>>347082162>What can they possibly do with those weapons
Use them? The entire danger of nukes in the first place is that someone will use them. Even a "small" conflict between India and Palestine would cause an ecological disaster of unprecedented scale. I'm well aware that Iran has repeatedly expressed disinterest in pursuing nukes and I think the continued harassment of them over the issue was a mistake championed predominately by the ever-thornish Israel, but Trump doesn't feel that way and would prefer to take more punitive action against the country.>what the fuck do you know
Evidently, more than the man running for president who is expected to deal with these issues. I'm not arguing about whether or not Brexit was a good decision or whether or not the EU is viable, I'm saying that Trump doesn't know jackshit about Brexit and never demonstrated a desire to learn. The same applies to Crimea when he said "Putin wasn't in Ukraine" then admitted that Putin, in fact, was in Ukraine, then went onto deny that he was wrong and claim that he, in fact meant that Putin wouldn't get any further into Ukraine. That is dangerously ignorant.>What's half hearted about it?
Article 5 makes no exceptions. Trump does. That is what's halfhearted about it.>Every country benefits from alliances you idiot.
So we agree, then? Unless you can explain how weakening these alliances benefits Americans, Trump's stance on NATO is not actually "America First.">You're telling me that there is certainty in bettering the US by dragging itself and the rest of the world into WWIII
And how will America drag itself into WW3 under Clinton, then? How does telling our allies that we may not actually be there for them if they get invaded promote stability? How does saying it's sometimes okay to forcefully annex regions and countries promote stability?