Say goodbye to INF treaty

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by darksithpro, Dec 12, 2017.

  1. darksithpro, Dec 12, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017

    darksithpro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #1
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text

    The bill Trump just signed, it's full of anti-Russian Federation stuff. Skimming though the bill it looks like Congress wants to do away with the INF treaty. They say Russia keeps violating it and the language suggests they're just going to scrap the treaty after a review in 2018.

    So this treaty is like a big deal. Was wondering your thoughts? This would have a significant impact on border countries to Russia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty

    The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) is the abbreviated name of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union (and later its successor states, in particular the Russian Federation). Signed in Washington, D.C. by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, the treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on 27 May 1988 and came into force on 1 June 1988.

    The INF Treaty eliminated all nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers, with ranges of 500–1,000 kilometers (310–620 mi) (short-range) and 1,000–5,500 km (620–3,420 mi) (intermediate-range). The treaty did not cover sea-launched missiles.[3] By May 1991, 2,692 missiles were eliminated, followed by 10 years of on-site verification inspections.[4]
     
  2. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    Oh my gosh. Wasn't that basically the treaty that pretty much indicated mutual destruction if either of us waged war against each other?
     
  3. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #3

    It could start another nuclear arms race.
     
  4. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #4
    I'd rather it be a space race. Again. Or a science race.
     
  5. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
  6. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #6
    Trump already started the space race yesterday, all the lefties turned the thread into garbage.
     
  7. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #7
    You can announce, but you need a budget. The proposed budget doesn't aid NASA much.
     
  8. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #8
    This is not a good sign. Russia's past military plans were based on using tactical nukes in any offensive to destroy NATO troop concentrations and facilities. If the INF is revoked, it might lead Russia back to that doctrine.
     
  9. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #9
    Can we eliminate the science directorate and redirect the savings elsewhere?
     
  10. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    If only Trump was serious about a new space race....
     
  11. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #11
    It's gonna be the Cuban Missile Crisis all over again.:mad: Trump ain't as level headed as Kennedy.:( But then Putin ain't as crazy as the shoe banging Khrushchev.;)
     
  12. SoggyCheese Suspended

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Barcelona, España o Londres, Reino Unido
    #12
    Exactly. All Trump yesterday is spout his usual hot air. Nothing but words, day after day.

    Sooner or later the penny will drop with the Trumpists and they will see Donnie for the conman he is.
     
  13. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    Hey! I tried to contribute to that thread...
     
  14. darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #14
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    This ain't a scene, it's a *** ****** arms race! - Fall Out Boy

    Sounds to me like Bolton has his arm stuck so far up Trump's arse, you literally and blatantly can see and hear the ventriloquism coming out as they talk.

    a 31 year Treaty, and now we're going to produce nukes, which then Russia and China will reciprocate... but the Reds wanted Trump to get the Nobel Peace Prize?? :eek:o_O:rolleyes:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...y-russia-pull-out_us_5bcb9151e4b055bc94813f11

    And of course, provides no proof of why he's doing it (ironically enough, the same thing he accuses Blasey of doing with Kavanaugh; perhaps he should practice what he preaches).

    Nuclear War, here we come. Bloody hell, Trump is a ******* idiot.

    BL.
     
  16. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #16
    At best (comparatively) - this is just another example of Trump putting profit (or self-aggrandizement) ahead of US interests. At worst - hell, I don't know...i thought our current stockpile of 4000+ nuclear missiles should do it.
     
  17. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #17
    The US is silly if it chooses to start developing and manufacturing new nuclear weapons. The US and Russia already have enough nukes to blow the world up many times over. Developing new nukes is a waste of money. Even if Russia can create working hypersonic nukes and used them against us, our retaliation would be more than sufficient to end mankind as we know it.

    Honestly, let the Russians waste their money.
     
  18. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    Looking at the Constitution, Article 2, section 2 gives the POTUS the power to make and enter treaties, provided 2/3 of the Senate concur; but it says nothing about abrogating treaties. Can the POTUS unilaterally declare a treaty null and void?

    BL.
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    Self aggrandizement sounds about right. That and being manipulated by his advisors, many of whom have their own one-note agendas which differ even on the same issue (and manage to confuse hell out of our allies and economic partners/competitors). Take trade, for instance...


    Meanwhile on policy shifts like this treaty withdrawal announcement, lots of Trump's advisors do try to get him to sign off on their wildest dreams. The Staff Secretary and Chief of Staff are supposed to corral this wild-man stuff and run it past legal counsel and the Congressional liaison, and until then make it disappear before it can get Trump's go-ahead on it.

    I guess trying to maintain this discipline with a guy like Trump is almost impossible. The guy is like a three-year-old on a mission in the candy aisle when the minder's on a coffee break. "I can do this, and so I will." Doesn't matter to the kid that some TV pitchman sold him in on the idea, right? Shame on John Bolton.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #20
    When it relates to an industry that funds both parties quite heavily and are imbedded in the intellectual framework of geopolitical policy planning (think tanks), you bet.
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    I would think that the converse should be necessary for abrogating a treaty, especially as it is the Supreme Law of the Land; in fact, that should be a proposed amendment to the Constitution that addresses this. I mean, if it takes 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a treaty, but a unilateral move at the Executive Branch can vacate a treaty? It should take if not a full bill argued by the Senate and the House, but the same 2/3rd vote in the Senate to vacate such a treaty.

    BL.
     
  22. Krayzkat Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    #22
    Maybe this was what the big fight outside the Oval Office was about the other day?
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #23
    I’m talking terms of power, you’re talking procedure...which clearly arent followed given the years of a GOP controlled Congress. These people don’t care about rules.
     
  24. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    Actually, I am talking in terms of power. The POTUS shouldn't have the power to unilaterally abrogate a treaty, especially without supplying any sufficient reasoning or justification for such abrogation. Adding that same 2/3rd consent by at least the Senate limits that power; right now there is no consent needed.

    This wouldn't be just for Trump, but for any POTUS.

    BL.
     
  25. darksithpro, Oct 20, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2018

    darksithpro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #25
    I brought this up almost a year ago. Honestly this isn't just Trump as you guys are trying to paint it. Congress wanted to pull out of the INF treaty back in December 2017. I seriously doubt Trump even knew about it at the time. This was in the defense bill congress passed with overwhelming bitpartisan support. So, stop trying to mislead people that Trump himself decided to do this. Congress said Russia violated the treaty and wanted a review done. Trump simply followed the reviews finding. This is why playing blame games against Trump is so disingenuous.
    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/say-goodbye-to-inf-treaty.2094711/#post-26682135
     

Share This Page

53 December 12, 2017