text: “Let it be an arms race … we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,” President-elect Donald Trump told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe." | AP Photo Trump threatens to upend U.S. nuclear weapons policy 'We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,' Trump says. 
   
   In a series of impromptu statements about nuclear weapons, Donald Trump is threatening to upend longstanding U.S. nonproliferation policy, even as his advisers contradict him and muddy his intentions. 
   
   The president-elect had alarmed and perplexed some experts and others in Washington when he pronounced, without offering more details, via Twitter on Thursday that the U.S. “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” 
   
   Story Continued Below 
   
   He further escalated his call on Friday, telling the MSNBC program “Morning Joe” that he is fine with the country taking part in an “arms race” if it puts the U.S. in a stronger position against foreign adversaries. 
   
   “Let it be an arms race … we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,” Trump said in an off-air conversation on Friday. 
   
   After the remark was reported on MSNBC, though, incoming Trump press secretary Sean Spicer pushed back and insisted that the remarks came from a “private conversation” with “Morning Joe” host Mika Brzezinski. While he told the “Today” Show’s Matt Lauer that “there is not going to be” an arms race, he told CNN that Trump is not going to “take anything off the table,” either. 
   
   It remains unclear where the president-elect stands, but given longstanding bipartisan support for preventing nuclear escalation, if followed through Trump’s statements would represent an extraordinary shift in how the U.S. approaches the role of weapons of mass destruction in its own defenses and throughout the world. President Barack Obama has advanced a vision of “America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” 
   
   At first, after his Thursday tweet, Trump’s own supporters had tried to downplay what it meant. It was unclear, for example, whether Trump was advocating the U.S. increasing the size of its nuclear arsenal, which would be a major change, or if he was speaking of modernizing it. Such a suggestion would be in line with ongoing efforts and not necessarily controversial. 
   
   Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager who was recently named incoming counselor to the president, told an irate Rachel Maddow on Thursday night that Trump may have meant the latter. Regardless, Conway insisted during the heated exchange on MSNBC, the tweet did not necessarily represent a policy change, but Trump “talking about keeping us safe and secure.” 
   
   “There are a lot of people hiding under the bed right now because it doesn’t seem like he knows what he’s talking about on this issue,” Maddow said. 
   
   “That’s not fair,” Conway responded, later adding, “He’s not making policy on Twitter. … Again, perhaps he is also echoing what President Obama himself has tried to do here, which is get upgrades to our nuclear systems.” 
   
   Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, had also said on Thursday that the president-elect was talking about expanding nonproliferation efforts, not stoking an arms race. 
   
   "President-elect Trump was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it — particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes," Miller said in a statement. "He has also emphasized the need to improve and modernize our deterrent capability as a vital way to pursue peace through strength.” 
   
   Trump’s comments Friday, of course, seemed to directly contradict that. 
   
   The controversy started after Russian President Vladimir Putin called on his country to “strengthen” its nuclear forces. “We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defense systems,” he said earlier this week, according to multiple news reports. 
   
   But Putin at an annual news conference on Friday said Russia has no interest in a nuclear arms race and seemed to normalize Trump’s statements, calling his tweet unsurprising. 
   
   “Of course the U.S. has more missiles, submarines and aircraft carriers, but what we say is that we are stronger than any aggressor, and this is the case,” Putin said, adding, “As for Donald Trump, there is nothing new about it, during his elections campaign he said the U.S. needs to bolster its nuclear capabilities and its armed forces in general.” 
   
   During the election season, Trump made contradictory statements about nuclear proliferation. He suggested that some countries — including Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia — should be allowed to develop them, despite efforts to prevent more countries from doing so. But he also told The New York Times in March that “it’s a very scary nuclear world.” 
   
   “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation,” Trump said at the time. 
   
   Trump’s more recent comments about expanding America’s nuclear capability go against decades of policy to reduce the stockpile of nuclear warheads and could potentially violate an arms control treaty with Russia. The U.S. has a stockpile of roughly 4,500 nuclear warheads and nearly 1,500 deployed warheads (Russia’s armaments are nearly identical, as both nations account for more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads). 
   
   The U.S. and Russia are due to meet nuclear reduction targets by February 2018 under the New START Treaty, which can be extended for another five years in 2021. 
   
   Experts remain confused and in some cases unnerved by the nature of Trump’s foray into the nuclear weapons discussion. On Thursday, John Tierney, a former Democratic congressman and current executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, presented Trump’s tweet as perilous. 
   
   “It is dangerous for the President-elect to use just 140 characters and announce a major change in U.S. nuclear weapons policy, which is nuanced, complex, and affects every single person on this planet,” he said in a statement, warning that an expansion threatens a nuclear arms race. 
   
   “The potential consequences of changing U.S. nuclear weapons policy so drastically are simply unimaginable,” he warned. “Current plans already call for spending $1 trillion over the next three decades to modernize and maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which the Pentagon has expressed concern about being able to afford. The President-elect will have to explain why any increase is necessary both financially and strategically.” 
   
   Joseph Cirincione, the president of the global security foundation Ploughshares Fund and a nuclear weapons expert, called Trump's actions “bizarre, unprecedented and completely out of bounds behavior for a president-elect.” 
   
   Incoming presidents usually wait until they take office to make pronouncements on a topic like nuclear policy, Cirincione said. Beyond that, he said he is alarmed by the cavalier attitude Trump seems to have toward as enormously sensitive an issue as weapons of mass destruction. While Trump might see Twitter as a means to convey strength to his constituents at home, Cirincione said, “the rest of the world is watching,” and other countries could respond with actions of their own. 
   
   “You can’t use Twitter to make nuclear policy,” Cirincione said. “Look, you should at least wait until you’re president. But this is why — this kind of view that he’s breaking with convention, he wants to shake things up, I understand that, but not on nuclear policy. There are reasons why people spend days crafting the language of nuclear policy.” 
   
   “These things can be very complicated,” he continued, “and every word matters.” ||||| This is probably not the first day on the job that Sean Spicer imagined it would be. 
   
   Already he has done a merry-go-round of morning show appearances since it was announced Thursday that he will serve as our nation’s next White House Press Secretary, set to take office with the Trump administration next month. However, his first day is off to an, uhh, let’s call it interesting start; during an off-air conversation this morning with Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC, the President-elect surprisingly said of nuclear proliferation, “Let it be an arms race, we will outmatch them at every pass. And outlast them all.” 
   
   Spicer a half hour later told TODAY’s Matt Lauer, “There is not going to be” an arms race, forced to clarify Trump’s comments that the MSNBC morning show reported on earlier in the day. 
   
   Then, remarkably, an hour later on CNN’s New Day, Spicer shrugged off the Brzezinski report altogether; during his interview with Alisyn Camerota, Spicer sheepishly admitted, “That was a private conversation. I was not privy to that.” He promptly shifted the focus of his response, telling the CNN anchor, “He is somebody who gets things done,” discussing the recent conversations over Carrier jobs in Indianapolis. 
   
   What’s unclear is if Trump’s comments to Brzezinski, then, were ever intended to be reported on, or if they were — as Spicer alleged on New Day — just a private comment made over the phone. Although Spicer himself appeared on Morning Joe earlier in the day, during a commercial break he spoke on the phone with Mr. President-elect who was then handed over to Brzezinski. It was then that he reportedly made his comment, “Let it be an arms race,” which the MSNBC anchor promptly reported on as breaking news when the show came back on air. Morning Joe ran “BREAKING NEWS” chyrons about the ‘arms race’ admission throughout the rest of the program. 
   
   We have reached out to MSNBC for comment. Watch Spicer’s comment to CNN above. 
   
   UPDATE 9:22 a.m. EST: A MSNBC spokesperson has confirmed to Mediaite that Trump’s comments to Brzezinski were reportable. 
   
   — 
   
   [image vis screengrab] 
   
   Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com ||||| TRUMP: Well you see, I don’t know that, you know, when I talk about unpredictability, I’m not sure that we should be talking about me – On the assumption that I’m doing well, which I am, and that I may be in that position, I’m not sure that I would want to be talking about that. You understand what I mean by that, David. We’re so open, we’re so, “Oh I wouldn’t do this, I wouldn’t do that, I would do this, I would do that.” And it’s not so much with Merkel, but it’s certainly with other countries. You know, that really, where there’s, where there’s a different kind of relationship, and a much worse relationship than with Germany. So, you know there’s so, there’s such predictability with our country. We go and we send 50 soldiers over to the Middle East and President Obama gets up and announces that we’re sending 50 soldiers to the Middle East. Fifty very special soldiers. And they now have a target on their back, and everything we do, we announce, instead of winning, and announcing when it’s all over. There’s such, total predictability of this country, and it’s one of the reasons we do so poorly. You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing. Because you know, many countries, I can’t say Germany, but many countries are spying on us. I think that was a great disservice done by Edward Snowden. That I can tell you. 
   
   How to Defeat ISIS 
   
   HABERMAN: Mr. Trump, you have talked about your plans to defeat ISIS, and how you would approach it. Would you be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they’re unwilling to go in and help? 
   
   SANGER: On the ground? 
   
   TRUMP: Oh yeah, sure. I would do that. The beautiful thing about oil is that, you know, we’re really getting close, because of fracking, and because of new technology, we’re really in a position that we weren’t in, you know, years ago, and the reason we’re in the Middle East is for oil. And all of a sudden we’re finding out that there’s less reason to be. Now, now, we’re in the Middle East for really defense, because we can’t allow them, I mean, look, I was against the war in Iraq. I thought it would destabilize the Middle East, and it has destabilized it, it’s totally destabilized the Middle East. The way Obama got out of the war was, you know, disgraceful, and idiotic. When he announced the date certain, they pulled back, and they said, “Oh, well.” As much as they don’t mind dying, they do mind dying. And they pulled back, and then, you know, it’s a, it was a terrible thing the way he announced that, and then he didn’t leave troops behind so that, you know, whatever there was of Iraq, which in my opinion wasn’t very much, because I think that, you know, the government was totally corrupt, and they put the wrong people in charge, and you know, that in its own way led to the formation of ISIS, because they weren’t given their due. But, I think that President Obama, the way he got out of that war was unbelievable. I think Hillary Clinton was catastrophic in those decisions, having to do with Libya and just about everything else. Every bad decision that you could make in the Middle East was made. And now if you look at it, if you would go back 15 years ago, and I’m not saying it was only Obama, It was Obama’s getting out, it was other people’s getting in, but you go back 15 years ago, and I say this, if our presidents would have just gone to the beach and enjoyed the ocean and the sun, we would’ve been much better off in the Middle East, than all of this tremendous death, destruction, and you know, monetary loss, it’s just incredible. ’Cause we’re further, we’re far worse off today than we were 15 years ago or 10 years ago in the Middle East. Far worse. 
   
   SANGER: But I just want to make sure I understand your answer to Maggie’s question. So you said earlier this week that we should use air power but not send in ground forces. That had to be done by the regional Arab partners. We assume by that, you mean the Saudis, the U.A.E. and others from whom we might purchase oil or have alliances. I think Maggie’s question, if I understood it right, was if these countries are unwilling to send in ground troops against ISIS, and so far they have been, despite President Obama’s efforts to get them in, would you be willing to say, “We will stop buying oil from you, until you send ground troops?” 
   
   TRUMP: There’s two answers to that. The answer is, probably yes, but I would also say this: We are not being reimbursed for our protection of many of the countries that you’ll be talking about, that, including Saudi Arabia. You know, Saudi Arabia, for a period of time, now the oil has gone down, but still the numbers are phenomenal, and the amount of money they have is phenomenal. But we protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits on protecting countries. That would include Saudi Arabia, but it would include many other countries, as you know. We have, there’s a whole big list of them. We lose, everywhere. We lose monetarily, everywhere. And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long. It would be, you know, a catastrophic failure without our protection. And I’m trying to figure out, why is it that we aren’t going in and saying, at a minimum, at a minimum it’s a two-part question, with respect to Maggie’s question. But why aren’t we going in and saying, “At a minimum, I’m sorry folks, but you have to, under no circumstances can we continue to do this.” You know, we needed, we needed oil desperately years ago. Today, because – again, because of the new technologies, and because of places that we never thought had oil, and they do have oil, and there’s a glut on the market, there’s a tremendous glut on the market, I mean you have ships out at sea that are loaded up and they don’t even know where to go dump it. But we don’t have that same pressure anymore, at all. And we shouldn’t have that for a long period of time, because there’s so many places. I mean, they’re closing wells all over the place. So, I would say this, I would say at a minimum, we have to be reimbursed, substantially reimbursed, I mean, to a point that’s far greater than what we’re being paid right now. Because we’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re performing by protecting various countries. Now Saudi Arabia’s one of them. I think if Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection of our country’s, of U.S. protection, think of Saudi Arabia. I don’t think it would be around. It would be, whether it was internal or external, it wouldn’t be around for very long. And they’re a money machine, they’re a monetary machine, and yet they don’t reimburse us the way we should be reimbursed. So that’s a real problem. And frankly, I think it’s a real, in terms of bringing our country back, because our country’s a poor country. Our country is a debtor nation, we’re a debtor nation. I mean, we owe trillions of dollars to people that are buying our bonds, in the form of other countries. You look at China, where we owe them $1.7 trillion, you have Japan, $1.5 trillion. We’re a debtor nation. We can’t be a debtor nation. I don’t want to be a debtor nation. I want it to be the other way. One of the reasons we’re a debtor nation, we spend so much on the military, but the military isn’t for us. The military is to be policeman for other countries. And to watch over other countries. And there comes a point that, and many of these countries are tremendously rich countries. Not powerful countries, but – in some cases they are powerful – but rich countries. 
   
   SANGER: One more along the lines of your ISIS strategy. You’ve seen the current strategy, which is, you’ve seen Secretary Kerry trying to seek a political accord between President Assad and the rebel forces, with Assad eventually leaving. And then the hope is to turn all those forces, including Russia and Iran, against ISIS. Is that the right way to do it? Do you have an alternative approach? 
   
   TRUMP: Well, I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that. Assad is, you know I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ’cause he’s not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS. ||||| A Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of some 11,000 kilometres (6,800 miles) and capable of carrying a warhead of up to one megaton, the equivalent of one million tons of TNT explosive (AFP Photo/DMITRY KOSTYUKOV) 
   
   Moscow (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday called for the country to reinforce its military nuclear potential and praised the army's performance in its Syria campaign. 
   
   In a speech that recapped military activities in 2016, Putin said the army's preparedness has "considerably increased" and called for continued improvement that would ensure it can "neutralise any military threat". 
   
   "We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems," the Kremlin strongman said. 
   
   "We must carefully monitor any changes in the balance of power and in the political-military situation in the world, especially along Russian borders, and quickly adapt plans for neutralising threats to our country." 
   
   He said Russia's military had successfully demonstrated its capabilities in Syria, showcased its technology to potential arms buyers and helped the Syrian army make considerable advances. 
   
   "The Syrian army received considerable support, thanks to which it carried out several successful operations against militants," he said. 
   
   "The effective use of Russian weapons in Syria opens new possibilities for military-technical cooperation. 
   
   "We must take maximum advantage of this. We know there is interest in modern Russian weapons from foreign partners." 
   
   Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria in September 2015 in support of President Bashar al-Assad, with its special forces also operating on the ground in the country. 
   
   Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said the military had used "162 types of modern armaments during the military campaign in Syria," including its Sukhoi warplanes and MiG and Kamov helicopters. 
   
   "They have shown to be highly effective," he said. 
   
   - '35,000 fighters' - 
   
   Shoigu produced figures for the entire campaign in Syria but did not mention any estimate of civilian casualties. 
   
   Russian warplanes have "liquidated 725 training camps, 405 weapon factories and workshops, 1,500 pieces of terrorist equipment, and 35,000 fighters, including 204 field commanders," he said. 
   
   The Russian airforce has conducted a total of 18,800 sorties and carried out 71,000 strikes since the start of its campaign, Shoigu said. 
   
   "In general, the operation has allowed (us) to solve several geopolitical problems," he said. 
   
   "We have considerably damaged international terrorist organisations in Syria, stopped their expansion... (and) prevented the breakup of Syria." 
   
   Russia is prioritising its Asian partners including India and China for arms sales, he added. 
   
   Shoigu said NATO activities along Russia's western borders have grown eight-fold over the past decade, forcing Moscow to send more warplanes to prevent breaches of Russian airspace. 
   
   Next year, four additional S-400 anti-missile defence systems will be delivered to the army, and Russia will pay particular attention to its Western flank and the Arctic, he said. 
   
   "First and foremost, we will continue to increase military capabilities... take measures to reinforce troops in the western, southwestern and Arctic strategic sectors," Shoigu said.
target: – Donald Trump woke everyone from their pre-Christmas slumber Thursday with a tweet calling for a strengthened and expanded US nuclear arsenal. His tweet followed remarks made earlier by Vladimir Putin in which he called for his country's "need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces," per Yahoo. On Friday, Trump doubled down on his previous remarks during what Politico calls an "off-air conversation" on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Let it be an arms race … we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all," he said. (Politico notes some flip-flopping on nuclear issues, citing a March New York Times interview in which he said, "It's a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.") Not in on his latest stance, apparently: his own team. Per a transcript posted by NBC's Katy Tur on Twitter, Trump's new White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Rachel Maddow Thursday night "we're getting ahead of ourselves" when Maddow mentioned a "new nuclear arms race." And, per a tweet by CNN's David Wright, incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer insisted on Today Friday that "there is not going to be" an arms race and that "we will all be just fine." A short time later on CNN's New Day, Spicer said the remarks Trump made to Morning Joes' Mika Brzezinski "was a private conversation. I was not privy to that," per Mediaite. Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star wonders: "Is there any point of quoting clarifications from Trump spokespeople? They've proven to be unreliable interpreters of him." One person shrugging off arms race chatter: Putin, who said Friday Trump's tweet was "nothing new," per Politico.