Brady Bunch wrote:

Tennyson said:

Proliferation also refers to the increase in numbers whether a nation currently possesses them or not

Sorry Tennyson, but I do not see any definition of nuclear proliferation where it says that it is an increase in numbers of a nation that currently already possesses them.  If you would like to point me to a definition, I would be glad to look at it.  In the meantime, here is an article that discusses the definition of nuclear proliferation, and it does not mention your interpretation as a possible definition:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10736700.2015.1070048
 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=proliferation&form=OPRTSD&pc=OPER

 

That is the definition of proliferation, but if you search for the definition of nuclear proliferation, you get something different.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proliferation+(nuclear+weapons)

Brady Bunch wrote:

Excuse me, because I can't "quote" your post.  Tennyson said:

More to the topic, you seemed to think that the Trump response that we will increase our nuclear armament to be OK as a response. Are you OK that we will increase our nuclear armaments ?  Should we not look to engage in dialogue to do just the opposite of that ?  Do you believe there was no alternative response that would have lead to discussing ratcheting down the rhetoric ? 

All I did was ask you what Trump's response should have been, so how do you know what I think?  So because I elicited your thoughts on how it should have been handled means I agree with what Trump said?

In general, I like how Reagan handled the nuclear issue.  While the threat remains, I think we should have the strongest and most technologically advanced nuclear program.  At the same time, we should also be negotiating with other countries such as Russia to try and limit the expansion of the weapons.  It is always better to negotiate from a position of strength.

From what you just wrote, do you believe Trump's response was a good one or not ?  
I don't.
It seems like all it does is promote a new ramping up of nuclear weapons and stockpiles. 
 

Brady Bunch wrote:

I don't find his statement alarming at all.  The article that you linked has now been updated with comments from Putin that he doesn't see Trump's statements as a threat.  Here is part of the update from the article:

On Friday, Putin downplayed the risk of a new nuclear arms race between Russia and the US and said there was "nothing new" in Trump's tweet."During his election campaign, (Trump) said US needs to bolster nuclear capabilities and armed forces in general and there is nothing new," Putin said at this annual news conference.

Now that I have answered many of your questions, could you answer my question as to what you think Trump should have said?  If you were Trump, what would you have done?

I think the best approach when confronted with such a statement is to say something like "While the United States will always look to methods to protect ourselves fully, the objective especially with nuclear armaments should be to reduce the threat to all nations in looking for ways to actually reduce our nuclear arsenals. We look forward to engaging with Mr Putin in future engagements on this very subject" 

Mr Trump's statement indicates a willingness to engage in actually expanding our nuclear arsenal. It unfortunately seems like his modus operandi in responding to any threat. Personally I believe it to be a dangerous thing especially on the world stage.