A national security expert went on a Twitter rant against Trump's nuclear weapons position

Caroline Simon

Aug 3, 2016, 23:43 IST

Reuters/Lucas Jackson

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks, as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (L) looks on, during Trump's five state primary night event in New York City, U.S., April 26, 2016.

John Noonan, a national security expert who advised Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, went off on Twitter on Wednesday, arguing that Trump's position on nuclear weapons makes him unfit for the presidency.

A foreign policy expert heard Trump question the US's long-standing policy to avoid using nuclear weapons, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough reported on Wednesday.

Trump reportedly asked about nuclear weapons three times, saying at one point: 'If we have them, why can't we use them?"

Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, later declared that Scarborough's story was "absolutely not true."

But Trump's willingness to embrace the idea of nuclear weapons has long raised concerns among national security experts. Although Trump has said at times he is horrified by nuclear weapons, he has also refused to take the possibility of using them against various enemies off the table.

John Noonan, who advised both Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney on national security, has himself been criticized for espousing what some say are aggressive views on nuclear weapons. The Institute for Policy Studies characterized Noonan as part of the "hawkish extreme" of the Republican party.

Noonan pointed out on Twitter that if Trump is really willing to use nuclear weapons, he's disregarding over half a century of national security wisdom.

He also suggested that Trump's combative personality would make him too dangerous a figure to hold the keys to nuclear power - an attack line often used by Hillary Clinton and Democrats.

Here's the full tweetstorm:

1. I cant get this in one tweet. So bear with me as I air some laundry here on Scarborough's claim Trump's interested in nuclear First Use
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

2. Pulled 300 nuclear alerts, 100 ft under the Wyoming turf. Job is serious and full of serious people.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

3. When we went into ICBM training, we went through a battery of tests and interviews. Are you sane? Are you willing to turn your key?
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

4. I see how those might sound at odds.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

5. But the whole idea behind nuclear deterrence is that you don't use the damn things. So I thought the mission credible and worthy.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

6. There are a hell of a lot of bad actors out there who have nukes. They are restrained only by our ability to instantly lay waste to them.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

7. The nuke triad, which Trump doesn't have a clue about, has been the single greatest contributor to global peace for decades. You heard me
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

9. Because Trump would be undoing 6 decades of proven deterrence theory. The purpose of nukes is that they are never used. Trump disagrees?
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

10. This would be the single greatest strategic shift in US national security in decades. In a Trump Presidency, our foreign policy
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

11. ....would be this. "Leave our alliances, fall back on a nuclear first use policy." Does he understand just how F'ing dangerous that is?
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

12. But what really concerns me, as a former nuke guy, is the idea of a narcissist walking around with nuclear authenticators.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

13. I could sit 100ft underground, on alert, knowing that the POTUS would not make me do my duty -- not unless it was absolute last resort
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

14. But imagine having to turn launch keys not knowing if we were under attack or if it was b/c foreign leader said a mean thing on twitter
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

In the case of an attack, American presidents have just minutes to decide whether to unleash nuclear power on other countries.

15. The power is there to kill millions. Permanently alter the geopolitical landscape. It is a sacred, sobering responsibility.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

16. Idea that nukes would be used, say over Raqqa or Mosul, simply because we have no more allies and it's a simple, easy fix is nauseating
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

17. Simply signaling that you're open to using strategic weapons as a tactical solution rewrites the rule book. Russia, China, others will
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

18. respond. Nuclear deterrence is about balance. Trump is an elephant jumping up and down on one side of the scale. So damn dangerous.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016

Trump's proposals to torture enemies and kill their families have raised questions about whether the military could legally refuse to follow his orders if they constitute war crimes.

19. But geopolitics aside, I can't get my mind off the young officers on nuke alert right now. Wondering if they'll soon answer to a madman.
- John Noonan (@noonanjo) August 3, 2016