Trump confirms US to pull out of nuclear treaty with Russia

originally posted by: Osirisvset

originally posted by: generik
makes a lot of sense. after all why follow and have a treaty that the other side is violating?

We're not talking about a treaty to save some wild woodducks or something, this is nuclear weapons which I would think deserve a lot more diplomacy than just tearing up a treaty. I guess we just have to wait for more details. Any negative news about nukes makes me nervous as I daresay it does to anyone born pre-1980.

so what do you propose is done instead when Russia has broken the treaty, go on as if nothing has happened? and guess what "tearing up a treaty" as you put it, is in fact part of diplomacy. the Russians have made the treaty null and void by breaking it. therefore it is already over. the US stating that the treaty is over is nothing more than official recognition that said treaty is over. and it would actually be more correct to say that it was Russia who actually did the tearing up of the treaty, since they are the ones who violated it.

but like i said the US announcing it is over clears the air so that if both countries are interested a new treaty can be worked out. but tell me if you used a contractor and the contractor went against the written agreement you had, just how likely are you to want to sign another contract with that company? they after all have already proven they can not be trusted with their word. seems it would have to be a pretty sweet deal in your favour in order to make you think about signing, in order for you to take a chance that they will not just do the same thing and break the contract again. treaties between countries are no different. only there is no real court you can take a country to force a contract to be adhered to and get damages. something that one can generally do when someone breaks a contract with you. there of course is the UN which acts like a court between countries. but since the UN has no real power or authority every country generally just ignores them when they don't want to do what they say. China is guilty of this, even Canada is guilty of this, as is pretty much every country.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Allaroundyou

No we use Russian rockets to make up for Obama's and Bush's blunders in running NASA we got a space station that once the shuttle fleet was grounded we had no way of tending and ferrying crew thankfully the Russians still are using Soyuz rockets to carry our guys back and forth to space station.

Yep. And now we've got Astronauts drilling holes in the ISS because they've had enough...

You have any proof for that asinine claim? If the hole was drilled on station their would be ample evidence including metallic shavings and dust in the station’s air filtration systems it would be a dead giveaway, since it’s not been found it didn’t happen on orbit.

I did a bit more thinking and looking at this. The one question that is not being asked, and should be is this:

Can a sitting president unilaterally remove the US from a Treaty that was ratified by the congress?

Now the Paris accords, that Trump withdrew the US from, that was possible, as it was never ratified by the US senate, so there is no legal wrangling there at all. However this treaty, from 1988, signed by President Reagan, is a bit different.

When it was signed by President Reagan, the vote was 95 in favor, and only 5 opposed this treaty. After reading this treaty, there is no clause to get out of it, as most treaties would have. Trump could not just pull the US out legally, as it would violate the terms of the treaty. In fact the only real way for this Treaty to be ended, would mean that Putin and the Dumas, would have to agree that it is no longer needed, and then Trump, along with the Congress would also have to agree, and vote to end it.

a reply to: fleabit

LOL kind of like the Native Americans? Those treaties sure were good huh?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Can a sitting president unilaterally remove the US from a Treaty that was ratified by the congress?

Yes

The key language is Article II, Section 1, which says that the President has the “executive Power” of the United States. To the framers of the Constitution, this power had two important components, both relevant to the question of treaty termination. First, the most familiar aspect of executive power is the power to “execute” the laws – that is, to enforce them or carry them into effect. Under Article VI of the Constitution, treaties function as laws, and, as the framers recognized, they are part of the “laws” that the executive executes. One element of “executing” a law (or treaty) is deciding when it does not apply, or no longer applies, on the basis of its own terms.

source

Proof of Russia's violation of latest SALT treaty. Russia is moving Iskander short range missles to Kaliningrad, bing it. USA is pulling out of a 1 sided treaty is purly geopolitical. Trump wants China involved in the next treaty to reduce nukes, especially medium ranged missles. We have none and China has thousands and the ruskies have 1000's too. Those medium ranged missles threaten every US ship, base and ally in the western pacific. It's in our interest to negotiate a new treaty and have China involved too. Geostrategy folks, the Dems have cowtowed to China along w/our security ever since Clinton sold China our nuclear secrets for monetary gain.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Yes - in addition to the Constitutional reference made by Vector99 the I.N.F. treaty, article XV, states -



The Senate has to ratify it to become valid and a part of the US federal body of law. However the President can remove the US from the treaty on his own (potus can get opinions / advice from Congress on the issue, although its not required, and given Democrats complaining about Trump being owned by Putin they would be insane to try and attack Trump for this action).

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 (INF Treaty)

In addition to the above Russia has also violated the military open skies agreement by restricting flight altitudes and flight ranges. By restricting what bases the US can depart from and by restricting the flight range Russia has effectively denied access to certain areas, including Kaliningrad (where some of the violating nukes have been located by Russia). They also restricted overflights and instituted altitude requirements over Moscow and have closed off airspace in Chechnya, the 2 Russian occupied provinces in Georgia and Russia occupied Crimea.

I feel confident that in this one area, Russia is the one who has violated these treaties and have been doing so since Obama was in office, and bears direct responsibility for the US withdrawing from a treaty they are blatantly violating.

a reply to: ausername

It's like global warming, everything is a positive indicator. Fewer bad storms = global warming. More bad storms = global warming.

Trump sells weapons to poland = putins puppet
Trump pulls out of a treaty = putins puppet
Trump chastises merkel about buying russian oil = putins puppet

There's no evidence that would prove to them that he's not putins puppet.

As someone who actually follows defense issues:

- The "left" wanted a response for Russian election meddling. This would likely involve further economic sanctions against Russia, punishing those who were involved if possible, and making electoral systems more robust. What was not called for was military action against Russia. And in some cases it was like Pearl Harbor as it was a black swan event, but it wasn't literally Peal Harbour as it wasn't a literal military strike.

- Yes, Russia and China are nuclear adversaries to the United States. That's why it's so bizarre to see so little being done to stave off foreign influence in political processes. If we're prepared to built nuclear missiles to destroy them, then how are they allowed to attempt to influence us so much?

- There has been much talk from the defense community for about a decade or more regarding the need to counter peer or near-peer potential adversaries. This includes Russia and China. Hence, whilst as it stands Trump did something and Obama did not, it's likely that a democrat president, especially Clinton, would have done exactly what Trump did eventually. This is a given as everything Russia has done lately such as the annexation of crimea, shooting down MH17, attempted election meddling, failing to follow this treaty, and constant cyber attacks. Pulling out of this treaty is something that is simply natural for the United States to do, given what Russia did.

Shouldn't be a partisan issue. Congratulations for Trump for actually doing it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

While I will agree that I (myself) have even been called a leftist douche bag for my criticism of Trump, it's been valid criticism.

Is this referring to a certain thread involving me in the mud pit?

a reply to: Vector99

Not being part of a treaty that wasn't being followed doesn't change anything.


We are not more or less safe.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shawmanfromny

How is this move safer for americans?

I have no idea but quite a few people seem to be taking about how if the Russians aren't falling it then neither should the Americans....so lets just all start building up our nukes again and have 30 years of teaching kids what to do in the event of a nuclear strike.

Which wouldn't make us any safer.

Everyone all ready knows that we have enough nukes to wipe out the world. Adding more to the pile does nothing except waste money.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I say don't build more nukes, build defense for our satellites.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Do you really think putin is going to use those subs to attack americans ? Because I don't.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Its just an excuse to build more missiles :-)

Not surprised with the upcoming movie Hunter Killer with the American military going up against the Russian military for the first time in Hollywood.

America has the only chance in all of human history to unite the world under 1 government, under 1 flag. America had nuclear weapons technology in 1945, no one else did. USSR didn't have nuclear weapons technology until 1949. America could have united the world into 1. America didn't. So don't complain now when other countries challenge America on the world stage, because America did not unite the world into 1 when America could have and I would argue should have.

originally posted by: Quark
Proof of Russia's violation of latest SALT treaty. Russia is moving Iskander short range missles to Kaliningrad, bing it. USA is pulling out of a 1 sided treaty is purly geopolitical. Trump wants China involved in the next treaty to reduce nukes, especially medium ranged missles. We have none and China has thousands and the ruskies have 1000's too. Those medium ranged missles threaten every US ship, base and ally in the western pacific. It's in our interest to negotiate a new treaty and have China involved too. Geostrategy folks, the Dems have cowtowed to China along w/our security ever since Clinton sold China our nuclear secrets for monetary gain.

If an inch of Russian land is invaded you can bet all your money Russia will use nukes. Russia has very few people. They are very nationalistic. Their nukes are not for show. If Kaliningrad or Crimea or Sakhalin is invaded by some country, Russia will certainly use nukes on the aggressor.

Not just nukes. Cold War 2 is heating up fast. China building more and more J-20, Type 055 destroyers. Russia building Su-57, T-14. It's heating up fast. All America's fault for not uniting the world under 1 flag in 1945 when only America had nukes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

A bit of research actually shows this:

When it comes to a treaty that is ratified through congress, for it to be fully terminated, it would require for the congress to agree to such. A president could terminate yes, but unless the congress agrees, the full affects of the treaty remains in action. That is the law and what most legal opinions are.

So the bigger question is this: Does the congress agree with this action? That would determine how effective this would be.

Make no mistake most foreign governments have a strong understanding of US law and policies.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Make no mistake, the treaty was ripped up by Russia and the US is no longer bound by it, and it does not matter what their understanding of US law is. They have literally no recourse, zero.