Do you really — truly — think that behind this statement of Trump's there is a deep understanding of BMD effectiveness rates?
-
-
Replying to @wellerstein @nktpnd
I'm not in the business of discerning between simply repeating what he's been told or deep understandings
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but I do think the pile on of this statement is a bit unfair.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I assume he's been given numbers for what think we can do against a missile headed toward Guam. And also toward US
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and I assume shot doctrine is figured in to those numbers. If there's a mistake in his statements it's more likely that
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
the high percentage has shot doctrine built in.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but the point he's making is a legitimate one. His generals have a high confidence in our ability to intercept..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RLHeinrichs @nktpnd
Even that ought to be worrying, in my view — BMD is not mature technology. The more astute military officers seem to recognize that.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
And I think it is a fair bet that any caveats they have added to their estimates have not sunken in for Trump.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
And that is worrying, because if false confidence in BMD is governing his attitudes towards the options with DPRK...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
there are *tremendous* consequences for being wrong. And everyone — no matter party affiliation — should take those deadly seriously.
-
-
Replying to @wellerstein @nktpnd
absolutely. I'm not one who thinks BMD is the magical answer. And I also recognize we need to increase its reliability
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but what the president said here is not significantly different from what current and former commanding 4-stars say
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.