I agree that while the establishment wing of the gop kept their distance, they are going with their best chance to win, unlike the dnc which has doubled down on the establishment candidate. The rnc is an example of the republican party split, where they still let drumpf take the wheel just in case he can do, exactly what he has done so far. The dnc is also split, but in their case they went with the status quo.
It takes wilful ignorance to not see that Trump is a real danger to America.
I disagre, and say that hillary and her neo-lib cronies are the biggest threat to world peace.
The fact is that the us and nato have been poking the bear for years now, and this kind of aggression is by far the greatest danger to world peace and stability. Here's a dose of factual reality:
from:
Are Nuclear Weapons A Greater Risk Now Then During The Cold War?
It is 71 years since atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and humanity’s memory of those events has dimmed. But even were the entire world to read John Hersey’s Hiroshima, it would have little idea of what we face today.
The bombs that obliterated those cities were tiny by today’s standards, and comparing “Fat Man” and “Little Boy”—the incongruous names of the weapons that leveled both cities—to modern weapons stretches any analogy beyond the breaking point. If the Hiroshima bomb represented approximately 27 freight cars filled with TNT, a one-megaton warhead would require a train 300 miles long.
What has made today’s world more dangerous, however, is not just advances in the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but a series of actions by the last three U.S. administrations.
First was the decision by President Bill Clinton to abrogate a 1990 agreement with the Soviet Union not to push NATO further east after the reunification of Germany or to recruit former members of the defunct Warsaw Pact.
NATO has also reneged on a 1997 pledge not to install “permanent” and “significant” military forces in former Warsaw Pact countries. This month NATO decided to deploy four battalions on, or near, the Russian border, arguing that since the units will be rotated they are not “permanent” and are not large enough to be “significant.” It is a linguistic slight of hand that does not amuse Moscow.
Second was the 1999 U.S.-NATO intervention in the Yugoslav civil war and the forcible dismemberment of Serbia. It is somewhat ironic that Russia is currently accused of using force to “redraw borders in Europe” by annexing the Crimea, which is exactly what NATO did to create Kosovo. The U.S. subsequently built Camp Bond Steel, Washington’s largest base in the Balkans.
Third was President George W, Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the decision by the Obama administration to deploy anti-missile systems in Romania and Poland, as well as Japan and South Korea.
Last is the decision by the White House to spend upwards of $1 trillion upgrading its nuclear weapons arsenal, which includes building bombs with
smaller yields, a move that many critics argue blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons.
The Yugoslav War and NATO’s move east convinced Moscow that the Alliance was surrounding Russia with potential adversaries, and the deployment of anti-missile systems (ABM)—supposedly aimed at Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons—was seen as a threat to the Russian’s nuclear missile force.
One immediate effect of ABMs was to chill the possibility of further cuts in the number of nuclear weapons. When Obama proposed another round of warhead reductions, the Russians turned it down cold, citing the anti-missile systems as the reason. “How can we take seriously this idea about cuts in strategic nuclear potential while the United States is developing its capabilities to intercept Russian missiles?” asked Deputy Prime Minister
Dmitry Rogozin.
When the U.S. helped engineer the 2014 coup against the pro-Russian government in Ukraine, it ignited the current crisis that has led to several dangerous incidents between Russian and NATO forces—at last count, according to the
European Leadership Network, more than 60. Several large war games were also held on Moscow’s borders. Former Soviet president
Mikhail Gorbachevwent so far as to accuse NATO of “preparations for switching from a cold war to a hot war.”
In response, the Russians have also held war games involving up to 80,000 troops.
It is unlikely that NATO intends to attack Russia, but the power differential between the U.S. and Russia is so great—a “colossal asymmetry,” Dmitri Trenin, head of the Carnegie Moscow Center, told the
Financial Times—that the Russians have abandoned their “no first use” of nuclear weapons pledge.
It the lack of clear lines that make the current situation so fraught with danger. While the Russians have said they would consider using small,
tactical nukes if “the very existence of the state” was threatened by an attack, NATO is being deliberately opaque about its possible tripwires. According to
NATO Review, nuclear “exercises should involve not only nuclear weapons states…but other non-nuclear allies,” and “to put the burden of the doubt on potential adversaries, exercises should not point at any specific nuclear thresholds.”
In short, keep the Russians guessing. The immediate problem with such a strategy is: what if Moscow guesses wrong?
That won’t be hard to do. The U.S. is developing a long-range cruise missile—as are the Russians—that can be armed with conventional or nuclear warheads. But how will an adversary know which is which? And given the old rule in nuclear warfare—use ‘em, or lose ‘em—uncertainty is the last thing one wants to engender in a nuclear-armed foe.
Indeed, the idea of no “specific nuclear thresholds” is one of the most extraordinarily dangerous and destabilizing concepts to come along since the invention of nuclear weapons.
much more:
https://www.popularresistance.org/are-nuclear-weapons-a-greater-risk-now-then-during-the-cold-war/
edit:
We can't discount us aggression in the south china sea either:
Top Chinese Admiral: China Ready to Counter ‘Any Aggression’ in South China Sea
and
US Won't Back Down on South China Sea, Navy's Top Officer Says
![:\](/i/s/hmm.gif "Hmm :\")
)
