Robert, at the risk of having a long, fruitless debate on this, let me just say that it may be legitimate under certain circumstances, to threaten lunatics with total destruction should they initiate maximum force against people or property. North Korea and ISIS have both argued that they would have no qualms about leveling NYC if they could do it. Soon, these lunatics (and more) will have missles that can travel 5,000 miles and nuclear weapons. If you say impossible, I say wait 5 years. So, I say that suggesting that lunatics who intend city-wide destruction should, themselves, be threatened with destruction (nuclear or conventional) is entirely appropriate. Hopefully this will act as a deterent...as it did in the Cold War, and such weapons will never be used. Now I know that Trump did not put the matter this carefully....shame on him. Nonetheless, I don't think that your reading on Trump-think is accurate nor do I think that there are serious libertarians that "support" Trump. Hillary is the only serious alternative to Trump and our judgment is that she would be far worse than Trump in every way....including "nuclear." A vote to abstain, or a vote for some near-libertarian with zero chances, is de facto a vote for Clinton.
I do not believe these kinds of back and forth are fruitless. You take libertarianism seriously and so do I. Any time spent polishing off the edges of the theory, and practical applications, is time well spent in my view.
If the concern is that ISIS may have nuclear weapons in the future that may level NYC, I have no objections to anyone trying anything to hinder the direct development of such weapon making, or to taking the weapons out if they are actually created. However, to jump from this to the idea that ISIS might have nuclear weapons in 5 years and threaten them now with nuclear attack does nothing but escalate the madness and plays into their hands.
It is an ISIS recruitment video in the making.
I really still don't understand why we should care what ISIS does on the ground in the Middle East. I will be impressed when a US president appears on television and says to the people of the region, "We are pulling out of the Middle East. We have no business in your part of the world. Fighting is foolish, I hope you can find peaceful ways to resolve your differences. Good luck."
As for vigilance against terrorist attacks now, or after such a presidential statement, I subscribe to the Jeff Deist proposal in A Better Approach to Terrorism: Leave the security up to individual firms and individuals, in other words, let's leave it up to the free markets. Who knows, we might even get peace as a bonus. It won't come via government force or threats. Government protection is a myth, They get us into more trouble than they keep us out of. The birth of ISIS can be directly traced back to the US removal from power of the "evil" Saddam Hussein (SEE:A Must Read Briefing on the Evolution of ISIS) .
I am really sick and tired of US government attempts to allegedly bring peace and democracy to the Middle East or elsewhere. Or to kill enemies in far off lands. The last thing I want is a president who wants to agitate these clowns even further. The US should be a country that should lead by example. A country that lives peacefully, that doesn't have leaders that make threats to leaders around the globe.
Trump is no different from any of our other wannabe leaders. He just approaches with blue collar brashness.---and a touch of gold-plated white trash lying. In my view all the candidates are nuts.
The only difference that I see neetween Trump and Hilary is that she would likely face more of a battle with Congress, while Trump would get his blue collar followers riled up about all sorts of damn things--and we could really start to see the country change and not for the good. I could see the country under Trump going from, at the start, an NYC-style stop, frisk and "papers please," to a "Knock, steal and arrest." For the good of the country, of course.
In other words, I really don't want to roll the dice with a guy who lost in Atlantic City when he was the house. How does that happen?
As for third party candidates, I don't believe that is the solution. Anytime spent voting is a waste of time,. I would rather spend the time telling someone I didn't vote and explaining that I favor a Private Property Society and explain that as a fallback option I would consider is a president who didn't mettle in foreign affairs and who didn't mettle domestically. But because none of the candidates are advocating such, and, even if they make one or two good points, candidates have also proved to be liars about what they will do when in office. I don't play the election shell game where there is no chance I am going to come out a winner.
I really have too much respect for myself to vote and choose between a clown who doesn't understand free trade, changes his positions on most issues seemingly between interviews, appears to have an authoritarian streak and on the opposite side of the ballot there is a social justice warrior, who is half socialist and half crony.
Elections are for the masses. It will make them feel good. I understand the scam too well to actually take part in it.