Bonanza For Weapons Industry: Trump Withdraws From Nuke Treaty

[Ender]

Bonanza For Weapons Industry: Trump Withdraws From Reagan/Gorbachev Nuke Treaty

[CCTelander]

Why do you and Ron Paul hate America?

[dannno]

9:00

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump has never seen a treaty he doesn’t want to break. Apparently he wants to renegotiate it and then say that he bested Reagan?

[Brian4Liberty]

GWB already repealed the ABM treaty. Supreme Court and Congress both refuse to interfere when POTUS repeals treaties. Doesn’t make it Constitutional. Congress should be the ones to repeal or agree to repeal.

[Swordsmyth]

GWB already repealed the ABM treaty. Supreme Court and Congress both refuse to interfere when POTUS repeals treaties. Doesn’t make it Constitutional. Congress should be the ones to repeal or agree to repeal.

Unfortunately the Constitution isn't clear on that issue:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

It says nothing about ending treaties.

[Brian4Liberty]

Unfortunately the Constitution isn't clear on that issue:


It says nothing about ending treaties.

Common sense says that making and unmaking should follow the same process. Of course breaking a treaty could potentially result in war. Hmm, who has the power to make war again?

[Swordsmyth]

Common sense says that making and unmaking should follow the same process. Of course breaking a treaty could potentially result in war. Hmm, who has the power to make war again?

True but since when has common sense had anything to do with statecraft?

It could also be argued that SCOTUS Justices should be removable by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate for "bad behavior" but the precedent is that they would need to be impeached, that is the opposite of how treaties are treated since not being mentioned is taken to make it harder on the President instead of easier.

[osan]

Common sense says that making and unmaking should follow the same process. Of course breaking a treaty could potentially result in war. Hmm, who has the power to make war again?

Lessee now, Brian... "common sense" and "government" should never appear in the same sentence save that they are mutually contradicting.

[Ender]

Lessee now, Brian... "common sense" and "government" should never appear in the same sentence save that they are mutually contradicting.

LOL!!!

[Anti Globalist]

Ron Pauls just mad because he wishes he was born an alpha male like Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump at some point says, "Well maybe if Ron ran his campaign the same as me, he'd probably be sitting in the oval office now."

[Galileo Galilei]

I thought libertarians opposed international entanglements? This one restricts the 2nd amendment, and Trump is getting us out.

[AZJoe]

[osan]

Bonanza For Weapons Industry: Trump Withdraws From Reagan/Gorbachev Nuke Treaty

Such treaties are poison. Good riddance.

[AZJoe]

I thought libertarians opposed international entanglements? This one restricts the 2nd amendment, and Trump is getting us out.

Such treaties are poison. Good riddance.

If Washington got out of Europe, got out of NATO, closed its bases in around the world, then yes there would be no need for any INF treaty at all. So yes, you should be advocating to end NATO, and demanding Washington get out of Europe and Asia and that would be ending foreign military entanglements.
But guess what, Washington puts nuclear missiles in Europe, and now the nitwit neocons want more interventions to put nuclear missiles into Asia. So they create a pretext for for their idiot sock puppet Trump to break the treaty (that they have long expressed their desire to break) so they can increase foreign entanglements, foreign threats, overseas military, and foreign interventions. The INF limited such additional foreign interventions and entanglements. And lke a good little puppet, Trump obeys his mad handler Bolton.

[AZJoe]

This one restricts the 2nd amendment, and Trump is getting us out.

That's got to be one of the most fallacious statements ever. The governments are not individuals. Governments are the infringers of individual rights. Limiting government is not an infringement of individual rights, but a protection of them.
GG's statement above is akin to someone trying to limit government power and abuse by restricting police swat teams from being equipped with tanks and rockets, or that BATF tax collectors shouldn't be armed at all, and then responding that that the second amendment guarantees the government every manner of weapon imaginable to secure government's power to abuse and oppress and protects the government from the people.

[osan]

If Washington got out of Europe, got out of NATO, closed its bases in around the world, then yes there would be no need for any INF treaty at all.

Complete, utter non sequitur logic FAIL.

So yes, you should be advocating to end NATO, and demanding Washington get out of Europe and Asia and that would be ending foreign military entanglements.

In a world run by those bordering on madness, what you suggest is suicidal. Our military presence, like it or not - and I don't - is the ONLY thing keeping China at bay in the South China Sea. They are in violation of all international agreements regarding territorial waters, for instance.

But guess what, Washington puts nuclear missiles in Europe, and now the nitwit neocons want more interventions put intermediate range missiles into Asia. So they create a pretext for for thier idiot sock puppet Trump to break the treaty (that they have long openly wanted to break) so they can increase foreign entanglements, foreign threats, overseas military, and foreign interventions. The INF limited such additional foreign interventions and entanglements.

This is speculative at best. It MAY be so, but thus far you have offered up no proof.

As to your childish neg-rep with the comment "Nuts" regarding my post, a further show of a serious lack of credible perspective on the matter... as if this somehow hurts my fillings or damage me in some fashion. My GOD... I've been negrepped... I think I'll go to the roof and toss myself off. Christ's sake man - why not come at me honestly with an argument instead of this back-handed nonsense. This says nothing good, so you may wish to reconsider your means of addressing that with which you disagree.

Such treaties are of even the most marginal value ONLY if every nation on the planet with even remote capacities for producing such weaponry becomes a verifiable signatory. Without such a condition, any half pint psycho-douche could develop, deploy, and employ such weapons. It makes no whit of matter as to whether such courses of action are rational, for it is clear we live in an age where rationality has been deeply discounted and in some cases wholly abandoned. It matters no whit that such a little corporal would be wiped from the earth if one of your cities goes up in a thermonuclear cloud. By signing only a subset of the potential developers, you only reduce the odds of such weapons being used... MAYBE. You may actually be increasing them because YOUR deterrent capabilities are reduced or eliminated.

USA and Soviets sign... and where's China? HERRO?

So before you go off the deep end, it might serve you and anyone else including myself better to stop, take a breath, and engage the brain just a little, because a little is all it should take to dissuade one from responding as have you. Good heaven man, at least ask the questions prior to foaming.

[juleswin]

I thought libertarians opposed international entanglements? This one restricts the 2nd amendment, and Trump is getting us out.

Libertarians generally oppose international agreements but I am sure there are exceptions, exceptions like when they restricted said govts ability to blow the world up.

[osan]

I thought libertarians opposed international entanglements? This one restricts the 2nd amendment, and Trump is getting us out.

I don't think this restricts the 2A at all, but it could readily be argued that it restricts sovereignty. Unfortunately, this refers to "government" or "state" sovereignty, which is of course one of the biggest lies of all time. The only valid and actual sovereignty is that of the individual human being, given that rocks and inanimate objects do not possess such characteristics. And yet, those entities are closer to possessing it than is "government"/"the state" because at least the former exists, whereas the latter are pure figments of our imaginations, the truly frightening bit there being that so many people believe there is an independent material reality that exists beyond the labels, in sé. Talk about madness...

[osan]

Libertarians generally oppose international agreements but I am sure there are exceptions, exceptions like when they restricted said govts ability to blow the world up.

Your point is well taken, and yet the treaty in question was pointless. Why? Firstly because it did not include the likes of China, thereby leaving at least one majorly significant player unfettered. There is something to be said for parity.

Secondly, history has provided a more than ample statistical basis for concluding that powers such as the USA and SU can and often will ignore such agreements the moment it becomes convenient to do so. We have seen this happen more times than we can count. There is nothing to suggest it would not happen again or even that it has not been happening. I worked on a VERY black weapons project and I am willing to bet the Russians know next to nothing about it, if even anything at all. Some say secrets cannot be kept. Well, I'm here to tell you first hand that they can and that some are. Therefore, it behooves us to dispense with all assumptions where the innermost workings of any "government" is concerned. The only assumption that is safe to make is that they are up to nothing good.

[AZJoe]

Your point is well taken, and yet the treaty in question was pointless. Why? Firstly because it did not include the likes of China, thereby leaving at least one majorly significant player unfettered. There is something to be said for parity.

Hardly pointless considering US and Russia account for 92% of all nuclear weapons in the world and the only ones to place nuclear weapons in other countries. To the contrary, that makes the treaty significantly productive (especially for Europe). China not being involved in the original treaty is not a valid argument for destroying it, but rather does make an argument to bring China into it.

[AZJoe]

[osan]

Hardly pointless considering US and Russia account for 92% of all nuclear weapons in the world and the only ones to place nuclear weapons in other countries. To the contrary, that makes the treaty significantly productive (especially for Europe). China not being involved in the original treaty is not a valid argument for destroying it, but rather does make an argument to bring China into it.

And yet, China is not in it. Neither US or Russia have made any obvious overtures to get China to get aboard. China is a bad actor, and therefore one must question the deeper positions of both USA and Russia on this matter.

As for productivity, that is only the case so long as the signatories are playing with both hands on the table. I doubt either has been. Therefore, the treaty is for all intents and purposes, pointless, save perhaps for the psywar aspects each government doubtlessly prosecutes against their own people. "See everyone, we're signatories to a nuclear arms limitation treaty... we're GOOD guys..." More false security to keep the natives quiet, lest they begin to get wise and start making noises.

[jmdrake]

I thought libertarians opposed international entanglements? This one restricts the 2nd amendment, and Trump is getting us out.

Ummmmmmm.....LOL.....what?

[jmdrake]

Such treaties are of even the most marginal value ONLY if every nation on the planet with even remote capacities for producing such weaponry becomes a verifiable signatory. Without such a condition, any half pint psycho-douche could develop, deploy, and employ such weapons. It makes no whit of matter as to whether such courses of action are rational, for it is clear we live in an age where rationality has been deeply discounted and in some cases wholly abandoned. It matters no whit that such a little corporal would be wiped from the earth if one of your cities goes up in a thermonuclear cloud. By signing only a subset of the potential developers, you only reduce the odds of such weapons being used... MAYBE. You may actually be increasing them because YOUR deterrent capabilities are reduced or eliminated.

Then you deal with the half-pint psycho-douche directly as Trump has done with Kim Jung Il all the while this treaty you are attacking for no sane reason has been in place.

[osan]

As for "disaster for Europe" - who cares? Those people are so corrupted, perhaps they could use a little disaster to wake their sorry asses up.

The world is gone mad - long years ago now.

The problem with your position on this question, as well as with most people, is that you all appear to have missed the deeper point of just how wildly insane the human race has become. You marinate in it daily and thereby don't quite grok what it all means, erroneously deeming the deeply dangerous aspects of our general mental states as being of no real significance. I must disagree and assert that what has become normalized through chronic exposure in the minds of most men is in fact representative of an immediately precarious and terminal threat to us. Some evidence of this may be observed in the fact that someone such as yourself thinks that sticking all of one's appendages into the holes springing forth in the dyke is a viable means of addressing the fact that the dyke is structurally unsound. Also, after you've planted you've run out of said appendages and the dyke continues to deteriorate, what then? Recruit the neighbors? Newsflash: they aren't interested, by and large - certainly not enough of them.

You're attempting to save a ship that is doomed to sink no matter what you do. Treaties are only as good as the people sworn to uphold them and the mean character of man is falling in virtuous qualities by the minute. It matters no whit what Reagan and Gorbachev signed because today we have the likes of Clinton and Bolton, etc. steering the Titanic. Things stand only to get worse with time. Just imagine when one of these millennial pansies ends up as Sec. of State...

The world is gone mad, showing no hint of any inclination to retrieve itself from this state of decay, and we possess nukes. What could possibly go wrong?

Attempting to live a normative ideal in such a world is tantamount to a declaration of intent to commit suicide. It is the saddest thing in the world to have to say that if we do not lower ourselves to the same low denominator as our rivals, we expose our throats to them. THAT is the reality of a world peopled and ruled by madmen. It is analogous to the trade situation with China. The moment the first producer of $300 sports shoes fled to China to partake of that vile nation's slave labor market, every competitor, whether from American, Europe, or any other place NOT China was forced into a choice: follow suit and compete, or remain static and have Nike (or whoever) eat your lunch until there is nothing left of your for the sheer and utter lack of your ability to compete due to the yawning disparities in labor costs. The result was that nearly everyone has jumped ship in order to survive because the difference between $0.50/hour labor and that costing you $20.00/hr is simply too great to ignore when so much as survival is on the agenda, much less profitability. This is why the $300 sports shoe can now be had for $65 and why everyone is manufacturing in SE Asia.

So it is with this foreign policy nightmare - insanity creeps in and the moment one player lowers the bar, the rest feel obliged to follow lest they be left at some dire disadvantage. The world runs on fear, paranoia, greed, lust for power, and so on, just at it ever did. The difference today is the tech which enables even a single man to level entire cities to the tune of millions or even tens of millions of lives. If this is not the very definition of "insanity", then I cannot imagine that the word even has a definition.

We've ended up in this condition because people are hopelessly corrupt in any number of a million possible ways. Smiling faces, fancy suits, hats, and talk cut no muster when men trudge relentlessly onward toward the brink of the abyss.

Treaties... FEH... utterly pointless in a world polluted with the filth of ubiquitous, low-rent, stench-stifling human corruption. We're not safe because corruption. We're not free because corruption. We're not happy because corruption. We're not worthy because corruption. The list is very much longer, but methinks the point is made.

Have your treaties if you must. Fall for the lie that is the false sense of security that they might bring. Lie to yourselves that the world is a better place for them; the simple fact that we think we need them is all the proof one should require to dope it out that we, the vast bulk of humanity, are so far gone down the proverbial tube that such treaties stand precisely zero chance of saving our bacon from the horrors that understandably keep some of us up at night.

[AZJoe]

Complete, utter non sequitur logic FAIL.

Ending entangling alliances starts with NATO, the biggest and most pointless entangling alliance. Selectively ignoring the biggest entanglement ever, while advocating withdraw of a treaty that limits interventionism is an utter "logic FAIL."

In a world run by those bordering on madness [the neocons], what you suggest is suicidal. Our military presence, like it or not - and I don't - is the ONLY thing keeping China at bay in the South China Sea.

And with this statement disingenuousness of Osan’s position is exposed. Osan openly advocates in favor of neocon foreign military entanglements and intervention, while arguing that a treaty that not only inhibits foreign interventions but also inhibits the prospect of nuclear holocaust must be breached because it is entangling and restricts the neocons ability to pepper the world with even more nuclear weapons.

Our military presence, like it or not - and I don't - is the ONLY thing keeping China at bay in the South China Sea.

And out pops the Neocon NPC mantras. “OMG China!” “Our military intervention good.” “I may not like it" BUT our overseas military interventions and policing the world "is the ONLY thing keeping China at bay" and protecting us from inevitable doom by China.

Or from a basic common sense and logic, perhaps these factors:

- Washington’s perpetual long history of interventions into Asia,
- Washington's perpetual threats,
- surrounding the South China sea lanes with Washington military and missiles,
- Washington’s historic pattern and practice of blockading trade of other nations it sees as rivals,
- and Washington’s most influential foreign policy think tanks, that our foreign policy makers belong to, publishing strategic goal papers openly advocating thwarting Eurasian trade integration and limiting Chinese global trade advances, and advocating the South China Sea specifically as a choke point to strangle China trade to bring it under Washington dominance, (heck, the former US National Security Advisor even published a book outlining these strategies),
- and Washington’s perpetual claims to police and control the South China sea ( a lifeline for China’s trade not U.S.)

Perhaps, just perhaps, these factors is what pushes China to try to secure and protect its artery for trade with the rest of the world.

But hey, why bother with things like common sense, and facts, and reality, and logic, and perspective, and history, when it is so much easier just to put the blinders on, remain willfully ignorant, and chant neocon mantras like Washington's aggressive military interventions is the “ONLY thing” protecting us from doom by China.

This is speculative at best. It MAY be so, but thus far you have offered up no proof.

Speculation? What is Osan claiming as speculative? There is no dispute about Washington's nuclear weapons in Europe. Washington proudly boast of its nuclear arsenal in Europe.

Or is Osan claiming the neocon desires are speculative? That too is no secret, and easily verifiable. One would almost have to be willfully ignorant not to be aware, or just feigning ignorance. The neocon heads have long expressed desire to end this nuclear treaty. They also have made no secret of their desire to move nuclear warheads into Asia.

This is ready knowledge to anyone willing to put just two minutes of effort into the issue. Here, here, and Here is the US Pacific Command Chief Admiral Harris from just early in 2018 specifically arguing for nuclear warheads in Asia and blaming the INF treaty for preventing it. Admiral Harris also testified to the senate,

“We are at a disadvantage with regard to China today in the sense that China has ground-based ballistic missiles that threaten our basing in the western Pacific and our ships,” he said. “We have no ground-based capability that can threaten China because of, among other things, our rigid adherence … to the INF treaty.”

The neoconservatives have been pushing this argument for years, after they succeeded in getting G.W. to scrap the ABM treaty. Here’s Bolton in 2011 arguing to scrap the INF treaty and specifically wanting to threaten China as a reason. In 2014, the National Interest published an article, “China’s Missile Forces Are Growing: Is It Time to Modify the INF Treaty?” It advocated scrapping the INF as the means to put nuclear warheads in Asia and western Pacific..

But hey, why bother with things like facts and reality when it is so much easier just to ignore them, proclaim ignorance of such knowledge, and chant neocon mantras albeit in more flowery prose.

Of course there is no crime in claiming to be ignorant of these things. It is however totally irresponsible to loudly advocate for such neocon policies while remaining in that state of ignorance.

[osan]

Ending entangling alliances starts with NATO, the biggest and most pointless entangling alliance. Selectively ignoring the biggest entanglement ever, while advocating withdraw of a treaty that limits interventionism is an utter "logic FAIL."

Not quite. Your reasoning attempted to connect two largely unrelated items in that retreating from NATO, a smart move in which we agree, would by no means perforce render the other treaty as unnecessary, here presuming its necessity for argument's sake. We could close every base on the planet and the nuclear threat would remain. Hence, the non sequitur nature of your argument.

And with this statement disingenuousness of Osan’s position is exposed. Osan openly advocates in favor of neocon foreign military entanglements and intervention, while arguing that a treaty that not only inhibits foreign interventions but also inhibits the prospect of nuclear holocaust must be breached because it is entangling and restricts the neocons ability to pepper the world with even more nuclear weapons.

Either you require a didctionary ASAP or you are attempting to make this personal, which makes no sense to me. Disingenuousness requires intent. There is no such intent on my part. Therefore, no disingenuousness. You may validly assert that I am mistaken, but your dog don't hunt.

Furthermore, either YOU are being disingenuous in some attempt to assassinate my credibility or reputation, or are in even more dire need of a dictionary than I'd previously thought with your assertion that I am openly advocating "in favor of neocon foreign military entanglements". I am doing no such thing. What I AM doing is recognizing the doleful reality that humanity has served upon itself. If you think that we can simply disarm ourselves unilaterally and not face dire results, then I must conclude that in the very best case you have not been paying proper attention to what is going on in the world.

Consider what China is doing, which is an attempt to claim the ENTIRE South China Sea as theirs. They are claiming 200 mile territorial waters around the Spratly Islands, for example, in wholesale violation of long-standing international agreements. For one thing, the Spratlys are NOT islands, but sand bars. Building artificial land atop them does NOT qualify as "land". That which the volcanoes on Hawaii are doing, OTOH, is. Therefore, US military do not respect the 200 mile claim. Why? Because the busiest shipping lanes on the planet would then be conceded to China. Once that happens, the global economy would stand to take a gigantic $#@!.

And out pops the Neocon NPC mantras. “OMG China!” “Our military intervention good.” “I may not like it" BUT our overseas military interventions and policing the world "is the ONLY thing keeping China at bay" and protecting us from inevitable doom by China.

Your ignorance is showing. Once again, you falsely and unfoundedly label me a "neocon". You've done it in writing on a public site, no less. Were I a wealthy man decided to bury your ass, I could do so by this time next week, so take a friendly hint from someone who bears you no ill will and reel that $#@! in because even though it is vanishingly unlikely to happen, libel could still bite you hard. Your choice, of course.

That aside, you apparently do not know enough about what China is up to. They are VERY openly attempting to take full sovereign control over the shipping lanes. If you think that this is innocence, then you are hopelessly naive. My little brother who has forgotten more than you and I put together will ever know about this has educated me on what is really going on there. Your view does not accord in the least with reality, regardless what you may believe. You appear to be of the ilk that thinks that if we bow out of world affairs, that world will leave us safely alone. FAIL.

- Washington’s historic pattern and practice of blockading trade of other nations it sees as rivals,

Our last blockade was... what, 1961 Cuba? I suppose that was unjustified as well... a neocon conspiracy? Get real.

- and Washington’s most influential foreign policy think tanks, that our foreign policy makers belong to, publishing strategic goal papers openly advocating thwarting Eurasian trade integration and limiting Chinese global trade advances, and advocating the South China Sea specifically as a choke point to strangle China trade to bring it under Washington dominance, (heck, the former US National Security Advisor even published a book outlining these strategies),
- and Washington’s perpetual claims to police and control the South China sea ( a lifeline for China’s trade not U.S.)

Oy. I've neither stated nor even vaguely implied that America has not been a bad actor at times. I've spent a decade here outlining and complaining about it, but you choose to forget all that and see what you want. What the hell ever, man.

Perhaps, just perhaps, these factors is what pushes China to try to secure and protect its artery for trade with the rest of the world.

What nonsense. We handed China's trade ability to them on a silver platter. Had it not been for America, the Chinese would still be a 99.9% agrarian $#@! hole. America enabled China's rise - so on that point we can agree that the shame is on us. But this assertion you make is absurd. It is American force that is keeping the shipping lanes free and we have been doing that for 200 years. You need to bone up on some history. America is the reason worldwide shipping is as safe as it is. NOBODY else can lay the least claim to that result.

But hey, why bother with things like common sense, and facts, and reality, and logic, and perspective, and history, when it is so much easier just to put the blinders on, remain willfully ignorant, and chant neocon mantras like Washington's aggressive military interventions is the “ONLY thing” protecting us from doom by China.

For one thing, do spare us the drama-queenery. That bird don't fly. For another, you might want to take some of your own advice.

Speculation? What is Osan claiming as speculative? There is no dispute about Washington's nuclear weapons in Europe. Washington proudly boast of its nuclear arsenal in Europe.

The speculation was quite clear, to wit:

The INF limited such additional foreign interventions and entanglements.

That's about as speculative as things get.

I think I'm done here. You do as you please, think as you wish, what have you. You were OK until you began making it personal and accusing me without cause, so you are welcome to screw off. I now have three on my ignore list. You earned it.

Have a good day and be safe.

[Galileo Galilei]

The weapons are not being sold by the US government. They are being sold by private US companies. Private US companies have the unalienable 2nd amendment right to sell arms. Considering how aggressive the US government has been on world domination over most of the past 70 years, more people need arms.

[AZJoe]

The weapons are not being sold by the US government. They are being sold by private US companies. Private US companies have the unalienable 2nd amendment right to sell arms. Considering how aggressive the US government has been on world domination over most of the past 70 years, more people need arms.

No, private companies are not selling intermediate range nuclear missiles to "people". The government redistributes massive quantities of stolen money to corporatist government parasites to build these nuclear missiles for the very government that GG describes as on an "aggressive" bent for "world domination".