Pompeo announces suspension of nuclear arms treaty

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Feb 1, 2019.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/poli...317_bfCCgeiYALY2Q3o3VTHPShq2TuDp3-JLnKWXbg6c4

    Show of force? Or plain stupidity?
     
  2. arkitect, Feb 1, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019

    arkitect macrumors 603

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #2
    Stupidity.

    Edit: Scrap the stupidity. This is ****ing insane!

    If your idiot of a POTUS wants to drag you all down with him, go ahead. But why take the rest of the globe with him?

    Absolutely mind boggling.
     
  3. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
    #3
    This treaty has been destroyed by war mongering, backhander taking, thick as fence post, lying, dribbling politicians.

    Some of the Russian politicians are not much better to be fair.
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    Well considering that Russians are not really doing their part, and that Americans tend to invade random countries, I actually welcome this move. It was a dead treaty, hopefully this will bring up some changes for a new, modernized treaty.
     
  5. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #5
    Hard to blame the US when Russia is in violation. NATO agrees with the US,

     
  6. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    I understand where you both are coming from. But the issue here is the process.

    Trump is screwing this up just as he did with the ACA. He's trying to undo and repeal everything he can, without any sort of replacement in place or even beginning to go into place. You can't govern that way, as it leaves room for extensive loopholes and lapses that could be catastrophic. If he was the dealmaker he claims to be, he would have another treaty already in place, waiting to be ratified by the Senate.

    He hasn't done a damned thing on this. idiotic move here. Imbecilic amateurish move here.

    BL.
     
  7. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #7
    This is a treaty not a law. Which means you need another party to sign the thing, that being Russia. You think a country unilaterally develops a treaty and is what? the only signor of the thing? You expect Trump to just pull a treaty out of his back pocket and have the Senate ratify that? Which carries how much weight or force if we're the only ones signing it? I mean I get it, people will blame Trump for just about anything, I don't like the guy myself, but it's hard to pin this on him.
     
  8. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #8
    Yes, it is.

    Article 6, United States Constitution:

    My previous comment stands.

    I expect him and the Secretary of State to actually work on a new treaty with Russia, with a provision that the old treaty is rescinded and the new treaty is declared immediately to be in effect at the same time, that way there is no lapse in it so they can't lob nukes anywhere they want and not be legally held accountable.

    Repeal and Replace, with something already to go into place, not repeal something and take months to years on end to draw up something new. That is not how you handle this. Again, amateurish and imbecilic move by Trump.

    BL.
     
  9. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #9
    I meant your're comparing a domestic law to an international treaty. It's apples to dump trucks.

    Firstly the treaty is suspended, not full out repealed. Secondly, what good does hammering out a new treaty with a country that everyone acknowledges is in violation of the existing treaty do exactly? If you can pretty much wipe your ass with the existing one what makes you think anything is going to change with the subsequent piece of paper.
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    Then you take them to the UN or somewhere where they can be taken to task for their violation of the treaty, not suspend the whole bloody thing, opening it up for further abuse. That is the equivalent of cutting through muscles and tendons in your forearm to remove a splinter that is barely under the skin.

    Take them to task, and either get them to adhere to the current treaty, or put a negotiate a new treaty that is fair to both parties, and put it into effect at the exact time you repeal the old treaty.

    I mean, we're dealing with the guy behind The Art of the Deal, but we're quickly finding out (as if we already didn't know) that he can't even negotiate himself out of a paper bag.

    BL.
     
  11. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #11
    Take them to the UN or somewhere? Specify what "somewhere" is? Yes because the UN and the EU have shown a willingness to get harsh with Russia. How much energy does Russia supply to them again? Your hatred for Trump is clouding your judgment. Do you even know what Russia is in violation of? Their 9M729 cruise missile exceeds the 500 kilometer limit. That's it, there's not a whole lot to discuss. Fixing that pulls them into compliance and they have 6 months to make that happen.
     
  12. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #12
    The UN?
    Question: how do you expect to enforce a treaty with one of the strongest nuclear powers? The only thing the UN can do is to hope to impose some sanctions, which as we know won’t do much to Russia.
    I mean, seriously. Blame Trump for many things, but what he did today is long overdue.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 1, 2019 ---
    Enlighten us. What should the new treaty be about? What measures should the US enforce considering that the counterpart is not respecting the initial treaty already? What assurances should the US and the EU require? What are the terms if this new treaty is not respected?

    Should we mention also that the point of a treaty - especially when weapons are involved - is specifically that if one party does not respects the terms, the counterpart can act accordingly and at full force?
     
  13. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
    #13
    Well that is disputed ,Russia also claims the U.S. is breaching the treaty (both sides are shouting this loudly with very little if any evidence).
    Instead of holding talks to try and save the treaty the U.S. is going ahead like a bull in a china shop with little thought and much macho bravado.This is as Gorbachov says not the move of a smart person.
    Here's an article from the South China Morning Post which is more even handed than the propaganda being pushed by the right wing U.S. media.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/rus...says-range-disputed-missile-allowed-under-inf

    Now I realise that both Russia and China have maybe taken a one eyed view of the carry on but to believe the U.S. is not doing the same defies belief.
     
  14. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #14
    No you definitely want to take the South China Morning Post words for it. Considering China isn't even a signing party of the treaty and they themselves would violate it. My propaganda is coming from a German paper BTW. You should throw up an article from RT to dispute it in order to strengthen your point.
     
  15. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #15
    We don't often agree, but I agree with this. With respect to Bradl and a few other posters - I have to consider the world as it is - and the Treaty has become rather irrelevant these days. Happy about it? No. still...
     
  16. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
    #16
    You make a fair point as to the propaganda of articles like the South China Post what you don't get is the US right wing media is at least as bad .German papers in general are going to toe the US propaganda line.

    Talking of non signatories the likes of Israel, Iran, Egypt, north Korea and so on are going to surge ahead with their development of middle range missiles after all the US has unilaterally torn up the treaty, surely they are not as hypocritical as to threaten to invade Iran for what it's doing itself.
     
  17. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #17
    Exactly.
    Actually, pretending to be part of a treaty that doesn’t really translates to anything practical - or that one side is blatantly not adhering to - can be more dangerous that not being in a treaty at all.
     
  18. JayMysterio, Feb 1, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019

    JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #18
    Colin Powell had a rather interesting take on the INF Treaty's continued existence, and Russia's actions related to it...

     
  19. Chew Toy McCoy macrumors regular

    Chew Toy McCoy

    Joined:
    May 13, 2016
    #19
    My dad can blow you up 5 times!

    My dad can blow you up more times than that! How many times is a secret. It’s like a lot more though.
     
  20. cube Suspended

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #20
    Now the US wants to deploy missiles in Asia and Australia.
     
  21. JagdTiger macrumors 6502

    JagdTiger

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2017

Share This Page

20 February 1, 2019