have fun, relax, but above all ARGUE!
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19165
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... aty-russiaTrump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia
Experts warn of ‘most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s’ as Trump confirms US will leave INF agreement
I'm old enough to remember the Eisenhower-era program known as "Atoms for Peace". Instead of worrying about nuclear weapons, maybe we can turn some of our best and brightest minds back to something like that.BoSoxGal wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... aty-russiaTrump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia
Experts warn of ‘most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s’ as Trump confirms US will leave INF agreement
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... nf-treaty/Concern about the treaty’s future arose in 2014, when the Obama administration charged Russia with violating the treaty by testing a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile of intermediate range. Trump administration officials in 2017 charged that Russia had begun deploying the missile, known as the 9M729.
The Obama administration and, at least initially, the Trump administration set the goal of bringing Russia back into compliance. In December 2017, Washington announced an “integrated strategy” to press Moscow to return to compliance.
So far, the strategy does not seem to have worked.
Exactly; that's why (as I pointed out) Trump's stated motive for doing this isn't credible, and why there must be another explanation...I thought Trump is a Russian puppet;
Because not doing anything was a foundational principle of the Obama foreign policy doctrine...(I'm sure he gave Putin a good talking to, just like he did about Russian interference in the 2016 election.)Why didn’t Obama do anything?
The administration* claims that Russia is in violation of the treaty by developing a truck-born missile with a longer range than the Russians say it has. This may or may not be plausible, but the fact remains that there is a treaty in place that provides a mechanism for solving the dispute short of pulling out of the treaty entirely and stuffing Central Europe full of our next generation of nukes. But, because the president* is a simpleton surrounded by fantasists, any minor breakdown—real or imagined—in a treaty is an excuse for the United States to withdraw entirely because America First, or something.
This treaty is a living monument to what Gorbachev wrought in Russia and to Ronald Reagan's presidency—if you're into something like that. (It was at the signing of this INF treaty that Reagan famously first used the Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify.") It was a shock when Gorbachev agreed to it, and it was one of the first indications that the USSR was coming apart at the seams. At the time, there were massive anti-nuclear demonstrations here and in Europe; it was the issue over which a government in West Germany fell in 1983. It is argued that the INF treaty has become obsolete as weaponry has become more sophisticated, but, again, simply abrogating our part in it is hardly an answer.
The relationship between this administration* and Russia is utterly incoherent at the moment, and central Europe hasn't been a nuclear volleyball court for decades. There is no reason to trust this administration*, and that's pretty much verified at this point.
Another "tough on Russia" potemkin trick. In fact, Putin wanted out of this treaty on intermediate range missiles. Why? It utterly benefits the US! We got to keep intermediate range air- and sea-launched missiles while the Russia-favored land-launched varieties were banned. Dig it. This is not Trump being tough on Putin, it is him being Putin's guy.