Melissa Fares and Timothy Gardner at Reuters explain the recklessness of Donald Trump’s policy pronouncements via tweet:
In his Twitter post, Trump said, "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes," but gave no further details.
It was not clear what prompted his comment. However, earlier on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia needed to "strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces." [...]
"It is completely irresponsible for the president-elect or the president to make changes to U.S. nuclear policy in 140 characters and without understanding the implications of statements like ‘expand the capacity,’" said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, a leading proponent of arms control based in Washington.
"He must have leaders around the world trying to guess what he means," Kimball said in an interview. "This is bush league."
Betsy Woodruff at The Week:
“‘Expand our capabilities?’” [Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies] added. “Maybe that means more weapons, maybe that just means the capabilities are better. Policymaking by Twitter is a pretty freaking weird endeavor.”
Trump is not a nuclear weapon wonk. He struggled mightily to answer a question about the nuclear triad in a Republican primary debate last December.
After saying he thought nuclear proliferation was the “biggest problem we have today,” moderator Hugh Hewitt asked him what his priority would be for upgrading American nuclear capabilities.
“I think to me, nuclear, is just the power, the devastation is very important to me,” Trump answered somberly.
Eric Levitz at New York Magazine:
During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time trying to convince voters that handing the nuclear codes to an emotionally volatile reality star would be a decision they’d come to regret.
But 46 percent of the electorate begged to differ. And now we all have to lie awake tonight, trying to figure out whether this tweet is meaningless bluster, the prelude to World War III, or both.
Will Bunch:
The one thing I know is this: No one believed that we were voting on November 8 for a return to the days of fallout shelters and those classroom drills where kids learned to put their head between their knees and kiss their butts goodbye. The present moment feels slightly terrifying -- and let's just say that reassurance isn't Donald J. Trump's greatest quality. There's another thing I can say with some certainty, which is that Ronald Reagan would be spinning in his grave if he could witness Trump's cavalier attitude on nukes.
And, turning to our relationship with China, The New York Times has this to say:
China, the world’s second-largest economy, is America’s largest trading partner, besides being a nuclear power and a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council. Heedless of these concerns, Mr. Trump has threatened to slap 45 percent tariffs on China and start a trade war that would penalize American consumers, who would have to pay more for imported Chinese goods. It would also hurt American businesses that seek to sell their products in the Chinese market. Beijing has already thrown a punch, warning last week that it could place sanctions against General Motors or Ford for monopolistic behavior, possibly as a response to an unfavorable shift in American policy.
There are plenty of ways for China to retaliate, from breaking off diplomatic relations if the United States formally recognizes Taiwan to buying planes from Europe’s Airbus instead of Boeing, to refusing to help curb North Korea’s nuclear program. There could also be more shows of force like the Chinese fighter jets that flew close to Taiwan late last month. And China could also restrict its investments and tourism to Taiwan, which would not be good for the island or the region.
It’s not uncommon for new presidents to put their own stamp on policy, even longstanding policy. But this requires assembling a staff and conducting a full review of the impact of any changes. Mr. Trump has few Asia experts in his circle, and some advisers have urged him to take up a hard line without any sense of long-term repercussions in the region.
On a final note, Rep. Ruben Gallego, a former Marine, explains why a recently retired Marine shouldn’t receive a congressional waiver to be defense secretary:
The members of Congress who, in 1947, enshrined in law this period of separation had fresh memories of World War II. Like our Founding Fathers, they recognized that political leaders should derive their authority from the will of the people — not the personal fealty of members of the armed forces. As a result, they were wary of a decorated general slipping off his uniform and immediately stepping into an ostensibly civilian role. In addition, they were justifiably apprehensive about installing a secretary of defense who could be perceived as partial to one service over the others.
More than a half-century later, these concerns are still highly relevant. We should ask ourselves whether the reputation of our military as a highly professional, nonpartisan institution would be tainted if its most respected leaders were allowed to seamlessly segue into political positions. That’s why, instead of simply rubber-stamping President-elect Donald Trump’s choice, it is critical that we engage in a meaningful debate before discarding this well-established precedent.