The non-renewal of the START Treaty

[Bill Ryan]

Please discuss.

[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/sho...=1#post1701163

[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

Source: https://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]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
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.



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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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]

Posted by rgray222 (here)
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....