Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Nuke Treaty Withdrawal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dkp993
- Start date
Dedfin
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It’s a dissster. Tom Nichols’ thread on this is definitive.
- It’s a loss of a major post Cold War gain.
- It’s a loss of a major post Cold War gain.
KCitons
Footballguy
I was reading about it this morning. I don't see any positives, but my understanding is that Russia isn't following the treaty anyway. And China isn't included at all. So, it needs to be revisited. I don't think pulling out of the treaty is the best way to revisit. But, I don't know what we can do to bring Russia into compliance, or include China.
timschochet
Footballguy
The White House is painting this as against Russia which I guess they hope to use to strengthen the argument that there’s no conspiracy; they are tough towards Russia after all. But according to Nichols it doesn’t hurt Russia at all.
I have mixed feelings. There’s a whole room at the Reagan Library devoted to this treaty; its regarded as one of his great legacies. But I remember a few years back when I visited, and heard Reagan’s voice saying “trust but verify”, I thought to myself “OK what if we find out they cheated, what then?” Which of course is the problem with ANY treaty of this nature: what are you prepared to do if the other side breaks it?
A new nuclear arms race with Russia is the last thing we need right now. I want to cut bloated military spending not give the Pentagon a new excuse to go all out.
I have mixed feelings. There’s a whole room at the Reagan Library devoted to this treaty; its regarded as one of his great legacies. But I remember a few years back when I visited, and heard Reagan’s voice saying “trust but verify”, I thought to myself “OK what if we find out they cheated, what then?” Which of course is the problem with ANY treaty of this nature: what are you prepared to do if the other side breaks it?
A new nuclear arms race with Russia is the last thing we need right now. I want to cut bloated military spending not give the Pentagon a new excuse to go all out.
ren hoek
Footballguy
This is not a "gift" to Putin. Don't you even believe it. How stupid can you be to actually believe this. There was no collusion between Trump and Russia. It was wholly fabricated nonsense and needs to be discarded as such. Don't let that fabrication distort your perception. Stop letting this garbage obliterate rational thought.
This is being framed in terms of how Russia can attack NATO/EU partners. But all 28 non-US NATO members have backed the US decision on INF treaty. What's not being framed is what an absolute windfall it is to stateside weapons contractors.
This is about an arms race between the United States and Russia. It's an insanely dangerous and hawkish escalation. The US can't fix the water in Flint, but they can "gift" $80 gorillion dollars to the DOD every budget. Who the hell else could possibly want an arms treaty to end?
This is being framed in terms of how Russia can attack NATO/EU partners. But all 28 non-US NATO members have backed the US decision on INF treaty. What's not being framed is what an absolute windfall it is to stateside weapons contractors.
This is about an arms race between the United States and Russia. It's an insanely dangerous and hawkish escalation. The US can't fix the water in Flint, but they can "gift" $80 gorillion dollars to the DOD every budget. Who the hell else could possibly want an arms treaty to end?
timschochet
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
Ren. Thank you for your response. Some thoughts...
-Really not sure who your first paragraph is intended for as I haven’t seen the “gift” response in this thread.
-I know you’ve been steadfast in your no collusion position but to state these with absolute certainty is interesting to say the least. But this has been discussed at length in this forum so I digress.
-Your third paragraph I completely agree with.
ren hoek
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree this isn’t part of any collusion or deal with Putin or Russia. It is however exactly what Putin wants and is part and parcel of Trump’s dangerous, stupid nationalism.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Sure.
It was used in this article here: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/plays-putins-hands-nuclear-weapons-expert-explains-trump-just-gave-huge-gift-russia/
But we've seen this sort of language before with the stories about Trump's concessions to Russia, etc. It's almost always coming from some thinktank funded by war industry.
ren hoek
Footballguy
U.S. Dept. of Fear @FearDept
We're not tearing up arms control treaties for the fun of it. We're doing what's best for our partners.
Defense Stocks May Be Tapped For New Missiles After INF Treaty Exit
We're not tearing up arms control treaties for the fun of it. We're doing what's best for our partners.
Defense Stocks May Be Tapped For New Missiles After INF Treaty Exit
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
It's true, and btw we just lost a SOD who was primarily concerned with strategy, military concerns and preparedness, for a guy who was a lobbyist for the defense industry. I'm sure Shanahan's response was 'hell yes'.
I'll add that China and Russia really don't care if the US spends loads on missile defense. That takes away from the US's ability to deal with big number social spending - like health care costs - while what they would really care about is building new carriers or anti-tank, anti-ship technology advances from a strategic standpoint, rather than self-destructive missile projects which the US will be extremely reluctant to use in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
