2/5/18 Mark Perry on Donald Trump’s new Nuclear Arms Plan

Read Scott Horton's new book Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan

Reporter Mark Perry returns to the show to talk about his latest piece for the American Conservative Magazine on Donald Trump’s nuclear posture review, “Trump’s Nuke Plan Raising Alarms Among Military Brass.” According to Perry there’s considerable skepticism within the military about the new Trump plan. Perry then details the U.S.-Russia nuclear relations and the extreme danger of any kind of nuclear escalation. Finally Perry discusses what Trump could do to ameliorate the situation with Russia.

Mark Perry is the author of Talking to Terrorists: Why America Must Engage with its Enemies and The Most Dangerous Man in America: The Making of Douglas MacArthurHis most recent book, The Pentagon’s Wars was released in October. Follow him on Twitter @MarkPerryDC.

Discussed on the show:

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen CashThe War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.comRoberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.LibertyStickers.comTheBumperSticker.com; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott.

Check out Scott’s Patreon page.

- Advertisement -
Read Scott Horton's new book Fool's Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan
SHARE
Previous articleNews Roundup 2/5/18
Next articleForeign Policy Focus #151 – How Mattis Plans to Defend America

Scott Horton is Managing Director of The Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio for Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles and KUCR 88.3 in Riverside, podcasts the Scott Horton Show from scotthorton.org, and is the Opinion Editor of Antiwar.com. He’s conducted more than 4,000 interviews since 2003. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s.

Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna.

1 COMMENT

  1. That 9M729 is an intermediate range missile is something that US has “determined”, Russia says it is a short-range missile. In any case technologically there isn’t a great deal of difference since it is a land-based version of an intermediate naval missile. On America’s insistence the INF didn’t cover sea-based missiles so in fact both nations continue to develop, test and deploy such weapons for their navies. This incidentally favors the US with its much larger, forward-deployed navy. The Russians took a naval missile, made the fuel compartment smaller, and voila: it’s a short range missile! The Americans don’t like that being a converted medium range missile it can probably easily be converted back, the Russians on the other hand don’t like US missile destroyers laden with medium range missiles that would be banned if they were deployed on Russia’s landmass in the Black Sea every other Tuesday. (For their part they’re now filling the Caspian Sea with cheap frigates that can fire medium range cruise missiles so they have a sort land-based intermediate capability albeit only firing from Central Asia.

    The US INF violation Russia cites isn’t NATO expansion but that Aegis has been installed on land in Romania and Japan and uses tubes that can be used to launch cruise-missiles meaning there’s no way for Russians to know if they aren’t being targeted by such already.