The Donald Is A Ticking Time Bomb-- But Let's Hope It Isn't A Nuclear one

 

Opposition Research by Nancy Ohanian

Did you watch the "loyalty dinner" scene in Billy Ray's excellent mini-series, The Comey Rule? Writer-director Ray and actor Brendan Gleeson portray Trump as a repulsive mob boss demanding personal loyalty from an very uncomfortable James Comey. Comey made a half-assed attempt to placate Trump but Trump wasn't buying it and it led to Trump's smear campaign against him and eventual humiliating firing.

Something tells me Trump's animus towards Dr. Anthony Fauci is even greater than his hatred for Comey was-- but, for whatever reason, Trump has felt he couldn't fire him before the election. No doubt Fauci will get his walking papers in November.





On Monday Fauci told Jake Tapper that the Trump campaign should stop running a misleading ad that implies Fauci:

a- thinks Trump did a good job on the pandemic
b- is endorsing or even voting for Trump

Neither a nor b is true and Fauci said he thinks "it’s really unfortunate and really disappointing that they did that. It is so clear that I am not a political person and I have never either directly or indirectly endorsed a political candidate. To take a completely out-of-context statement and put it in what is obviously a political campaign ad, I thought, was really very disappointing."

Here's the deceitful ad in question, which Trump refuses to stop running, even though it has been debunked as completely false and even though Fauci doesn't want to be associated with Trump's campaign:





Fauci's official statement to the media: "The comments attributed to me without my permission in the GOP campaign ad were taken out of context from a broad statement I made months ago about the efforts of federal public health officials."

Fauci replied to a question from Tapper about the safety of Trump's super-spreader campaign events. More of what Trump will absolutely see as disloyalty to himself: "We know that is asking for trouble when you do that. We’ve seen that when you have situations of congregate settings where there are a lot of people without masks, the data speak for themselves. And now is even more so a worse time to do that... It's going in the wrong direction right now, so if there's anything we should be doing, we should be doubling down in implementing the public health measures that we've been talking about for so long, which are keeping a distance, no crowds wearing masks, washing hands doing things outside as opposed to inside, in order to get those numbers down... We’re entering into the cooler months of the fall and ultimately the cold months of the winter and that's just a recipe of a real problem. If we don't get things under control before we get into that seasonal challenge."

And Fauci's not the only insider unhappy with the way things are going pandemic-wise. A startling-- but not unpredictable-- NY Times piece yesterday, Trump’s Virus Treatment Revives Questions About Unchecked Nuclear Authority. This is something Ted Lieu has been talking about for several years because, as David Sanger and William Broad reported "Even before the president was given mood-altering drugs, there was a movement to end the commander in chief’s sole authority to launch nuclear weapons." Doctors say the steroids he's on can produce delusions, euphoria, bursts of energy "and even a sense of invulnerability."

Trump’s long rants and seemingly erratic behavior last week-- which some doctors believe might have been fueled by his use of dexamethasone, a steroid, to treat Covid-19-- renewed a long-simmering debate among national security experts about whether it is time to retire one of the early inventions of the Cold War: the unchecked authority of the president to launch nuclear weapons.

Mr. Trump has publicly threatened the use of those weapons only once in his presidency, during his first collision with North Korea in 2017. But it was his decision not to invoke the 25th Amendment and turn control over to Vice President Mike Pence last week that has prompted concern inside and outside the government.

Among those who have long argued for the need to rethink presidents’ “sole authority” powers are former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, considered the dean of American nuclear strategists, who has cited the fragility of a nuclear-weapons control chain and the fear that it can be subject to errors of judgment or failure to ask the right questions under the pressure of a warning of an incoming attack.

A Culture Of Violence by Nancy Ohanian

 

Mr. Trump’s critics have long questioned whether his unpredictable statements and contradictions pose a nuclear danger. But the concerns raised last week were somewhat different: whether a president taking mood-altering drugs could determine whether a nuclear alert was a false alarm.

...Peter D. Zimmerman, a physicist and former government arms scientist, said few things better illustrated the confused nature of the American effort to prevent a single individual from launching a nuclear strike than the “two-man rule” in nuclear silos, submarines, bombers and the nation’s coast-to-coast atomic complex.

The rule requires the presence of two authorized people for any step involving access to the armaments or the launching of a nuclear strike. “No unaccompanied person ever approaches a nuclear weapon,” Dr. Zimmerman wrote in a 2017 opinion essay. “It’s a basic precaution against theft, misuse or sabotage.”

But it does not apply to the commander in chief, whether in the Oval Office or at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

A president could misjudge the situation or become impulsive, Dr. Zimmerman noted in an interview. “And the consequences,” he said, “would be horrendous.”

I asked Ted Lieu about the bill he introduced several times seeking to deal with this problem before it becomes a catastrophe. "No one should have the sole authority to start a nuclear war-- least of all Donald Trump," he told me this morning. "That is why Senator Ed Markey and I have introduced the 'Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act' for the past three congressional terms. We believe that a nuclear first strike constitutes an act of war and thus requires congressional authorization. It is important to note that our legislation does not prevent a president from responding to a nuclear threat in kind-- it just prevents a president from unilaterally starting a nuclear war. There are a myriad of risks associated with not having clear restrictions on a nuclear first strike. There is a risk of miscalculation or misunderstanding escalating to an all-out nuclear war. And there is also the risk that a president becomes completely unhinged and orders a nuclear strike on a whim. We all recall hearing the terrifying stories of the end of the Nixon presidency. I believed in 2016 what I still believe now: launching a weapon that has the power to kill millions of people is an obvious act of war. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, Congress has the constitutional duty to decide when a nuclear first strike is warranted."

Kim Jong-Un Has Played Trump For A Fool All Along, Building Up His Nuclear Arsenal While Reassuring The Gullible Trumpanzee

In the new Fox poll released last week-- the one that has him climbing the walls-- respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved how Trump handles various parts of his job. When asked about how he handles Korea, 39% approved and 49% disapproved. and that was before the stories came out Friday about how Kim Jong-un has been playing him for a fool and building up Korea's nuclear arsenal while Trump danced around singing his praises.

I think it was a report by Sharon Shi and Clément Bürge for the Wall Street Journal, While Trump and Kim Talk, North Korea Appears To Expand Its Nuclear Arsenal, that got the ball rolling. "Over the past year, there have been handshakes, compliments and extravagant photo-ops-- in Singapore, in Hanoi and even at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas," they wrote. "Trump’s summit diplomacy has raised hopes around the world: Is North Korea now willing to surrender its nuclear arsenal?" Short answer? Not a chance... basically everyone in the world but Señor Trumpanzee has known all along.

Analysts who pore over satellite images of the isolated country paint a different picture: North Korea’s scientists have ramped up production of long-range missiles and the fissile material used in nuclear weapons.

Shipping containers, trucks and crowds of people moving materials and instruments at North Korea’s key weapons facilities like the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center and the Sanum-dong missile production site, suggest North Korea has continued producing fissile material and intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to analysts Jenny Town, a fellow at the Stimson Center, a think tank specialized on security issues, and Jeffrey Lewis, a researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, a research center analyzing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Analysts at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency say North Korea’s scientists may have produced 12 nuclear weapons since the first Trump-Kim meeting in Singapore last year. In total, Pyongyang could currently possess between 20 and 60 nuclear bombs, according to estimates by various security analysts.

President Trump has played down evidence gathered by security analysts that North Korea is continuing its nuclear operations, saying in a recent televised interview that Kim “promised he wouldn’t do it.” And Pyongyang has remained silent on the status of its nuclear and missile programs.

How Much Will The Trump-Putin Arms Race Cost American (And Russian) Taxpayers?

I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton's-- never. At least her husband's neo-liberal agenda was couched in a pleasant personality. Each time I've met her was-- literally-- disgusting. I was stuck with a monster. Once her whole retinue-- one by one-- abandoned her backstage before a speech and I was the only left to deal with her and it was excruciating. Once at a White House state banquet she was like the big downer in the otherwise festive event, bad vibing everyone. That said, there was never one moment of one day that I harbored any doubts that she would make a better president than Donald Trump. She was never going to be my idea of a great president, but any least she would break through the political glass ceiling for far better women politicians to come and at least she would not be the kind of politically-destructive and ignorant animal that there could never have been any doubt Trump would be.

David Sanger broke the story in the NY Times yesterday that the nuclear arms race is on again, compliments of Trump and Putin. Is that what the American people want? Is that what even the idiots who voted for him wanted when they voted for him? Sanger reported that Trump and Pompeo are "suspending one of the last major nuclear arms control treaties with Russia after heated conversations between the two powers recently failed to resolve a long-running accusation that Moscow is violating the Reagan-era treaty." ... [W]hile the United States has insisted Russia’s actions sank the treaty, the Trump administration’s real aim is to broaden its prohibitions to include China."

Constrained by the treaty’s provisions, the United States has been prevented from deploying new weapons to counter China’s efforts to cement a dominant position in the Western Pacific and keep American aircraft carriers at bay. China was still a small and unsophisticated military power in the mid-1980s, and not a signatory to the treaty that was negotiated between the United States and a rapidly weakening Soviet Union.

By contrast, much of Beijing’s growing nuclear arsenal currently consists of missiles that fall into the distance ranges that are prohibited by the treaty that applies only to Russia and the United States.

“The issue now is whether the administration has a plan for what comes next,” said Pranay Vaddi, a fellow in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former State Department official until 2017 who worked on nuclear arms control issues. “There is no question that the Russians committed a violation. But it is not militarily significant because it doesn’t change the balance of power in Europe.”

With the treaty on its last legs, the question is whether Mr. Pompeo’s announcement will result in a flurry of last-minute negotiations with Moscow-- which seems unlikely-- or whether it will accelerate the Cold War-like behavior among the United States, Russia and China.

Complicating that question is the American intelligence agencies’ warning this week that Russia and China are “more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s.”

The fate of the treaty has quickly become a test of the continuing struggle inside the Trump administration, and with its allies, over how to handle an increasingly aggressive Russia.

Mr. Trump campaigned on remaking Washington’s relationship with Moscow; the open investigation by the Justice Department’s special counsel is, at its core, about whether he and his campaign aides promised to relieve sanctions and other impediments to Russia in return for financial or electoral benefits from Mr. Putin’s government.

But Mr. Trump has surrounded himself in the White House with hawkish advisers, including John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, who has been a major critic of treaties that he believes impinge the United States’ ability to counter new or rising foreign threats.

The decision to leave the nuclear arms treaty took American allies by surprise when word of the decision first leaked out in October and was quickly confirmed by Mr. Trump.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance that was created to counter the Soviet threat 70 years ago, acknowledged that Russia had violated the I.N.F. treaty and called on Moscow in December “to return urgently to full and verifiable compliance.”

But the alliance stopped short of agreeing that the United States should withdraw, declaring then that the “allies are firmly committed to the preservation of effective international arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation.”

The announcement by Mr. Pompeo came just ahead of the expiration, on Saturday, of a 60-day deadline he gave Moscow to come into compliance with the treaty. He had no expectation that the Russians would heed his warning.

Mr. Pompeo’s formal announcement begins a six-month clock that Trump administration officials believe will end with a full American withdrawal from the treaty. Starting on Saturday, the United States would be free to begin to test or deploy its own weapons.

It is not clear whether that will happen; there are no weapons in the American arsenal that could be quickly deployed. That was the point of the treaty: It banned an entire category of weapons-- land-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles-- that both the United States and the Soviet Union had deployed in the 1980s, and which at the time terrorized Europe.

For many years, the I.N.F. was considered a model arms control treaty. It allowed for on-site inspections and extensive exchanges of information-- exactly what the Trump administration now seeks from North Korea and other states.

But in 2014, the Obama administration accused Russia of turning out a missile that violated the treaty, and last fall, Dan Coats, the national intelligence director, published a detailed history of the Russian violations.

Experts cited Russian unhappiness with the treaty, going back at least 10 years, before Moscow focused on new generations of missiles that would extend its reach without costing it much money. Russian officials have charged that American missile defense interceptors in Eastern Europe could be easily refashioned into offensive weapons, and that the rise of armed drones, which had not been invented when the treaty was signed, now threaten to provide the United States with similar intermediate-range ability without violating the precise wording of the treaty.

Ahead of Friday’s announcement, Russia had aggressively used social media accounts to portray the United States as the treaty-breaker and the aggressor. That argument has won some sympathy in Europe, where many critics portray the treaty’s demise as an example of the Trump administration putting its own agenda before Europe’s.

But the real action is likely to be in Asia. The Pentagon has already been developing nuclear weapons to match, and counter, what the Chinese have deployed.

Completing that effort would take years. Until then, officials said the United States is preparing to modify existing weapons, including its non-nuclear Tomahawk missiles, and is likely to deploy them in Guam, where the military maintains a large base and they would face little political opposition.

Lewis Fry Richardson (1881-1953) was an English mathematician, physicist, meteorologist and psychologist, who pioneered the scientific analysis of conflict, applying modern mathematical techniques he developed for weather forecasting to systematically study the causes of wars and how to prevent them. In 2003 David Bigelow wrote a paper, An Analysis of the Richardson Arms Race Model, pointing out that according to Richardson "the likelihood of two nations engaging in conflict can be determined by a set of differential equations. Richardson conjectured that a nation’s probability of entering into an aggressive war is based upon its stockpiles of available weaponry, and tempered by the resistance of the citizenry. In the Richardson model, the likelihood of a small dispute erupting into a full war is based upon these variables, and the current conditions. The model has three basic cases: both nations tending towards disarmament, both nations tending towards a runaway arms race, and both nations tending towards a stable equilibrium point.

”X” represents the amount of weaponry that country one has at time t. ”Y” is the same for the second country. Each constant has a specific meaning, and vary from system to system.

The constants ”a” and ”b” are known alternatively as ”fear” or ”reaction” constants. They represent the desire of a country to increase arms at a rate proportional to the amount of arms that their opponent possesses. The con- stants ”m” and ”n” are known as either the ”restraint” or ”fatigue” factors. They represent the desire of a nation to reduce arms stockpiles at a rate di- rectly proportional to what they possess. Finally, ”r” and ”s” are the grievance constants, and represent the ”leftovers.” These constants can contain ambition, external pressure, a revenge motive, and other factors not directly related to arms stockpiles.

William Hartung made noticed that the revolving door between the Pentagon and the arms industry is spinning faster inside the Trump Regime than ever before, particularly since Patrick Shanahan was appointed acting Secretary of Defense. "No secretary of defense in recent memory," wrote Hartung, "has had such a long career in the arms industry and so little experience in government or the military. For most of that career, in fact, his main focus was winning defense contracts for Boeing, not crafting effective defense policies. While the Pentagon should be focused on protecting the country, the arms industry operates in the pursuit of profit, even when that means selling weapons systems to countries working against American national security interests... Shanahan’s new role raises questions about whether what is in the best interest of Boeing-- bigger defense budgets and giant contracts for unaffordable and ineffective weaponry or aircraft-- is what’s in the best interest of the public."

His former company is one of two finalists to build a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Critics of such weapons systems like Clinton administration Secretary of Defense William Perry point out that ICBMs are the most dangerous and unnecessary leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, since in a potential war they might need to be launched on only minutes’ notice, lest they be lost to incoming enemy nukes. Even some of their supporters have questioned the need for a brand-new ICBM when older ones could be upgraded. Nuclear hawks might eventually be persuaded to adopt such a position, too, since the cost of the Pentagon’s across-the-board $1.5 trillion “modernization” of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (including the production of new nuclear bombers, missiles, and warheads) will otherwise begin to impinge on department priorities elsewhere. But how likely is Shanahan to seriously entertain even such modest critiques when they threaten to eliminate a huge potential payday for Boeing?

Former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson mentioned to me this morning that "The Trump Administration has budgeted $494 billion on nuclear weapon 'modernization,' which is $100 million per nuke. Those nukes are burning a hole in Trump’s pocket; let’s hope they don’t explode... Trump should have tried to enforce the deal, not suspend it. If you breached a contract with me, my reaction wouldn’t be, 'well, then, I’ll just tear it up.'"

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)-- who serves on both the Armed Services Committee and on the subcommittee for National Security of the House Financial Services Committee-- took a minute out of her presidential campaign to tell us that she feels the "heightened tensions with Russia and China are sending us into a new Cold War. We need to be stepping up nuclear nonproliferation agreements, not rolling them back. Trump's actions threaten our national security and the future of our planet."

Early this morning, the BBC reported, exactly what everyone expected: Putin said Russia would start developing new missiles. Another gift from Trump. "Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the treaty, and we are suspending it too," Mr Putin said on Saturday. Meanwhile, the worldwide merchants of death and popping champagne bottles everywhere. The half dozen American companies that have spent the most in bribing members of Congress last year and their stocks' performance on Friday:

• Boeing- $4,011,579- (up 0.5%)
• Northrop Grumman- $3,943,199 (down 0.9%)
• Lockhead Martin- $3,422,998- (up 0.38%)
• General Dynamics- $2,279,136- (down 1.25%)
• Raytheon- $2,217,783- (up 0.73%)
• United Technologies- $1,182,114 (up 0.77%)

And who got the biggest slices of the pie from the weapons manufacturers? These are the half dozen worst who are still in Congress (just from the last cycle-- and keep in mind not one of them had a serious reelection race, although McSally ran for the Senate in a very heavily contested race-- and lost):

• Mac Thornberry (R-TX)- $339,250
• Kay Granger (R-TX)- $322,840
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)- $290,742
• Adam Smith (D-WA)- $276,550
• Rob Wittman (R-VA)- $274,500
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)- $266,241

Is Trumpanzee Making His Nobel Prize A Pre-Condition?

Ivanka and Jared will run Pyongyang's fanciest restaurant

I recall that right after Trump fake-cancelled his meeting with Kim Jong-Un. he blubbered something about his willingness to reinstate the meeting but "only under our conditions." First and foremost of those conditions-- aside from Trump getting to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Kim and Moon-- is that North Korea denuclearize. But that's not really on anyone's table put the one in front of Trump's highchair in the White House nursery.

The real question is whether or not a member of the Trump family will be granted the concession to run North Korea's first MacDonalds or Burger King franchise. Courtney Kube reporting for NBC News wrote that there's no actual denuclearization going on except in the drugged up Trumpanzee cranium. I asked a friend of mine from Oslo, who lives in Amsterdam now, if a burger chain will still get Trump a Nobel and he said he'll speak with his friends back in Norway and get back to me.

"A new U.S. intelligence assessment," Kube wrote, "has concluded that North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons any time soon." This finding "conflicts with recent statements by the fake crackpot occupant of the White House.

Trump is continuing to pursue a nuclear summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un even though the CIA analysis, which is consistent with other expert opinion, casts doubt on the viability of Trump's stated goal for the negotiations, the elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons stockpile.

"Everybody knows they are not going to denuclearize," said one intelligence official who read the report, which was circulated earlier this month, days before Trump canceled the originally scheduled summit.

In an odd twist, a list of potential concessions by North Korea in the CIA analysis included the possibility that Kim Jong Un may consider offering to open a Western hamburger franchise in Pyongyang as a show of goodwill, according to three national security officials.

It suggests Kim is interested in a peaceful gesture to an American president whose love of fast-food burgers is well known-- and who, during the 2016 campaign, had said he wanted to talk nukes over a burger with the North Korean leader.

On the nuclear question, the analysis suggests that a more realistic immediate objective would be convincing Kim to walk back recent progress on the country's nuclear weapons program, the officials said.

But it's not clear that would pass muster with Trump-- or America's allies.

"If the North Koreans don't agree in a joint statement that lays out denuclearization-- that is, getting rid of their nuclear weapons, having them put under control by international elements-- then I don't think we are going to go very far," Chris Hill, a former ambassador to South Korea, said Tuesday on MSNBC.

...The CIA report came as a top nuclear expert argued in a new paper that the nuclear disarmament process in North Korea could take as a long as 15 years. Siegfried Hecker, a Stanford professor who once directed the federal government's Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico-- and who has toured North Korean nuclear facilities four times-- argued that the sprawling nature of the North Korean program means it will take a long time to dismantle. His analysis was first reported in the New York Times.

The CIA report, described by three officials to NBC News, lays out a series of incentives the U.S. and South Korea could offer North Korea to disarm, including infrastructure and agricultural aid.

The report, like nearly all intelligence products on North Korea, offered analysis at low or medium confidence-- language intelligence agencies use to signal that analysts lack hard information to buttress their conclusions.

One of the world's most reclusive countries, North Korea is a notoriously difficult intelligence target. Human sources and communications intercepts are hard to come by.

"This is essentially some very smart analysts offering their very best guesses," one intelligence official said.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump said he would like to meet with the North Korean leader in a low-key setting that entailed "eating a hamburger on a conference table."

The CIA report does not specify which fast-food brand could be invited to North Korea, but said Kim envisioned that the establishment could be used to provide food during the talks and would show that he was open to Western investment.

In advance of major diplomatic negotiations, it's not uncommon for intelligence agencies and the State Department to provide assessments about the opposing side's red lines. The idea is to prepare American participants for all possible eventualities, and to provide options to influence the adversary's behavior.

The new CIA report, according to three national security officials, assessed that Kim may also offer other limited American investment in North Korea, particularly in infrastructure.

The U.S. and South Korea would likely focus on food delivery-- possibly through the United Nations-- and other agricultural development, the report said. The South Koreans would likely take the lead in delivering this aid.

The U.S. also could offer economic incentives, including sanctions relief.

The report says North Korean officials have not demanded in preliminary talks that the U.S. remove all its troops from South Korea, and they are not expected to do so in any initial summit.

The report says that South Korean President Moon Jae-in believes he enjoys a strong rapport with Kim, and that South Korea is considering a formal declaration to end the war between the two countries.

The CIA and the White House declined to comment.

One former senior official who has been briefed on the U.S. approach to North Korea acknowledged that U.S. intelligence agencies do not believe Kim would ever get rid of all his nuclear weapons.

"I've always wondered: How does the administration square that circle?" the former official said.

The big question going into any negotiation, the official said, was how the White House would deal with North Korea's unwillingness to denuclearize while maintaining Trump's public line requiring such a move.

rump seemed to acknowledge that dilemma in remarks last week where he said North Korea may not have to immediately denuclearize and that its nuclear program could be phased out over a period of time.

The U.S. also has decided to drop any human rights demands as part of the talks, according to a current and a former official-- a deeply significant move when dealing with a country that the U.S. believes holds between 80,000 and 120,000 prisoners in squalid camps. The former official said the U.S. approach to North Korea was broken down into phases, each of which would bring corresponding gestures of aid and sanctions relief.

First, the Trump administration wants North Korea to declare all details of its nuclear program, dispose of fissile material and close some sites.

The U.S. would then press for international inspections and a gradual elimination of nuclear weapons.

The American side would like to all but eliminate fissile material in North Korea.

An open question, said the former official, is how and whether to press Kim to account for and relinquish his chemical and biological weapons. After Trump criticized the Iran nuclear deal for failing to account for Iran's missile program, it would be hard for him to reach a nuclear deal with North Korea that ignores other weapons of mass destruction.

On May 28, the White House said in a statement that Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had spoken and "affirmed the shared imperative of achieving the complete and permanent dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile programs."

Trumpanzee Bails On Kim

This morning the erratic Señor Trumpanzee (Adderol + finasteride) canceled his summit with Kim Jong Un, planned for June 12 in Singapore. As North Korea had noted, publicly, Mike Dense is a "political dummy," a statement that hurt the political dummy's feelings. Trump sent Kim a letter, ostensibly breaking their date. Trump was/is counting on the summit to get him a Nobel Peace Prize just like real presidents get. No one knows if this is some dumb Trump negotiating ploy or if Bolton is getting his way (war). The imbecilic Señor T says he's open to meeting in future, but only on his terms.

Last night North Korea had destroyed it's nuclear test site, which had already collapsed. Whomever writes the crap that Trumpanzee reads off his teleprompter cited "tremendous anger and open hostility" as the reasons for the cancellation. Bellicose as ever, the school-yard bully said that the North Koreans talk about their nuclear capabilities, "but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used." By afternoon Trump was back into his threaten stance, saying the U.S. military is ready to respond to any "foolish or reckless acts" by North Korea. And, of course, he started babbling about sanctions and how the "maximum pressure campaign is continuing."

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the Ranking Democrat, Bob Menendez blamed Trump's withdrawal on the regime's failure to prepare properly, pointing out that "the art of diplomacy is a lot harder than the art of the deal" and that Trumpanzee shouldn't have been surprised that that North Korea "is acting as North Korea might very well normally act... I’m not sure that constantly quoting the Libya model is the diplomatic way to try to get to the results that we seek in North Korea because that didn’t work out too well for Gadhafi."

Ben Sasse (R-NE) who has twisted himself into a Trump apologist over the last year congratulated Trump on making "the right call... [calling Kim] "a murderous despot and habitual liar."

The guy who put the whole thing together, President Moon Jae-in of South Korean, was caught off guard and is trying to figure out "what Trump’s intention is and the exact meaning of it." Well, since Trumpanzee was still behaving respectfully towards Kim-- referring to him as "his excellency" instead of insulting his appearance-- I guess there's still a chance the White House drama queen wants to get the whole thing back on track so he can take credit for something or other. Here's the crazy orange-hued monkey's letter:

Does It Make A Difference If The President Is A Truculent, Ill-Advised Imbecile?

Nikki Haley by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday Señor Trumpanzee announced, as expected, that he's withdrawing the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal, "reneging," as NBC put it, "on a landmark pact and raising the question of whether Tehran might respond by resuming its frozen weapons program." Babbling like a psychotic money, Señor T imagines he got even with with Obama for making fun of him at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011. Trumpanzee: "It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement. The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal."

Trump further said that he would impose the "highest level" of sanctions, which would not only affect Iran but other countries that do business with it. The Treasury Department said a series of primary and secondary sanctions-- those affecting American and foreign partners of Iran-- would go back into effect after wind-down periods specified by law.

...If Iran seeks nuclear weapons, he said, it will face "bigger problems than it has ever had before."

But the move also raises two important questions for the Trump administration and the international community: whether Iran will respond by resuming its quest for nuclear weapons-- and whether reneging on the Iran pact might affect North Korea's willingness to cut a denuclearization deal of its own with the president.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in the air on his way to North Korea during the announcement, Trump said. Critics of Tuesday's move said Trump is giving North Korea little reason to trust him.

"We are basically just going back on our word," said Jon Wolfstahl, who was the National Security Council’s senior director for arms control and nonproliferation under Obama.

The withdrawal of the U.S. leaves a big hole at the negotiating table after Trump had sought over the past six months to force a new deal by threatening to scrap the existing one.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday that his country would remain engaged with the other signatories to the original deal.

"We've known for months that President Trump wouldn't be committed to this deal," he said. "The Iranian foreign ministry will continue talks with remaining countries in the deal."

French President Emanuel Macron, who spoke with Trump Tuesday morning, tweeted his "regret" over Trump's decision. "The nuclear non-proliferation regime is at stake," he wrote.

Alan Grayson mentioned something to me on the phone a few minutes ago that I don't think he'll mind me sharing: "Let’s see how people feel about this if Iran celebrates the Prophet’s Birthday (Nov. 20-21) by exploding a nuclear weapon." President Obama, reminding everyone about the difference between a thoughtful and literate president instead of a senile ape, posted a reaction on his Facebook page, asserting that "There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place."

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working-- that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest-- it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish-- its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes-- with Iran-- the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

That is why today’s announcement is so misguided. Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated. In a democracy, there will always be changes in policies and priorities from one Administration to the next. But the consistent flouting of agreements that our country is a party to risks eroding America’s credibility, and puts us at odds with the world’s major powers.

Debates in our country should be informed by facts, especially debates that have proven to be divisive. So it’s important to review several facts about the JCPOA.

First, the JCPOA was not just an agreement between my Administration and the Iranian government. After years of building an international coalition that could impose crippling sanctions on Iran, we reached the JCPOA together with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia, China, and Iran. It is a multilateral arms control deal, unanimously endorsed by a United Nations Security Council Resolution.

Second, the JCPOA has worked in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. For decades, Iran had steadily advanced its nuclear program, approaching the point where they could rapidly produce enough fissile material to build a bomb. The JCPOA put a lid on that breakout capacity. Since the JCPOA was implemented, Iran has destroyed the core of a reactor that could have produced weapons-grade plutonium; removed two-thirds of its centrifuges (over 13,000) and placed them under international monitoring; and eliminated 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium-- the raw materials necessary for a bomb. So by any measure, the JCPOA has imposed strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program and achieved real results.

Third, the JCPOA does not rely on trust-- it is rooted in the most far-reaching inspections and verification regime ever negotiated in an arms control deal. Iran’s nuclear facilities are strictly monitored. International monitors also have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, so that we can catch them if they cheat. Without the JCPOA, this monitoring and inspections regime would go away.

Fourth, Iran is complying with the JCPOA. That was not simply the view of my Administration. The United States intelligence community has continued to find that Iran is meeting its responsibilities under the deal, and has reported as much to Congress. So have our closest allies, and the international agency responsible for verifying Iranian compliance-- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Fifth, the JCPOA does not expire. The prohibition on Iran ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is permanent. Some of the most important and intrusive inspections codified by the JCPOA are permanent. Even as some of the provisions in the JCPOA do become less strict with time, this won’t happen until ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty-five years into the deal, so there is little reason to put those restrictions at risk today.

Finally, the JCPOA was never intended to solve all of our problems with Iran. We were clear-eyed that Iran engages in destabilizing behavior – including support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel and its neighbors. But that’s precisely why it was so important that we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Every aspect of Iranian behavior that is troubling is far more dangerous if their nuclear program is unconstrained. Our ability to confront Iran’s destabilizing behavior-- and to sustain a unity of purpose with our allies-- is strengthened with the JCPOA, and weakened without it.

Because of these facts, I believe that the decision to put the JCPOA at risk without any Iranian violation of the deal is a serious mistake. Without the JCPOA, the United States could eventually be left with a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East. We all know the dangers of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. It could embolden an already dangerous regime; threaten our friends with destruction; pose unacceptable dangers to America’s own security; and trigger an arms race in the world’s most dangerous region. If the constraints on Iran’s nuclear program under the JCPOA are lost, we could be hastening the day when we are faced with the choice between living with that threat, or going to war to prevent it.

In a dangerous world, America must be able to rely in part on strong, principled diplomacy to secure our country. We have been safer in the years since we achieved the JCPOA, thanks in part to the work of our diplomats, many members of Congress, and our allies. Going forward, I hope that Americans continue to speak out in support of the kind of strong, principled, fact-based, and unifying leadership that can best secure our country and uphold our responsibilities around the globe.

There was also a joint statement-- in the form of a press release-- from Prime Minister May, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron.

It is with regret and concern that we, the Leaders of France, Germany and the United Kingdom take note of President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States of America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Together, we emphasise our continuing commitment to the JCPoA. This agreement remains important for our shared security. We recall that the JCPoA was unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council in resolution 2231. This resolution remains the binding international legal framework for the resolution of the dispute about the Iranian nuclear programme. We urge all sides to remain committed to its full implementation and to act in a spirit of responsibility.

According to the IAEA, Iran continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPoA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The world is a safer place as a result. Therefore we, the E3, will remain parties to the JCPoA. Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement.

We urge the US to ensure that the structures of the JCPoA can remain intact, and to avoid taking action which obstructs its full implementation by all other parties to the deal. After engaging with the US Administration in a thorough manner over the past months, we call on the US to do everything possible to preserve the gains for nuclear non-proliferation brought about by the JCPoA, by allowing for a continued enforcement of its main elements.

We encourage Iran to show restraint in response to the decision by the US; Iran must continue to meet its own obligations under the deal, cooperating fully and in a timely manner with IAEA inspection requirements. The IAEA must be able to continue to carry out its long-term verification and monitoring programme without restriction or hindrance. In turn, Iran should continue to receive the sanctions relief it is entitled to whilst it remains in compliance with the terms of the deal.

There must be no doubt: Iran’s nuclear program must always remain peaceful and civilian. While taking the JCPOA as a base, we also agree that other major issues of concern need to be addressed. A long-term framework for Iran’s nuclear programme after some of the provisions of the JCPOA expire, after 2025, will have to be defined. Because our commitment to the security of our allies and partners in the region is unwavering, we must also address in a meaningful way shared concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its destabilising regional activities, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We have already started constructive and mutually beneficial discussions on these issues, and the E3 is committed to continuing them with key partners and concerned states across the region.

We and our Foreign Ministers will reach out to all parties to the JCPoA to seek a positive way forward.

Not everyone is opposed to what Trump did. Staten Island mafioso, Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm, recently released from prison and running for Congress, issued a statement too: "President Trump's decisive rejection of the terrible Iran Deal is yet another foreign policy victory that will make our country and the world a safer place. We cannot allow the world's leading state sponsor of terror to ever obtain nuclear weapons, and the deal devised by Barack Obama's Administration did nothing to protect our long-term interests while giving away massive concessions to the regime in Tehran. The financial concessions Iran secured under the deal were further used to militarize the rogue state while funding violence and terrorism across the Middle East. As we have seen, President Trump's bold approach and leadership have already helped us reach historic steps toward peace and denuclearization in the Korean Peninsula. I am confident that today's decision will reinforce the pressure on Iran and ultimately lead to a final solution to the Iranian threat."

And Darrell Issa, forced to retire by Democrat Doug Applegate told whomever still listens to whatever he has to say, "I applaud President Trump’s bold leadership putting Iran, and its regional proxies, on notice and demanding that they permanently abandon any ambition to develop nuclear weapons. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated under the previous administration was irresponsible agreement that put our people at risk, left our most important allies in the Middle East in jeopardy, and did not achieve a single stated foreign policy objective of the United States. As I said in 2015: No nation has ever abandoned its nuclear ambitions without first agreeing to actually abandon its nuclear ambitions. Absent any commitment by the Iranian regime to permanently abandon its goal to develop nuclear weapons and a robust ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections regime, the JCPOA was not worth the paper it was written on. Needless to say Doug Applegate, a former frontline Marine Colonel, saw it very differently from Issa. "Trump’s repudiation of the Iran Deal is utterly ill-advised, insulting to our allies, a huge risk for little gain. The Russians will find it to their liking because disruption inevitably spikes oil prices and will help save the Russian economy... which is, of course, why they so love their useful fool, Donald Trump."

But most of the responses I hear were more in line with what Ro Khanna (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) had to say after the speech yesterday. Ro, a member of the House Armed Services Committee: "Withdrawing from the Iran Deal only sends the message that the US can't keep its commitments when administrations change and the only way to resolve disputes with us is through nuclear deterrence. Pulling out makes it more likely, not less, that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon."

Elizabeth Warren: "America should be a country that keeps it promises. The Obama Administration negotiated a landmark agreement to peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Iran Deal breaks our word, hurts our credibility with our allies, empowers Iranian hardliners, and doesn't make us any safer here at home. There's no question that Iran's government is a bad actor. But inspectors have independently verified that Iran has been complying with the deal-- a fact that even the Trump Administration has conceded. I'd rather the United States-- together with our allies-- counter Iran's bad behavior with the nuclear deal than without it. Instead, President Trump has pulled the US out without offering any real alternative to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, creating chaos and confusion across the Middle East, and the world. This isn't a strategy. It's a recipe for disaster."

Carol Shea Porter: "This decision will make Americans and people all across the world less safe. Before the agreement, Iran was months away from having a nuclear weapon. Now, they are at least a year away, and we can snap sanctions back into place immediately if they make any move towards developing a weapon. Under the deal, Iran cannot enrich uranium beyond 3.6 percent, far short of the 80 percent needed for a weapon. Iran agreed to give away 97 percent of its nuclear fuel. In addition, we forced them to take the vast majority of their centrifuges out of service, meaning it will be very difficult and noticeable if they try to enrich more material. And we mandated inspections, so if they try, we will know, and we can take appropriate action. The Iran Deal is not perfect. But we must consider the danger facing the world before the deal and the improved security we now enjoy because of it. We should side with our allies and stay with them in this deal. American leadership is at stake. You don’t do arms control agreements with your friends; you sign them with your enemies in order to make the world a safer place for all. Inspections have confirmed that Iran is complying with this deal. We should too. We have a responsibility to the people we swore to protect-- and to the world-- to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. That’s what this deal does, and without it, we seriously risk another conflict in the Middle East. We should steer our nation down the pathway to a safer and more peaceful world, not the pathway to war."

Major General (Ret.) Paul Eaton released a statement through VoteVets that is very much worth thinking about:

If Iran is in compliance with the deal, as all indications say they are, then Donald Trump’s decision today is an active violation of a deal we signed.

The implications for the United States violating agreements it signed could be disastrous and far-reaching. It puts American security in greater danger, frays our alliances, and sends a message to North Korea, and others, that the word of the United States is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Democrats and Republicans alike-- even many who opposed the Iran Deal-- correctly note that losing our ability to monitor Iran's nuclear program blinds us in the face of great risk to us and to our ally, Israel. At a time of great peril around the world, the multilateral Iran deal is our best hope at keeping a nuclear Iran out of the question.

Now, unfortunately, America must rely on its allies to clean up Donald Trump's mess, and keep Iran from restarting its nuclear program. If they can do so, we may be able to avoid catastrophe.

But that will be a credit to them, not to Donald Trump.

What Happens If Señor Trumpanzee Refuses To Recertify The Iran Nuclear Deal?

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fancy way of referring to the Iran nuclear deal agreed to in July, 2015b by Iran, the U.S., the E.U, Russia, Germany, France, the U.K. and China. It gave Iran relief from U.S., E.U, and UN nuclear-related economic sanctions in return for Iran agreeing to monitored and verified elimination of its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, while cutting its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reducing by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years and not to building any new heavy-water facilities and limiting Uranium-enrichment activities to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges. At the time, the NY Times editorial board wrote that the agreement was "potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." And then in lumbering Señor Trumpanzee. Congressional Republicans were hostile to the agreement even before Trump's election. In fact, they had vowed to kill it even before the wording was released.

A NYTimes analysis by Jennifer Steinhauer made it clear that Republican opposition to the agreement was "born of genuine distaste for the deal's details, inherent distrust of President Obama, intense loyalty to Israel and an expansive view of the role that sanctions have played beyond preventing Iran's nuclear abilities." Conservatives-- including AIPAC-owned members of Congress like Chuck Schumer-- have never given up their hope to kill the deal. Trump's intense emotional hostility to the agreement is belied by his Regime having certified a month and a half ago, in July, that Iran had upheld its end of the agreement.

That said, Trump still wants to decertify the JCPOA. If he does, what happens? If Congress does nothing, the JCPOA stays in effect. If Congress imposes new sanctions on Iran, that would likely blow up the deal. The other signatories would be severely pissed since there's been no Iranian violations. With no JCPOA, Iran would be free to increase nuclear fuel production or even build a bomb. I turned to 3 progressive members of Congress who I knew are watching the developments closely.

El Paso Congressman Beto O'Rourke is running for Ted Cruz's Senate seat now-- you can help him defeat Cruz here-- but as a member of the House Armed Service Committee he sits on both the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. I gather than most Democrats in Congress agree with the simple, straightforward assessment he gave me this morning: "Without JCPOA the Middle East and the rest of the world become a lot more dangerous. It's the best way we have to check Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapon. It will be very hard to build a coalition of necessary countries to help us if we unilaterally withdraw."

Ro Khanna (D-CA) pointed out, also this morning, that "if Trump does not issue a compliance certification, Congress is NOT required to reimpose sanctions on Iran. Congress still can do the right thing by refusing to impose sanctions. That is why it is so important for progressives to mobilize and have Democrats on the record as saying they will not reimpose sanctions waived under the JCPOA if Trump plays politics in refusing to certify."

Mark Pocan (D-WI) is the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and he represents a district that has a strong anti-war.pro-peace bent. "The world needs fewer nuclear weapons, not more," he told us last might, "which is why the U.S. must do everything it can to uphold this agreement. Nuclear weapons are a threat to global security and peace, raising the possibility that the world could be plunged into a major conflict where millions of people could lose their lives in a matter of minutes. At a time when we’re engaged in a nuclear nonproliferation crisis with North Korea, we can’t afford to have the same situation in Iran."

Remember, the deal has to be recertified by the President-- or in this case, the fake president, every 90 days and if the President doesn’t re-certify, it automatically turns on a 60-day clock where Congress can act to re-impose sanctions lifted under the agreement or do nothing at all-- essentially leaving the plan in place but in limbo. This could allow Iran to violate the deal and blame it on the U.S. for leaving the agreement first and diminishing any chance that North Korea would come to the negotiating table too. Another member of Congress told me, under condition of anonimity, that to his understanding "even if the U.S. decertified and re-imposes sanctions, those are only U.S. sanctions; the UN sanctions and individual countries wouldn’t re-impose, lessening the impact of the US sanctions-- it would also isolate the U.S. in the international community as we're facing an imminent nuclear threat from North Korea... Any signal from the Administration that the U.S. plans to leave or dismantle the JCPOA is dangerous and irresponsible. It would also create two major nonproliferation crises for the U.S."

Last week, Politico mentioned that a "more serious casualty" to Trump axing the Iran deal "could be both more widespread and more distant-- thousands of miles away, on the Korean Peninsula... [I]f the goal is to prevent Pyongyang from developing an accurate nuclear-tipped ICBM, then negotiating with Pyongyang may well be the only way to try to defuse a looming crisis. Even under current conditions, such talks would be fraught, the odds tilted against success. But if the U.S. thrusts aside the nuclear deal with Iran-- and uses contrived evidence to do so-- the message to North Korea and others will be that America’s word is disposable and the U.S. cannot be trusted to honor its commitments. This would deal a possibly fatal blow to any chance of a diplomatic effort to, if not halt or reverse, at a minimum slow down North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Indeed, walking away from the Iran deal, or contriving circumstances that force Iran to do so, would not only open up a now dormant nuclear crisis with Tehran, it would also close down perhaps the only option that might prevent a far more dangerous crisis with North Korea."

Kia Hamadanchy, one of the top Democratic candidates for the central Orange County seat currently held by Trump rubber stamp Mimi Walters, is an American with an Iranian heritage. He worked for Sherrod Brown in the Senate and he's a very smart guy so I asked him for his perspective on this. He told me that Señor Trumpanzee "and the rest of his administration continue to try and manufacture reasons to try and kill the JCPOA. Nikki Haley and others in his administration continue to make false claims regarding Iran's compliance with the agreement. It continues to be the case that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA and that the agreement represents the best course action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. That is not just my opinion as the same has been stated by the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. To fail to re-certify the deal and re-impose sanctions on Iran would be make war more likely not less and those who advocate doing so are the same individuals who led us into war with Iraq. Iran has thus far upheld its end of the bargain and as long as it continues to do so, the United States must do the same. Should Donald Trump unilaterally decide to withdraw from the deal, the United States will find itself alone, isolated, and weakened on the world stage. We would not have the support of European allies in making such a decision and they will not act re-impose sanctions or take punitive actions towards Iran when it would be the United States who was not in accordance with the terms of the deal. Simply put, pulling out of JCPOA would be a complete disaster."

Who Remembers When We Were In A Nuclear Arms Race?

Merry Christmas, the crackpot who somehow slipped into the presidency, wants to reverse the trend away from the nuclear arms race. How do we know? He tweeted about it: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” And no spelling errors… so someone must have been helping him. He and Putin appear to see eye to eye on junking decades of slow but steady reducing nuclear arsenals. Just before the Trump tweet, Putin had publicly told his war chiefs that “We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems,” a little anti-NATO saber-rattling.

Trump and Putin are both primitive characters who embrace the idea of “peace through strength”— an arms race. Right wing think tanks tied too big bucks from the Military-Industrial Complex are urging Trump to scrap nuclear nonproliferation treaties, resume nuclear tests and spend more money on nuclear weapons. Domestically, this conveniently signals a race to the bottom, the trillion dollars it would cost to “modernize” the nuclear triad would not come from higher taxes on the rich, yiouncan be sure of that. Instead it will come from massive reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as from other programs that uplift people, including the idiots who voted for Trump.

Thursday evening, writing for The Atlantic, Vann Newkirk postulated that “concerns that a president or president-elect of the United States might spark an arms race or worse with Russia via Twitter are novel at least, and have real basis in his lack of an online filter. And his statements do go against the traditional public positions of recent American presidents on nuclear weapons that tend to display an eagerness to not use nukes, regardless of the policies actually being championed.” He interviewed James Martin, a professor at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, who feels Trump, though boastful and inflammatory, is basically just cheerleading and his twittery babbling doesn’t materially affect the outcome of the game, primarily because of financial considerations.

[T]here's good news and bad news. The bad news is the Russians seem to be investing very heavily in a range of new capabilities and I worry that their numbers will stop coming down and start going up, and the president-elect seems to be very enthusiastic about running that arms race with the Russians. The idea that numbers could start to increase is worrisome. The good news is— and I admit it's not all that great of news— listening to Trump and Putin talk about their nuclear arsenals is less ideological rivalry from the Cold War and more like two guys at a Camaro meet-up. They're both in love with their toys, and they love showing them off, and I think they get some kind of charge out of them. But it isn't clear to me that it's linked to any kind of geopolitical worldview. It's just an adolescent enthusiasm for bigger and better toys.

And this morning: "Let it be an arms race because we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."