SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the pulling-out-is-the-best-prevention dept.
Trump to Pull US Out of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
President Donald Trump announced Saturday that the US is pulling out of the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, a decades-old agreement that has drawn the ire of the President.
[...] The treaty forced both countries to eliminate ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between approximately 300 and 3,400 miles. It offered a blanket of protection to the United States' European allies and marked a watershed agreement between two nations at the center of the arms race during the Cold War.
Former State Department spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby, a CNN military and diplomatic analyst, explained that the treaty "wasn't designed to solve all of our problems with the Soviet Union," but was "designed to provide a measure of some strategic stability on the continent of Europe."
"It's the dirt that does it."
Donald Trump: US will build up nuclear arsenal
President Donald Trump has warned that the US will bolster its nuclear arsenal to put pressure on Russia and China. Speaking to reporters, he repeated his belief that Russia has violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which he has threatened to leave. Russia denies this.
The Cold War-era treaty banned medium-range missiles, reducing the perceived Soviet threat to European nations.
Russia has warned it will respond in kind if the US develops more weapons. Mr Trump said the US would build up its arsenal "until people come to their senses".
[...] Meanwhile, US National Security Adviser John Bolton has been holding talks in Moscow after Russia condemned the US plan to quit the deal. Mr Bolton was told that the US withdrawal would be a "serious blow" to the non-proliferation regime.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:52AM (8 children)
So a variation of "The executions will continue until the people say they're happy"?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:03AM (3 children)
No. That's not what he is saying at all. He is trying to bring China and Russia to the table, using a threat of EXPENSIVE arsenal race.
Also and FYI, there are no monsters under your bed. I feel I need to tell you this, like I tell it to my kid, because you seem to have the same propensity to counjure up scary shit that doesn't exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:10AM
Situation Normal
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @06:44PM (1 child)
Because that's something the US is in any condition to wage right now, particularly against China who are probably in a much better financial situation to conduct -anything- expensive.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday October 25 2018, @05:09AM
Not as much as you imply. Massive military spending is probably going to be pretty inflationary, which will help debtors and hurt creditors.
Military nuclear spending is almost all going to be internal to the USA, so even though it's almost broken window fallacy stuff, there will still be a stimulus effect just from the increase in money velocity.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 24 2018, @02:36PM (1 child)
Newer and better weapons will make for a great military parade.
Trump wants a military parade. He has seen them in Russia and North Korea. And France. The US needs one too.
But he was told we don't do military parades in a democracy. The excuse was that the roads in DC aren't up to carrying so much heavy military equipment.
Some presidents at their inauguration get a military fly-over. Trump demanded to have five fly-overs at his coronation.
Trump is on video saying that he thinks nuclear war is fine.
Bigger and more powerful weapons are a way for Trump to compensate for something. We are told by Stormy that he has an unusual mis-shapen mushroom something-or-other that I won't sicken you with any further.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Thursday October 25 2018, @12:17AM
I dunno, whether Trump wants to US to build up their arsenal or not, it doesn't seem to be stopping Russia and China from doing it. If those 2 states launches, whether the U.S. has an arsenal or not, they'd be toast. Sure, technically it is not a "war" more like a wipe-out.
So if I'm an American, though I'm not, I'd think I would prefer that my country would stop with the PC bullshit and call it for what it is and get prepped.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday October 24 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)
Reminder - all three of the nations referenced can currently make the world near unlivable (if not completely).
.
An arms race doesn't change that much, so what does (the threat of) one do?
.
It costs a lot. Would that give us an advantage? Does the desire of other nations to avoid such a race lead to benefits?
Dunno, think i'll have to see what analysis crops up.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday October 24 2018, @11:06PM
The best strategy in this case would be for Russia to make threatening noises but not do anything while the US spends itself into bankruptcy, and China sells them the raw materials and components (China doesn't need nukes, it already holds enough US debt to destroy it by crashing the dollar).
Result:
Russia wins: The US goes even further into debt on a pointless arms race (this is what helped destroy the Sovient Union in the 1980s).
China wins: They're selling the raw materials and components needed to the US.
USA wins: Trump keeps telling us they're winning, so they must be winning too in some way.