hit our Country!

    SO–of course "the nuclear deal is never closed."
    Just plain old common sense!!

  4. John says:

    If the U.S. ever disarmed itself, it would probably become an even bigger target than it is now.

    In addition to not being in a position to defend itself (let alone strike back to let an attacker know they won't get away with what they've done), the U.S. would most likely be made an example of… to show other developed countries what awaits them if they don't meet attacker demands.

  5. Let me be the first to say that YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

  6. "Walk softly and carry a big stick!" Teddy Roosevelt? Sounds like a good form of "Winning Throught Intimidation", does it not? An excellent philosophy that is the opposite of the current MISFIT's stupidity. Actually NOT stupidity since I am certain that he knows exactly what he is doing: the destruction of America as his goal. I said that from Day One of his introduction. It is still taking awhile for everyone to get it. Apparently critical thinking is taught neither in the schools nor at home. One reason being "most" people are too damned busy on their cell phones. When driving my car I have to be ever vigilant lest I run them, and their phones in hand, over! Apparently we are not in the 1950s any longer.

  7. Nasdaq7 says:

    I think that many Americans don't care or shouldn't worry too much about foreign policy issues during the primaries. But it is about allies and Trump needs to unite as many people behind him now that the race is so close. He has to read from script. He has to have his family with him all the time. He needs to unite and gain as many friends as possible. His campaign team doesn't inform him: stop criticizing the Wisconsin governor that has an 80% approval rating among GOP voters etc. Ted Cruz is constantly gathering delegates. Now is the time to collect as many friends as possible. He has to read from script. That's what I think.

  8. Scott theczech says:

    Nuclear does kind of change the discussion a bit, i.e., nuclear weapons are very destructive things. I kind of like the idea of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) working among the nations to try and keep that nasty genie in the bottle.

    The reason we don't let countries like Iran have nuclear weapons is because they chose not to play by the IAEA rules. They are rogue. Any country, practically, is allowed into the nuclear club as long they sign on to all of the rules governing the IAEA charter e.g., inspections, proper disposal methodology, etc. Some countries just don't want to participate. Therefore we should do everything in our power to keep their hands of nukes!

  9. Scott theczech says:

    Argh! should read "off of nukes."

  10. Nasdaq7 says:

    Robert I think you should volunteer to give him some advice, especially with regards to organizing his campaign team, improving cooperation, cohesion, among himself and his team, because he clearly lacks coordination and team work. Perhaps he will listen to someone like you?

  11. JohhnyTwoSheds says:

    Alastair, Western societies in general are crumbling (more like aggressively self-destructing), and regretfully, this includes the UK as well as the USA. It truly saddens me that in the once-great UK (the USA was once-great as well..again this is very tough for me to say as a patriotic, disabled veteran) soldiers are told not to wear military items when off-duty so as to avoid provocation by anti-West thugs. Agreeing to banning the "three Little Pigs" from school curricula for fear of "offending" certain groups cannot be described as a gesture to upholding one's society. The USA is no better…besides endless lectures on "islamaphbia" by our pathetic excuse for "leaders," the USA is suing Christianity out of existence. My ancestors fought and defended in the USA in every war it ever engaged in, but the truth is the truth, as nauseating and purifying as it is. There are plenty of stupid insane and plain old evil people in both the USA and UK, throwing away what our veterans fought so hard to protect.

    • JohnnyTwoSheds. Thank you for your comment. It is obvious by your response that you continue to be a “peacemaker.” As a veteran you have my gratitude and admiration. I’m sorry my tirade offended you. I apologize. I lost my father in WW2 and to this day thoughts of his fighting and dying for what has become an unrecognizable Britain angers me. No one need twist the knife. I wonder if the present day inhabitants who sought and were given refuge in UK would stand against an enemy with the same passion and patriotism today — absurd to contemplate that question.

  12. Mark says:

    "101 percent chance," eh? Most people in the region think it would make the Middle East safer, but that's not a Fox News approved opinion.

  13. Reality Seeker says:

    As much as I hate too, I have to agree with Trump.

    I come from a family that knows far more about nuclear weapons and nuclear war than most. For example, my dad still collects "hazard pay" from all of the exposure he had from radiation in the 40s and 50s. He actually has been at ground zero on a number of occasions within hours of nuclear detonations. So, yeah, I got the inside story about strategic policy and tactical nuclear weapons inculcated deep inside me very early.

    There's only one way forward on this issue: MAD. I know it's counter-intuitive, but Mutually Assured Destruction is the policy which provides the best chance at preventing all-out nuclear war. So I have to agree with Trump's policy which is tantamount to agreeing with a renewed arms race, i.e., MAD. I also support Trump as the Commander-in-Chief because I don't think he has an itchy trigger finger like many of the neocon warmongers. Nuclear war is the number one issue for me. I find Trump to be an acceptable Caesar. America is a super empire, and it cries for a worthy Caesar. Trump is at least rationally selfish and at best a good negotiator.. And rationally selfish negotiators don't start nuclear war.

    Trump 2016!

    • Nasdaq7 says:

      I personally would simply have nudged allies in the direction of buying more US arms. I would have said "The US will gradually reduce its foreign military commitments across the entire globe and our allies will need to arms themselves, improve their armies, navies and air forces." So think like a businessman! The US is the world's largest arms supplier with superb technology – sell to your allies and if there's no progress, then look at alternative coalitions, countries that can work together, combine forces. Why can't South Korea and Japan work together? Why not add Australia and New Zealand? Then lastly look at other possibilities. So first try and win the cooperation from allies – they might even buy far more in military terms from the US than ever imagined in the next 5 years and try to get them self-reliant. See the business opportunity everywhere. Once again, I think Trump's not really taken the time to discuss the issues with 15, 20 advisers – Hillary has 1000+ and even if they are not professionals or the "best of the best", work together as a team, discuss matters and simply choose the best ideas given and don't worry too much about the issues. Focus on winning trust, friends and allies. And study the various states and their individual needs. Form as many alliances and win as many friendships as possible. It will count unfortunately in the end too, provide more policy details.

      • Reality Seeker says:

        A prescient president would think in terms of a nuclear strategic alliance.

        Trump could make a grand bargain whereupon Japan, South Korea and Austria would purchase nuclear weapons from America. In return, America would lead a Pacific Ocean Alliance which would be designed to be in America's best interest. Terrorism, cyber warfare, economic warfare and every other hostile action could be included in a pacific treaty.

  14. Reality Seeker says:

    * Australia

    • Nasdaq7 says:

      It's a good idea. There's so much money the US can make from that situation, even exchange and create new military defense systems with Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese and US technological expertise. Renegotiate all the treaties and form new alliances – over time improve the US trade.

  15. GreekChorus says:

    I fail to see why "there’s a 101 percent chance they [those in the Iranian government] will use those weapons shortly after they are built. " Those in the North Korean, Pakistani, and Israeli governments have not.

    Nuclear weapons have very little actual value as offensive weaponry; the first government to do so will bring down the wrath of most of the other governments in the world, not to mention most of the people in the world. Rather, their value comes from their potential defensive use — not their actual use, but rather the threat of potential retaliation. The governments of countries which have them reduces markedly the likelihood of other governments using force against them. This is the reason these other governments want them, and strikes me as ultimately a stabilizing influence.

  16. trying2b-amused says:

    Nuclear disarmament is driven by precisely the same delusional “thinking” as gun control: violence is caused by weapons. In reality, it may be that only the existence of large quantities of the most hideous weapons that science can devise will finally induce humanity to understand the true cause of war, which has nothing to do with weapons as such.

    ” . . . I’d feel much safer if . . . Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons. They would serve as a deterrent to the crazies and evildoers like . . . Iran . . .”

    Sorry, Mr. Ringer, I have to call bulls–t here. Compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is sane, peaceful and civilized. Do a web search on “Saudi Wahhabism” and then “Iran 1953”. A further search on “Savak” will also prove enlightening.

  17. Jay Smith says:

    A room full of people, with one of them having a bomb in his pocket – apprehension and everyone hoping that the guy with the bomb isn't insane.
    Now, if everyone in the room had a bomb… everyone has to make sure that all of the others aren't insane – self regulation?
    It could be a feedback loop, like the factory that discharged it's waste into a river, was made to draw it's water downstream of it's waste discharge point. The factory cleaned up it's discharge real quick (politicians have an ineffective feedback loop).
    Give everybody a nuke or two – full steam ahead and damn the nukes!
    Perchance a war on fear…

  18. Nasdaq7 says:

    The one comment confirms what I have suspected, Trump's campaign is in meltdown.

    "Mr. Trump has no situation awareness. He has no ability to take advice, or build bridges, or learn from others, or direct a team. He has no one on staff who grasps the mechanics of wooing delegates at the Republican convention, or the nominating rules at the July gathering. Winning in politics is at least partly about strategy and process. But all he understands is action.

    Kudos on that one. A very good summary I think of Donald Trump.

    He doesn't like to "do nothing" and simply says whatever is on his mind at the moment.

    And he is also capable of being quite nasty and cruel to people/organizations whom he thinks are standing in his way.

    How he would manage to get along with a Congress full of politicians is beyond me."
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trump-come

  19. Nasdaq7 says:

    An online forum with 50,000+ comments on the election.
    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/04/05/obama-o

  20. Nasdaq7 says:

    Bernie Sander's quick win in Wisconsin shows you how easily socialists can win in a democracy.

Leave a Reply