The non-renewal of the START Treaty

[Bill Ryan]

Please discuss. :flower:

[Eric J (Viking)]

Why don’t they do away with it all together…

[JackMcThorn]

The limits of warheads and delivery systems were not very limited to begin with. So I think the solution intention of this 'treaty' is not really going to make much difference. The fear associated with nuclear provocation is either lower than 5o years ago or an afterthought. Meaning that posture of effective retaliation is the motivation at this point. [Peace through strength.]

All it takes is one rash [or calculated] decision. Warhead limits then therefore do not really matter. Another aspect is serviceability, stability, and modernization of the infrastructure. These weapons and propulsion systems sit for very long periods of time which means they must be observed, maintained, and measured over the lifetime of the weapon. Safety is paramount.

So then the next consideration is the psychology of world leaders. The best information cannot be obtained from the media. Governments do study leaders psychology and have more complete information than the main stream is able to provide. Then the next problem is trusting 'governments'.

I guess the best policy for the average citizen of the average country is to not fear what is out of their control. This is the best way to manage anxiety of this type. And the injection of fear by the media is indeed ideal to be rejected. So long as leaders do not forget history; we should be okay.

[Vicus]

Watch this: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114491-WW3-Ukraine-US-vs.-Donbass-Russia&p=1701163&viewfull=1#post1701163 :sherlock:

[Bill Ryan]

Here's The Duran just 2 hours ago, with their own update and commentary:

New START Treaty must be extended, or else the world is in danger


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOWSX68T_M8

[Bill Ryan]

One of the many problems we have today is that both politicians and citizens have become very blasé about nuclear weapons. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s everyone was justifiably terrified of nuclear war, with major films released such as The War Game, The Day After, and Threads (the most terrible of them all), together with a host of dramas like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, Special Bulletin, By Dawn's Early Light, On the Beach, Testament, and the devastating animation When the Wind Blows.

Last year there was the Netflix film A House of Dynamite, but many more are needed.

If we were living in one of those movies, one of the plot twists that would awaken the slumbering world might be the release in 2026 of a nuclear weapon as an act of war, recorded in horrifying real time by everyone and the starkest possible reminder of their reality.

~~~

Re the START treaty, the core issue may be the US's position that Russia and China are allied adversaries, both with powerful modern nuclear arsenals, and so the US would not want the nukes of Russia + China to outnumber America's.

Therefore (from the US's viewpoint) China would also have to be brought into the negotiations, making arms limitation or reduction twice as difficult and complex as it was in Reagan's era vs. the USSR.

[JackMcThorn]

One of the many problems we have today is that both politicians and citizens have become very blasé about nuclear weapons. Back in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s everyone was justifiably terrified of nuclear war, with major films released such as The War Game, The Day After, and Threads (the most terrible of them all), together with a host of dramas like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, Special Bulletin, By Dawn's Early Light, On the Beach, Testament, and the devastating animation When the Wind Blows.

Last year there was the Netflix film A House of Dynamite, but many more are needed.

If we were living in one of those movies, one of the plot twists that would awaken the slumbering world might be the release in 2026 of a nuclear weapon as an act of war, recorded in horrifying real time by everyone and the starkest possible reminder of their reality.

Many have argued that the most likely candidate for that possibility would be Israel striking Iran, one of the few scenarios that might not result in a global holocaust — though Israel's ensuing destruction from conventional missiles would likely be the outcome.

~~~

Re the START treaty, as best I understand the core issue may be the US's position that Russia and China are allied adversaries, both with powerful modern nuclear arsenals, and so the US would not want the nukes of Russia + China to outnumber America's.

Therefore (from the US's viewpoint) China would also have to be brought into the negotiations, making arms limitation or reduction twice as difficult and complex as it was in Reagan's era vs. the USSR.

And the START treaty has now lapsed, despite Putin's overture to Trump a couple of months ago that it should simply be extended for a year while talks get started — which Trump all but ignored. As best I understand, even now he has done nothing of substance at all to respond to Putin's suggestion.

One can understand how Scott Ritter, who devoted years of his life to strategic arms control, is angry, disgusted, and greatly disappointed with how all his hard work, and that of many others, has been almost completely undone.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, America was not in a powerful position against the Russian. JFK admitted as much even though the crisis was averted. If Trump knows this history, then he is operating on a position of power - a position that will not be a sign of weakness toward the Russian [or the Chinese].

America is in flux and this administration is not operating from positions of weakness but rather is correcting some of them instigated from prior 'administration(s)'.

I would expect people not from America with strong opinions to disagree with me on this but I think the world is not only changing but indeed America is changing as well - particularly in ways non-Americans resent - but actual Americans welcome. Even here on this PA site, non-Americans emphasize their disdain for America and its decisions and leaders to a far greater extent than a minority of pro-America Americans. The thing is, America is not making decisions for non-Americans - so their opinions are often moot [but entertaining].

This does not mean I always agree with Trump or am a blind follower. The key issue is respect is born from strength and the Russian and the Chinese will smell weakness swiftly. [God knows they have their own problems.] Trump I think is unbalanced and even a less capable leader than Jack but he is trying to reset a destroyed American reputation. A reputation far gone and only repaired through due diligence and strong actions. [Strong words have less desired effects in this modern era.] And strong actions come with many strong opinions depending on perspective.

Doomsday entertainment is less powerful in this modern era for many reasons and more content I would argue would continue to have less of an impression on inquiring minds. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are the bookends of actual history that is meant to be the reminder of the absolute horror of nuclear weapons and fallout. Entertainment fails in comparison unless you remember the history of the radio presentation of War of the Worlds in which people looked outside their homes to see if indeed the story was real or not. Having checked, the listener was at peace with the program. Having not checked, they were gripped with fear. Modern entertainment will never have this effect on the audience. My daughter is in her early 2o's now but when she was around 8 years old I had to explain to her that movies were not real but full of imagination and technology.

You are going to see more of America operating from a better position of strength than you are accustomed. Giving Putin the cold-shoulder should be expected given the past few years of Russian history.

[shaberon]

I don't really have any reaction to it.

The reason is because these weapons have been used in one conflict, against Japan, which itself I am not sure has been addressed properly.

In America, the fear of it, definitely went away to nothing, because it was replaced by the following idea:


We should use nuclear weapons against particularly Iran, followed by anyone else we choose.


I had to be aware of that for years, before "Neocons" arose as a subversive plot. Therefor, the issues I take are not so much with the unusual power of nuclear explosions, but American aggression in any form. It has Plan B, that is, if pressed to a full nuclear exchange, it's estimated that missile fire at population centers would cause the populations of the US and Russia to be sliced in half, which means America would have a bigger population, and that's called "we win".

Rather than any problems with nuclear warheads, we have had one-sided support of Israel as a security state, and it is far more this kind of strategy that bothers me, and not so much that there is a weapon that does it faster. I mean, Gaza looks like what, that it was hit by the bombs used on Japan, it just took longer, and the impunity on this is dreadful.

America can't be affected by much besides ballistic missiles, which means it is recommendable that countries on other land masses have them for defense.

Being dead is still a matter of a stick, hunger, cold, and plenty of other low-level reasons distributed by our hideous program, the one of having a hand in the other land masses. So I tend to see the great imbalance as a higher priority than unused weapons.

[Szymon]

This just came in.

intelslava/81963

Szymon

[bojancan]

I am placing this video by Rachel... second part... she is talking about US/Russia...

Iran Proves It HOLDS THE CARDS Ahead of Talks + US-Russia New START Nuclear Treaty ENDS
tCctPMX3LsI

Iran is making it clear that it holds the cards ahead of planned talks with the U.S., as Tehran chose the venue and the topic, and has refused to allow discussions on it ballistic missile program or its support for the Axis of Resistance in the region.

This, as the U.S. and Russia just agreed to resume military-to-military talks. But they have yet to reach an agreement on what's next, as New START, the last remaining nuclear arms treaty between the two countries, just expired...

[rgray222]

Allowing the START agreement to expire does not mean the countries endorse aggression, even though Putin and his proxies have aggressively skated all around the use of nuclear weapons (since the start of the Ukraine conflict). I do think there needs to be a new updated framework that forces a verifiable reduction (and stability) in nuclear weapons, and it should encompass all countries with nuclear arsenals. I think they could greatly expand the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament globally. This framework needs to take into account every country's nuclear arsenal, including China.

I understand that all countries should have the right to pursue nuclear weapons, but if we want global security and stability, we must find a way to eradicate them from the world's arsenal. Peace is the answer; people intellectually understand this, but they are far away from actually believing that the survival of mankind is at stake.

It is my personal opinion that a world war is more likely to start from India, Pakistan, or North Korea's use of a nuclear weapon rather than one of the big three nations.

[bojancan]

Allowing the START agreement to expire does not mean the countries endorse aggression, even though Putin and his proxies have aggressively skated all around the use of nuclear weapons (since the start of the Ukraine conflict). I do think there needs to be a new updated framework that forces a verifiable reduction (and stability) in nuclear weapons, and it should encompass all countries with nuclear arsenals. I think they could greatly expand the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament globally. This framework needs to take into account every country's nuclear arsenal, including China.

I understand that all countries should have the right to pursue nuclear weapons, but if we want global security and stability, we must find a way to eradicate them from the world's arsenal. Peace is the answer; people intellectually understand this, but they are far away from actually believing that the survival of mankind is at stake.

It is my personal opinion that a world war is more likely to start from India, Pakistan, or North Korea's use of a nuclear weapon rather than one of the big three nations.

Hi rgray222, you said it above.............. including China.... yes, agree with that... but, we never forget to adding here also... Israel.... this country was / is always above the law and any agreements....

[Bill Ryan]

we never forget to adding here also... Israel.... this country was / is always above the law and any agreements....Most interestingly, Pepe Escobar in his interview yesterday (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F64ZNjcLASE) with Judge Napolitano stated that 'everyone knows' (but no-one is saying) that Saudi Arabia also has nukes, the number being either 4 or 7. Pepe explained that Saudi had obtained the nukes from Pakistan as a quid pro quo for helping to fund their nuclear program.

[sdv]

The core issue about nuclear weapons, for me, is the resulting contamination. Depending on how the wind is blowing at the time, that contamination can spread way beyond the battlefield. As some have pointed out, you don't have to explode a nuclear bomb to completely destroy a place. The destruction of Gaza exceeds that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a wealthy country was prepared to accumulate a lot of debt to keep supplying the bombs for that destruction.

A perhaps macabre way to look at these weapons is that they are a method to avoid a prolonged war with the evil consequences of what has happened in Gaza. But, the risk is that if a nuclear strike provokes one in response, the ensuing destruction extends way beyond the battlefield and gets out of hand as nuclear nations quickly slip into nihilistic thinking, with the elites hiding in bunkers. People do not have time to flee and find a place of safety to escape the direct hit and then navigate survival in the aftermath.

What stands out to me is the idea that it is imperative to prevent other countries from acquiring these weapons, and the idea that 'well, Israel already has them so we will just accept that'. This kind of thinking preserves a world order where a few, and their firm allies, can bully and exploit at will, which they have done for decades. They are not good people and they have no moral limits. They are also not the geniuses that people think they are. Evil limits and warps intelligence and intellectual growth, and the relentless pursuit of wealth erodes and degrades the progress of humanity.

All should have nuclear weapons. None should have nuclear weapons. Some will be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Each choice is immensely flawed in terms of negative consequences, including the second.

And the country that I think is most likely to use a nuclear weapon in the near future? Israel. From the West, there will be no consequences for them, but Russia and China may choose to destroy Israel in response, not as direct retaliation, but to eliminate a threat to the entire world. The Zionist agenda and presence may stretch across the globe, but Israel, especially as a symbol, is at the heart of it.

EDIT
I post little about the realistic truth of what is going on in my country. The narrative from Musk and Trump is ridiculous and completely false, designed for a dumbed down and brainwashed population and media. But, I can share a few observations. The problems America has with democracy and the political system ... more political parties does not solve the problem; it multiplies the effects. (We have the same problems/consequences of a corrupt elite and dangerous idiots taking the presidency.) Major operations to stop illegal immigration (done far more wisely and humanely and effectively, without the extreme use of violence) send a signal to a disgruntled population that 'something is being done', but it doesn't stop the deluge. Giving up nuclear weapons (but not a nuclear programme) can be done, and make fuzzy headlines, but it makes a country more vulnerable to bullying. Openly having a nuclear weapons programme is better than a secret one ... secrecy is a bad place to start for any relationship.

[Vicus]

Audacious free think from a poor soul incarnate in this Demonic realm...

Fact 1:

U.S. can not accept :

Isn't anymore the Only mover and shaker on the planet in any aspect: economic . military and any values that they had selling trough their propaganda media, like Democracy , free mark ,people rights,etc.
Just a look at the actual panoramic what happens in this country right now... and not only from their stolen elections episode...(it seems nobody recall that period...),nothing to see here, move on...

But enough self righteous to call any other legal elected presidents on the planet that not play the "game"...ripe low hanging fruit to collect...whatever it cost, consequences? NO Body can touch us!

Well, while they were continue enlarging them self with Marvel movies the rest of the world was searching for positive trade for everybody without confrontations. U.S. : WTF is that? , give me what I want or ELSE!

Fact 2:

Consequences from U.S. voracity is the BRICS birth , 3/4 planet population make their own business without ANYTHING needed from West...U.S.: how dare you!

Fact 3:

On the military level U.S. is actual at the year 1990 level , while Russia is up TODAY and beyond...following behind only from China and the rest... U.S.: how dare you!

And exactly there is the problem...if this country don't come to his senses and continue overestimate himself, his reaction could be like the drunken "lucky punch" tentative ...

His psychopathic tendency were already proof, nuked not one city but 2, when it was no more necessary for an already defeated Japan.

[Vicus]

The REAL Reality in the REAL world TODAY

This video is 2 days old, for knee jerks russophobic people in this forum (there are plenty of them) is a no go theme... but for people who want to know the REAL state of things ... this is for them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqSJyqnV6Ow

https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/

[shaberon]

His psychopathic tendency were already proof, nuked not one city but 2, when it was no more necessary for an already defeated Japan.


That's correct, it was a signal to the Soviet Union.

To our troops, the lie was told that we'd have to invade and every Japanese civilian would fight to the death. That's the excuse that was given. But in clear analysis, Japan was materially defeated, and could have been brought to surrender without the weapons, each of which is a "genocide".

Currently, Russia has about 1,000 more nuclear warheads than the US, and it is correct they will use this option if they find a corresponding existential threat headed their way. This is perhaps the thing to be more aware of: wrong move and no America.

After all, it is correct they are backed into an existential corner, viz. biolabs engineering germs for "Slavs", combined with all the other dirty and hybrid warfare ranged against them since the Reagan era. Although it did disrupt the U. S. S. R., America is basically stagnant since that time, or actually going backwards. Let's blow a few million making sure our 1960 Minuteman is still operational. Ugh.

[grapevine]

It’s the Human Condition that needs START rather than another treaty which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, as evidenced by Mr Trump on more than one occasion. You only have to look at the current declared weapons lists to know that the previous treaties haven’t been strictly adhered to, let alone the hidden ones.

This is also why the UN and NATO can never truly work.

[Vicus]

His psychopathic tendency were already proof, nuked not one city but 2, when it was no more necessary for an already defeated Japan.

"That's correct, it was a signal to the Soviet Union."

That was the decent excuse at the "political chess " level...better say kabuki...

But ,if they don't needed/wanted to show their psychopathic instincts ,it would have been enough to blow up 1 or 2 from the myriad desolate islands on the Pacific Ocean, as demonstrative "preventive" power...what they do anyway in many islands AFTER...

By the way, U.S. was eager to send medics and" scientist" to evaluate the "results" (any new weapon need to be "prove"...)

And their psychopathic instincts were showed again when "accommodate" Nazi and japan war criminals of all sorts ,MK ultra, and the rest , genetic "scientist"and on and on...

For dessert we got that eternal alliance with the high psychopaths: Zionism and Elohim worshipers ...

You know where I go...

You are a high educated man ( for a yank...) and your self can see way into the past , the now and in the theoretical future...

But it need iron balls to post about, kudos to you!

[JackMcThorn]

His psychopathic tendency were already proof, nuked not one city but 2, when it was no more necessary for an already defeated Japan.

"That's correct, it was a signal to the Soviet Union."

That was the decent excuse at the "political chess " level...better say kabuki...

But ,if they don't needed/wanted to show their psychopathic instincts ,it would have been enough to blow up 1 or 2 from the myriad desolate islands on the Pacific Ocean, as demonstrative "preventive" power...what they do anyway in many islands AFTER...

By the way, U.S. was eager to send medics and" scientist" to evaluate the "results" (any new weapon need to be "prove"...)

And their psychopathic instincts were showed again when "accommodate" Nazi and japan war criminals of all sorts ,MK ultra, and the rest , genetic "scientist"and on and on...

For dessert we got that eternal alliance with the high psychopaths: Zionism and Elohim worshipers ...

You know where I go...

You are a high educated man ( for a yank...) and your self can see way into the past , the now and in the theoretical future...

But it need iron balls to post about, kudos to you!

Japan was far from defeated. They were weakened, yes but not defeated. [They were losing considerable ground fighting against China.] The u.s. justification was a conventional invasion would have higher casualties than the devices inflicted. Further, the u.s. just did not send medics and scientists, they rebuilt and provided Japan with TQM - total quality management which Japan modified and installed into all of its economic endeavors following which provided world class quality advantages in all of its products it produced.

Russia was part of the allies. Germany was divided into 4 realms of overwatch provided by England, U.S., France, and Russia. The entire reason the Cold War began after the conclusion of WWII in the autumn of 1945 was the Russian spread of communism and the u.s. desire to stop it. [Russian area of interest was East Germany post-war.] Suggesting that the bomb[s] were a message to Russia is a bit of a reach [stretching history], since they were dropped in summer of 1945. The u.s. and russian differences came much later by the end of the year strictly due to the ideology. Russia was instrumental in the defeat of Germany.

I don't think history is meant to be interpreted or molded or sugar-coated. It is meant to be remembered as is. This is even more important in this modern era.

[Vicus]

The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria led to Japan’s Greatest Defeat

Operation August Storm, the massive 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria, was Japan’s death blow, and brought an end to World War II.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Q-Japans-Defeat-5-HT-Spr18.jpg
A huge motorized Soviet convoy advances across the Grand Khingan Mountain Range in south central Manchuria.

Even as the Russians were about to battle for Berlin in April 1945, arrangements were made to release some major Red Army combat units for the coming war with Japan in the Far East. Beginning in March 1945, Stalin began transferring forces to the East, including the Karelian Front and the 2nd Ukrainian Front. (A Front was the Soviet equivalent of a U.S. Army Group and generally consisted of three to five armies—more than 100,000 men.)

By August, Soviet strength in the Far East had doubled, from the former 40 divisions to 80 divisions with strong supporting forces. These troops were assembled in rear areas well out of view of the Japanese border guards, and as the time for the attack neared they were quietly moved forward under cover of darkness to their assault positions (much as Nazi Germany did prior to its 1941 sneak attack against the Soviet Union).

ETC,... by August Japan was technical defeated.

For japan surrender there was NO need to nuke 2 city's.

more: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-soviet-invasion-of-manchuria-led-to-japans-greatest-defeat/

[JackMcThorn]

The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria led to Japan’s Greatest Defeat

Operation August Storm, the massive 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria, was Japan’s death blow, and brought an end to World War II.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Q-Japans-Defeat-5-HT-Spr18.jpg
A huge motorized Soviet convoy advances across the Grand Khingan Mountain Range in south central Manchuria.

Even as the Russians were about to battle for Berlin in April 1945, arrangements were made to release some major Red Army combat units for the coming war with Japan in the Far East. Beginning in March 1945, Stalin began transferring forces to the East, including the Karelian Front and the 2nd Ukrainian Front. (A Front was the Soviet equivalent of a U.S. Army Group and generally consisted of three to five armies—more than 100,000 men.)

By August, Soviet strength in the Far East had doubled, from the former 40 divisions to 80 divisions with strong supporting forces. These troops were assembled in rear areas well out of view of the Japanese border guards, and as the time for the attack neared they were quietly moved forward under cover of darkness to their assault positions (much as Nazi Germany did prior to its 1941 sneak attack against the Soviet Union).

ETC,... by August Japan was technical defeated.

For japan surrender there was NO need to nuke 2 city's.

more: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-soviet-invasion-of-manchuria-led-to-japans-greatest-defeat/

This operation began some hours before the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and three days after on Hiroshima. It did have some influence on Japan's surrender. But it did not soundly beat Japan before the bombs dropped, so no dice.

[Vicus]

Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks... :facepalm:

[JackMcThorn]

Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks... :facepalm:

There was a race to the bomb and Japan was not going to get away with Pearl Harbor scot-free. So while I don't condone its [the bombs] use, I do think the history is meant to be preserved and remembered by the facts. That's all I'm saying. If the enemy, the axis powers had it first, they most likely would have used it also.

The key fact of WWI and WWII is the u.s. categorically remain isolationist for the first two years of each of these wars. They did not want to be involved until it was absolutely necessary. This america is far different from today's america and many people do not regard the isolationist america in their history recall.

An isolationist america is one in which I would rather be a part of but those days are long gone.

[rgray222]

Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks... :facepalm:

History has already been written for this time period, and most of the important secrets have been revealed. I don’t believe it’s possible to rewrite history (as much as people would like to). During that time, Japanese leaders and military factions disagreed about surrender, but most top officials and military leaders would have kept fighting even without the atomic bombs. History is based on facts. Just because we have strong political opinions today that might fit better if history had been different doesn’t mean it actually was. It simply is what it is.

[sdv]

Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks... :facepalm:

There was a race to the bomb and Japan was not going to get away with Pearl Harbor scot-free. So while I don't condone its [the bombs] use, I do think the history is meant to be preserved and remembered by the facts. That's all I'm saying. If the enemy, the axis powers had it first, they most likely would have used it also.

The key fact of WWI and WWII is the u.s. categorically remain isolationist for the first two years of each of these wars. They did not want to be involved until it was absolutely necessary. This america is far different from today's america and many people do not regard the isolationist america in their history recall.

An isolationist america is one in which I would rather be a part of but those days are long gone.

The isolationist story is not quite true. Go to China and you will find a museum that has all the photographs and stories of how America did help China before Pearl Harbour. It is a remarkable story. Hundreds of ace American pilots resigned from the airforce and then went to China and enlisted as civilians to help the Chinese fight the Japanese. They are remembered and honoured as heroes in China, because that is what they were. So, America was helping the Chinese fight the Japanese before Pearl Harbour, just not officially.

https://youtu.be/HaN_e18AF8w?si=xPN6rENc59G95Itc

[JackMcThorn]

Well,liked or not The soviets and U.S. were allies ...

Meaning, U.S knew about the soviet offensive ... but they wanted to use the new toy anyway...no matter what...

How this approach can be catalog is the job for Psychological shrinks... :facepalm:

There was a race to the bomb and Japan was not going to get away with Pearl Harbor scot-free. So while I don't condone its [the bombs] use, I do think the history is meant to be preserved and remembered by the facts. That's all I'm saying. If the enemy, the axis powers had it first, they most likely would have used it also.

The key fact of WWI and WWII is the u.s. categorically remain isolationist for the first two years of each of these wars. They did not want to be involved until it was absolutely necessary. This america is far different from today's america and many people do not regard the isolationist america in their history recall.

An isolationist america is one in which I would rather be a part of but those days are long gone.

The isolationist story is not quite true. Go to China and you will find a museum that has all the photographs and stories of how America did help China before Pearl Harbour. It is a remarkable story. Hundreds of ace American pilots resigned from the airforce and then went to China and enlisted as civilians to help the Chinese fight the Japanese. They are remembered and honoured as heroes in China, because that is what they were. So, America was helping the Chinese fight the Japanese before Pearl Harbour, just not officially.

https://youtu.be/HaN_e18AF8w?si=xPN6rENc59G95Itc

The isolationist story is the american position for both world wars.

99 american pilots and 2oo support crew were hired as mercenaries in china for less than 7 months of combat in 1941 does not constitute an american country's posture.

The devil is in the details. I am not painting with a broad brush here.

[Vicus]

Let me be clear...

First at all, I am not disrespectful with soldiers from all the countries who fought against Nazism and japan Imperialism ,on the contrary ,I'm respectful for them.

Now, you know I'm a "conspiracy theorist" nut,like everybody in this forum, that is the "image" out there from this forum and everybody out there in forums,blogs, homepages,etc . writing/talking outside
mainstream ...meaning: you are an "enemy " for "the system" ,because you aren't "assimilate"

The comic part from "conspiracy theories" is that a few years later they are TRUTH, and now in a few months...thank to internet (the System failure,good for us)

And more that 20 years ago I reed : Pearl Harbor was NO surprise for U.S., they become the tip from Australia about the Japan fleet moves...

What U.S. did? first take away the best ships and... SILENCE...

The Japan attack dint came because they were crazy,but desperate... because the oil embargo from U.S. (sound familiar?)yesterday/today same "politics"

And because it was a good reason to enter into WW2 (for the Banks,whatever dirty theme we today know better...) and that was not the first time, for enter the WW1 was a similar episode...)

WHAT FOR take my time to post this?

Well, if people would take the time to reed my second post from this Thread 1, 2 times , is all about that the "principal" problem now after START is over,isn't Iran or China...
Not even Russia who is the biggest country on the planet with more than enough resources to not think about for a second to invade somebody, for what?

What they need is to be let alone in peace...but we all here know that dint happen ,even before our lifetime...

Well , not one from that "bad" countries want/need to initiate a nuclear war .

The only trigger-happy,like his CV prove is the "good" U.S.

Prove me wrong.

[Ravenlocke]

Zlatti71

Vance and Pashinyan sign an agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation between the USA and Armenia

https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/2020888139439419830

2020888139439419830

[Wilbur2]

The thing is, if the other side doesn't honour their treaty obligations anyway, then there's little point in signing treaties, and doing so can be damaging to the West, since the West is based (or used to be, anyway) on the idea that one is bound by one's treaty obligations. It's very difficult for a country like the UK or USA to renege on treaty obligations that they have ratified in their domestic law, since in doing so they break their own laws. I'm not saying that the Russians have not been keeping their side - I don't know anything about it, frankly.
What I do know is that China signs treaties and has no intention of keeping its side of the bargain. Any future treaty on nuclear weapons would presumably be aimed more at China than at Russia. Russia hardly has the economy to be a nuclear superpower going forward.
When China entered the WTO, it simply ignored its responsibilities. I knew this first hand from day-to-day living in China. A box of Kelloggs cornflakes in the UK was dirt-cheap. In China, in the late noughties and since, the same box of cornflakes would be at least twice the price, usually more. Even if shipped from the West, shipping costs would have been next to nothing, since ships went from China to the West laden with goods, and then went back to China empty. Same with jars of coffee. Same with pretty much anything shipped from the West. I bought a German washing machine in China, because the Chinese ones were poor quality. It was more expensive in China that it would have cost me in the UK, even though it would have been assembled, by a German company, in China, and probably never left the Chinese mainland. Same with cars - they cost multiples of the price of the same car in the UK, and the UK is known to be expensive for cars compared to Europe. I could go on, but you get the idea. Another favourite method was to just tie everything up at customs, so you couldn't actually get anything from the West. I knew a Chinese entrepreneur who made his living from importing; his biggest problem was that goods would get to the Chinese border and then, oops, paperwork lost, or it needs to be inspected, and we can't fit the inspection in this month so it will have to wait until your goods have perished, type of thing. There's plenty of ways of non-complying with a treaty without non-complying with the treaty.
I was involved in negotiating and running contracts between a UK university and various Chinese universities. When the Chinese side wanted something, it would point to the contract and say, "but you agreed to this". But when the UK university did the same, the Chinese university would say, "oh, well, that's not how it works in China. We don't focus on the details of the contract...Chinese culture...blah blah blah".
So when people in the West say that the West should unilaterally divest itself of nuclear weapons, I don't think they know who they are dealing with. It's like Douglas Murray is fond of saying, "It's all very well being a masochist; but what are you going to do when you meet a real sadist?" This dictum applies, mutatis mutandis to keeping up your side of a bargain.
One could go on endlessly, actually, about the masochism of the West. While China builds coal-powered electricity power stations all over the place, the UK Labour government DEMOLISHED UK coal-powered stations, so that they couldn't be recommissioned.
This might all seem like I'm going off topic; but my point is that nuclear treaties, like other treaties, are not worth the paper they are written on if you can't enforce them. Also, I may seem like I am criticising China. I am criticising them, since I expect world leaders, and especially powerful countries, to have an ethics level that exceeds that of a child. When they don't, I criticise them. But criticising China is not my main aim here. My main aim is to say that the West should understand that other countries take advantage of the fact that many Western countries bind themselves domestically when they ratify treaties. They should thus be very wary of signing agreements with other nations that have a history of ignoring their treaty obligations.