Do We Still Need Nuke Control?

That is the question.

I spent many years fighting against the spread of nuke weapons and energy…..and after the USSR collapsed we had some good times with both sides agreeing to limit the weapons and destroy those over the limit…..good times…..but I knew they could not last……and then the nightmare scenario came about this country elected Donald the Orange…..and the nuke race was once again in the forefront of foreign policy.

Since Trump he has wanted more nukes as a “deterrent”….but that is not what the story is….

Gen. Paul Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee in March 2017 that while Russia and China continue to modernize their nuclear forces, “we [the United States] do have a qualitative advantage.” 

The Trump administration, as outlined in its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) released on Feb. 2, 2018, intends to continue the modernization plan laid out by the Obama administration, and also develop several new nuclear weapons capabilities that will add to the price tag for nuclear forces, including the near-term development of a low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) and the longer-term development of new nuclear submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM).

The NPR acknowledges that the upgrade costs are “substantial” but claims that nuclear weapons will consume no more than 6.4 percent of the defense budget. This projection does not include the cost of the new capabilities proposed in the review nor the major costs that must be borne by NNSA to upgrade nuclear warheads and their supporting infrastructure.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization

Not to be outdone (as usual) Russia has plans as well…..

In the big strategic game, the Russians and Americans have the same reason for modernizing their nuclear forces: they want to maintain parity. If the two sides have the same number of nuclear warheads deployed, then they will not be tempted to shoot at each other. They also have a reason to avoid an arms race that would entail constantly seeking more nuclear weapons to try to achieve superiority—however temporary. As expensive as nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles are, parity has kept the costs down by holding the arms race in check.

In the past few years, President Vladimir Putin does seem to be after nuclear weapons for another reason—to show that Russia is still a great power to be reckoned with. He has been trumpeting new and exotic systems that are unique, like the nuclear weapon delivery system known as the Burevestnik nuclear-propelled cruise missile.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/01/29/russia-is-updating-their-nuclear-weapons-what-does-that-mean-for-rest-of-us-pub-80895

Now the BIg Two are going after more nukes…a third player has entered into the desire…..China.

Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of an English daily tabloid published by the ruling Chinese Communist Party, urged his nation to expand its nuclear arsenal in response to “bullying” from the U.S. in a new editorial.

In the article published by The Global Times on Saturday, Hu argued that China needed to build up its stockpile of nuclear weapons as a “deterrent,” as U.S. officials have been increasingly critical of the Chinese government amid the coronavirus pandemic. The editor argued that this would “safeguard national security.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/chinese-state-media-calls-for-building-up-chinas-nuclear-deterrent/ar-BB13S6uJ

To answer my original question…the answer is a resounding YES!

Why?

The Trump admin is traveling down a new road…..with No rules……

In a departure from this history, the Trump administration has abandoned U.S. leadership in the arms control field and seems guided by a contrary set of assertions that have gained salience on the hawkish side of the Republican party, namely:

• The United States should not discuss vital national security issues, or consider compromise, with adversaries such as Iran until they have fully met U.S. demands in all fields.

• Arms control agreements grant unwarranted concessions to opponents, and they constrain the United States’ freedom of action. (This has been the guiding principle for John Bolton, former national security adviser and a serial assassin of arms control agreements.)

• Arms control agreements serve little value if they do not solve every problem between the parties. This all-or-nothing approach is exemplified by the U.S. decision to withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

• We must be prepared and willing to wage, and prevail in, a “limited” nuclear war, which can remain “limited.” This mirrors an increased Russian interest in the same topic and is exemplified in the renewed U.S. program for construction of nonstrategic (so-called “low-yield”) warheads and delivery systems.

• The United States can achieve a numerical or technical advantage over our nuclear-armed adversaries by constantly pursuing improvements and new nuclear weapons capabilities. (The administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review makes several references to the U.S. “technical edge,” which is of little relevance in an all-out nuclear conflict.)

http://www.afsa.org/why-nuclear-arms-control-matters-today?mc_cid=678c11d675&mc_eid=91f0c9a21d

Time for people to get their idiot heads out of the sand….we are starting down a familiar path that can lead to nothing but apprehension and dread.

Time for the people to FIGHT back.

Bread for people…No Nukes!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Weaponizing Space?

***This is a lot of information to digest but it will become more and more important in the coming years***

The weaponizing of space has begun for Trump has his funding to establish the “Space Force”…..

Congress has approved a compromise defense policy bill that creates a new Space Force in exchange for establishing paid parental leave for federal workers, as part of $738 billion for the Pentagon for 2020.

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the bill Tuesday, 82-8, just days after the House passed it, 377-48. The bill now goes to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature, and he has signaled he will sign the defense policy measure.

(Military Times)

How much will the Repubs add to the deficit?

His Majesty’s new branch of the military, the Space Force, will do doing something that will violate a long standing treaty.

The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the same year ( resolution 2222 (XXI)). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles:

  • the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
  • outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
  • outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
  • States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
  • the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
  • astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
  • States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities;
  • States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
  • States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

Does anybody remember SDI?  Too young?

Help is here.

Back in the day it was too expensive and nukes in space was unacceptable….well times change…..

There are some that see it as weaponizing space yet again…..

Donald Trump’s announcement of a “Space Force” is by no means a new idea. During the Reagan presidency, a similar idea was proposed in the form of the famous “Star Wars“ program, formally known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. It aimed to do away with the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) by positioning anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) interceptors in low-Earth orbit in order for them to be able to easily intercept ballistic missiles during their entry into orbit and before their re-entry phase. The costs and technology at the time proved prohibitive for the program, but military planners retained the dream of negating the concept of MAD in Washington’s favor, especially with the dawning of the unipolar era following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The decisions taken in the years since, such as the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 during Bush’s presidency and from the INF Treaty during Trump’s, follows Reagan in trying to invalidate MAD, a balance of terror that has served to maintain a strategic stability.

Trump’s “Space Force”: Weaponizing Space Is the “New” Bad Idea Coming from Washington

Our circling satellites will be armed….say what?  I thought they already were….or is that a secret?

the French government accused Russia of an “act of space espionage,” when Moscow’s signals-intelligence satellite Luch-Olymp was steered “a bit too closely” to France’s military communications satellite Athena-Fidus. “It got so close,” France’s Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly reportedly said at the time, “that we might have imagined it was trying to intercept our communications—trying to listen to your neighbors is not only unfriendly, it’s an act of espionage.”

Last week, Parly announced details of a new “defense space strategy” at the Lyon-Mont Verdun air defense operations base. “Having a reinforced space defense is absolutely essential,” she said, “it is our freedom of appreciation, access and action in space that is at stake.” France’s Le Point reported that in the summer of 2019, space has finally become “a field of action.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/07/29/military-satellites-to-be-armed-with-lasers-and-guns-as-space-war-gets-real/

Let’s not forget about the Air Force’s secret “space” plane, the X-37B…..

A Dutch skywatcher achieved a rare feat in late June and early July 2019. Using a 10-inch-diameter telescope fitted with a camera, Ralf Vandebergh photographed the U.S. Air Force’s secretive X-37B space plane in mid-mission 210 miles over Earth’s surface.

“We can recognize a bit of the nose, payload bay and tail of this mini-shuttle, with even a sign of some smaller detail,” Vandebergh told Space.com.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-air-forces-secret-x-37b-space-plane-war-machine-69861

So what Reagan could not get done…..Supreme Leader Trump will make it a reality….weaponizing space.

The predecessors of Star Fleet, the US Space Command, is a mere weeks away from reality.

A new US Space Command will formally launch within weeks, the deputy commander of US Strategic Command told reporters July 31.

“I think it’d probably be about weeks—we should see the actual establishment of US Space Command,” Vice Adm. David Kriete said. “I think we’re on a good track in terms of our planning.”

Kriete said the timeline for launching the revived SPACECOM, which will take over responsibility for space combat operations from STRATCOM, will be at the discretion of new Defense Secretary Mark Esper. The Pentagon has not yet announced where SPACECOM headquarters will be, but its two major components will be located at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., and Schriever AFB, Colo. The Senate recently confirmed Air Force Space Command boss Gen. Jay Raymond to lead the combatant command.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/US-Space-Command-Set-to-Launch-Within-Weeks.aspx

Reagan’s dream of the weaponization of space is near completion.

Now comes the war footing mindset….

Is the United States headed for war that begins in or extends into space? We should hope not. As Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein recently observed, “If a war actually starts in space, everybody loses.” But deterring conflict in space requires credible and effective responses to aggression. The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Command, in partnership with industry, are developing options to field the sensors, shooters, and command and control nodes required to fight in, through, and from space by engaging targets. But the development of space-minded warfighters is the best way to make joint space operations more credible and responsive by both enabling and increasing the lethality of multidomain operations, or what the Joint Staff now calls “joint all-domain command and control.” The U.S. military needs to show commanders, partners, and potential adversaries that it can achieve objectives in any domain by executing all the steps needed to be able to take action in space when required. This requires a vastly different mindset than America’s historic focus in space, which has been to optimize space support to operations in other domains. Space operations have historically been split between multiple organizations with varying missions. With the U.S. military’s new commitment to develop a dedicated space force, these diverse agencies should develop a more comprehensive unity of effort.

The Kill Chain in Space: Developing a Warfighting Mindset 

NATO, the US puppet in international situations, has also jumped on the space bandwagon…..

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization recently declared that space is an “operational domain” for the alliance. Though much work remains to actualize an integrated NATO space posture, the affirmation is an important benchmark as NATO scrambles to meet rapidly evolving space and counter-space threats.

Today, space-based assets are an Achilles’ heel of U.S. military operations, representing a vital enabling mechanism upon which success often depends. In addition, great power adversaries could target civilian space assets to wreak havoc on the homeland in ways that redound far beyond the military realm.

NATO declares space ‘operational domain,’ but more work remains

Nothing about this should be seen as a step forward….this will benefit very few other than the people in the industry….and yet could eventually effect us all….and not in a good way.

Since I am one of the few bloggers interested in this situation….all I can say is…..

Watch This Blog!

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967

My FYI Weekend continues……

I have been writing a lot about space and the new proposed Space Force….and in all those posts I have referenced the outer Space Treaty of 1967…..and now it has come time to explain the treaty and its functions.

But this subject means very little to most people….my posts are not what one would call popular…..that aside I keep writing and posting because this whole idea will cost billions and the taxpayer will be on the hook for the total.

Let us start with my writings so far…..

https://lobotero.com/2019/04/12/space-law/

https://lobotero.com/2019/08/01/do-laws-apply-in-space/

https://lobotero.com/2019/07/16/space-law-part-2/

In 1967 a UN Outer Space Treaty was signed into reality….and for the most part it has been a success…..but is it a treaty for the 21st century?

Space exploration is governed by a complex series of international treaties and agreements which have been in place for years. The first and probably most important of them celebrates its 50th anniversary on January 27 – The Outer Space Treaty. This treaty, which was signed in 1967, was agreed through the United Nations, and today it remain as the “constitution” of outer space. It has been signed and made official, or ratified, by 105 countries across the world.

The treaty has worked well so far but challenges have increasingly started to crop up. So will it survive another 50 years?

The Outer Space Treaty, like all international law, is technically binding to those countries who sign up to it. But the obvious lack of “space police” means that it cannot be practically enforced. So a country, individual or company could simply ignore it if they so wished. Implications for not complying could include sanctions, but mainly a lack of legitimacy and respect which is of importance in the international arena.

https://theconversation.com/the-outer-space-treaty-has-been-remarkably-successful-but-is-it-fit-for-the-modern-age-71381

Trump’s new Space Command and the proposal for a Space Force could the US violate a long standing treaty and by doing so start yet another war….this time among the stars…..

By directing the Pentagon to create a special “Space Force” as an independent branch of the US military to ensure the safety of US spacecraft and astronauts, US President Donald Trump has sparked concern that Washington would ignite an arms race in outer space.

Since outer space is the common property of humankind, China has always advocated its peaceful use and objected to its weaponisation. It also opposes attempts to turn outer space into a battlefield, and hopes all countries will make joint efforts to keep outer space peaceful.

The United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty, which came into force on October 10, 1967, stipulates that no country should take possession of outer space (including the moon and other celestial bodies) by means of sovereign claims, use or occupation, or by any other means. It also says signatory states must use outer space for peaceful purposes and should not establish military bases or facilities, or test any type of weapons or conduct military exercises in outer space or on celestial bodies.

https://www.nationthailand.com/opinion/30348429

So many questions about our extension into space and so few answers…the Treaty of 1967 was not the only document that deals with space and the handling of events……the Moon Agreement….

The Moon Agreement was considered and elaborated by the Legal Subcommittee from 1972 to 1979. The Agreement was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 in resolution 34/68. It was not until June 1984, however, that the fifth country, Austria, ratified the Agreement, allowing it to enter into force in July 1984. The Agreement reaffirms and elaborates on many of the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty as applied to the Moon and other celestial bodies, providing that those bodies should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, that their environments should not be disrupted, that the United Nations should be informed of the location and purpose of any station established on those bodies. In addition, the Agreement provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be established to govern the exploitation of such resources when such exploitation is about to become feasible.

http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html

Watch a short video that will help explain the “Treaty”……

I spend a lot of time on this subject for space will become more and more important and someone has to use their training to set up parameters….like when a corporation goes to Mars to mine…..they did not sign the Treaty of 1967…..what stops them from raping the planet of resources?

For those that are interested there is a place to go for all the news on Space Policy…….https://spacepolicyonline.com/

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Open Skies

Seems like there should be a song somewhere in that title….

Since Trump became our Supreme Leader we have crap out of all the treaties we have made over the years…..NAFTA, TPP, Iranian Nuke Deal, INF and now he is considering overturning the “Open Skies Treaty”…..

How many are scratching their heads over this? Let me see a show of hands…….(The Google machine is just a touch away)….it all began with Ike…..

Then the actual Open Skies Treaty was signed into being in 1992….

Signed March 24, 1992, the Open Skies Treaty permits each state-party to conduct short-notice, unarmed, reconnaissance flights over the others’ entire territories to collect data on military forces and activities. Observation aircraft used to fly the missions must be equipped with sensors that enable the observing party to identify significant military equipment, such as artillery, fighter aircraft, and armored combat vehicles. Though satellites can provide the same, and even more detailed, information, not all of the 34 treaty states-parties1 have such capabilities.  The treaty is also aimed at building confidence and familiarity among states-parties through their participation in the overflights.

President Dwight Eisenhower first proposed that the United States and the Soviet Union allow aerial reconnaissance flights over each other’s territory in July 1955. Claiming the initiative would be used for extensive spying, Moscow rejected Eisenhower’s proposal. President George H.W. Bush revived the idea in May 1989 and negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact started in February 1990.

Now that you are brought up to speed on this treaty…..Trump has found yet another treaty that he does not like and will sell his dislike to the drooling public…..Open Skies Treaty is in the cross hairs…..

House representative Eliot Engel, the Democrat of New York and the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sent a letter to White House national security advisor Robert O’Brien saying he was “deeply concerned” by reports that President Donald Trump was considering withdrawing from Open Skies. That would be the latest in the administration’s efforts to unwind many of the multilateral agreements, institutions, and treaties that have helped govern the world and keep peace since World War II.

“[I] strongly urge you against such a reckless action,” Engel wrote. “American withdrawal would only benefit Russia and be harmful to our allies’ and partners’ national security interests. … The US should prepare for the challenge that Russia presents—not abandon mechanisms that provide the US with an important tool in maintaining surveillance on Russia.”

While the Trump administration and Capitol Hill allies like senator Tom Cotton, the Republican from Arkansas, have long expressed frustration with the deal, Monday’s movement seemed to blindside foreign policy and arms control experts, who quickly expressed puzzlement and outrage that Trump would unwind what’s been seen as a cornerstone of global defense. The former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, tweeted “Please tell me this can’t be true.”

https://www.wired.com/story/trump-open-skies-withdrawal/

I do not see how all this disdain for the treaties we have signed over the years is making America Great…..

Personally, Trump just likes pretending he knows what he is doing…and with adviser like Sen. Tom Cotton then he is definitely getting erroneous information.

There are some issues on foreign policy that I agree with Trump….and then like our long standing treaties I do not agree nor see any reason for the disdain.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

P.S.  It is 0530 hrs and cooler than normal so MoMo and I will get our walk in before the heat returns.

100 Years Ago

A Hundred years ago the 28 June was the official end of World War One, the Treaty of Versailles 28Jun1919….

World War I officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. Negotiated among the Allied powers with little participation by Germany, its 15 parts and 440 articles reassigned German boundaries and assigned liability for reparations. After strict enforcement for five years, the French assented to the modification of important provisions. Germany agreed to pay reparations under the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan, but those plans were cancelled in 1932, and Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent actions rendered moot the remaining terms of the treaty.

The treaty, negotiated between January and June 1919 in Paris, was written by the Allies with almost no participation by the Germans. 

The negotiations revealed a split between the French, who wanted to dismember Germany to make it impossible for it to renew war with France, and the British and Americans, who did not want to create pretexts for a new war. The eventual treaty included 15 parts and 440 articles. Part I created the Covenant of the New League of Nations, which Germany was not allowed to join until 1926. Part II specified Germany’s new boundaries, giving Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine back to France, substantial eastern districts to Poland, Memel to Lithuania, and large portions of Schleswig to Denmark. Part III stipulated a demilitarized zone and separated the Saar from Germany for 15 years.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/treaty-of-versailles-1

Were lessons learned by the failure of the Treaty of Versailles?

he peace treaty following the “war to end all wars” was initially thought to be ushering in a never-ending era of peace and international brotherhood, but not all observers thought so: the German Crown Prince Wilhelm, who had fought against Marshal Petain at Verdun and was now exiled in Holland, blasted the victors’ exclusion of the surrendered governments during the Paris discussions begun that January: the very morning of the signing, he flatly predicted in an interview that a new European war was a certainty ten years hence. Meanwhile, John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist who attended the conference as a representative of the British Treasury, was disgusted with the harsh terms meted out by the western allies and resigned his post in late May. Returning to Britain, he wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace that summer, flatly predicting another war with Germany in twenty years

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/06/28/the_right_lessons_from_versailles_100_years_later_114542.html

The Treaty itself was a precursor to the rise of the Nazis….and ultimately the 2nd World War…..so it failed it is main conquest…to prevent war.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

The Treaty of 1955

Closing Thought–17Dec18

Our Dear Leader and his minions are making goddamn sure that the US must stand alone against most of the world….the games they are playing internationally benefits no one but the M-IC….the latest game being played by the “God Squad”…….

Three years ago, as Americans debated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran—popularly known as “the Iran deal”—I highlighted a troubling media trend on FAIR.org (8/20/15): “For nearly all commentators, regardless of their position, war is the only alternative to that position.”

In the months since US President Donald Trump tore up the JCPOA agreement, his administration has been trying to make good on corporate media’s collective prediction. Last week, John Bolton (BBC, 9/26/18), Trump’s national security advisor and chief warmonger, told Iran’s leaders and the world that there would be “hell to pay” if they dare to “cross us.”

https://fair.org/home/trump-admin-follows-corporate-media-playbook-for-war-with-iran/

Keep in mind how many countries we have taken to deciding who could lead…Iran, Guatemala and Chile come quickly to mind….these countries were chosen because corporate America wanted them to change.

In response to a UN court order that the US lift sanctions on Iran, the Trump administration said Wednesday it was terminating a decades-old treaty affirming friendly relations between the two countries. The move is a largely symbolic gesture that highlights deteriorating relations between Washington and Tehran, the AP reports. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said withdrawing from the 1955 Treaty of Amity was long overdue and followed Iran “groundlessly” bringing a complaint with the International Court of Justice challenging US sanctions on the basis that they were a violation of the pact. Meanwhile, national security adviser John Bolton said the administration also was pulling out of an amendment to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Iran or others, notably the Palestinians, could use to sue the US at The Hague-based tribunal. Bolton told reporters at the White House that the provision violates US sovereignty.

“The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us,” Bolton said. He cited a case brought to the court by the “so-called state of Palestine” challenging the move of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as the main reason for withdrawing. Bolton, who last month unleashed a torrent of criticism against the International Criminal Court, noted that previous Republican administrations had pulled out of various international agreements and bodies over “politicized cases.” He said the administration would review all accords that might subject the US to prosecution by international courts or panels. Earlier, Pompeo denounced the Iranian case before the UN court as “meritless” and said the Treaty of Amity was meaningless and absurd. “The Iranians have been ignoring it for an awfully long time, we ought to have pulled out of it decades ago,” he told reporters at the State Department. Click for more on the little-known treaty and the UN ruling.

This is just yet another game being played by Trump’s Neocon butt boys….this will cost American lives in the long run.

But why?  For what purpose?

We had a treaty with Iran…Our Dear Leader decided he would drop out of it and then decided to push for a nuke treaty….

The United States is seeking to negotiate a treaty with Iran to include Tehran’s ballistic missile programme and regional activity, the US special envoy for Iran said on Wednesday, ahead of UN meetings in New York next week.

Iran has rejected US attempts to hold high-level talks since President Donald Trump tore up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers earlier this year.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed a dozen demands in May that he said could make up a new agreement, although envoy Brian Hook’s reference to a treaty, which would have to be approved by the US Senate, appears to be a new focus.

https://theantimedia.com/washington-new-nuclear-deal-iran/

Seriously?  Iran will probably tell the US and Trumpy to go crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills first.

This is just another pathetic game being played by a pathetic leader.

This is what we get for an uninformed electorate that turn over foreign policy to warmongering toads.

A closing thought——

Americans are right to want more prudent, realistic foreign policy. Such a policy would not sacrifice U.S. blood and treasure on wars intended to spread democracy and reorder societies rather than focus on defending Americans. It would not attempt to impose an external military solution on the internal political problems of other nations. It would not burden America’s military with tasks for which it is not designed and to which it is not suited.

But not happening as long as we have this batch of neocon zombies in control…..

Let me reiterate……Corporate America calling the shots….some things never change…they called the shots in Guatemala and Iran in the 50’s and Chile in the 70’s…..and they are still making decisions that involve our troops that will face death in their behalf.  Time for that to change….permanently!

Treaties That Ended The Cold War

In the late 1980’s the US and the USSR made several treaties to limit weapons of mass destruction……and 30+ years later those treaties are falling apart….

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Nuclear Planning Group (NPG) was probably the Alliance’s most important and secretive institution during the Cold War. Notably, it worked out NATO members’ joint strategy and tactics for using non-strategic nuclear weapons in a possible all-European war with the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. Such a confrontation seemed all too possible—and sometimes almost inevitable—during acute crisis situations that brought the Cold War opponents to the brink in 1949, 1956, 1962, 1973 and 1983. In the last of the aforementioned crises, tensions spiked as the United States deployed nuclear-tipped land-based cruise missiles as well as medium-range Pershing II ballistic missiles on the territory of several European NATO allies to counter the threat of the deployment of hundreds of Soviet SS-20 nuclear intermediary missiles known in Russia as Pioneer. The Soviets produced over 800 Pioneer missiles, and each carried a heavier payload than the Pershing IIs; but their U.S. counterparts were stealthier and much more accurate.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/10/10/agreements_that_ended_the_cold_war_are_disintegrating_113882.html

The INF Treaty, what is it?

https://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm

One of the main treaties from those days was the INF Treaty…..Trump with the urging of Bolton is thinking about withdrawing from this treaty….

Years of US allegations that Russia is violating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) may be coming to a head, with John Bolton reportedly pushing hard for President Trump to withdraw outright from the pact.

Instead of negotiating over the questions, Bolton wants the US to just withdraw outright, despite that being a major escalation on tensions with Russia. State Department and Pentagon officials are both opposed to this.

The administration was to have talks on Monday to discuss Bolton’s idea, but this has been postponed, at least for now. Still, Congress is also pushing for action on Russia, as part of general hostility toward Russia.

(antiwar.com)

Trump has made it official and pulled out of the treaty……

President Donald Trump said Saturday he will pull the United States from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty because Russia has violated the agreement. The 1987 pact, which helps protect the security of the U.S. and its allies in Europe and the Far East, prohibits the United States and Russia from possessing, producing or test-flying a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles. “Russia has violated the agreement. They have been violating it for many years,” Trump said after a rally in Elko, Nevada, per the AP. “And we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.” The agreement has constrained the US from developing new weapons, but America will begin developing them unless Russia and China agree not to possess or develop the weapons, Trump said.

“We’ll have to develop those weapons, unless Russia comes to us and China comes to us and they all come to us and say let’s really get smart and let’s none of us develop those weapons, but if Russia’s doing it and if China’s doing it, and we’re adhering to the agreement, that’s unacceptable,” he said. National Security Adviser John Bolton was headed Saturday to Moscow to meet with senior Russian officials at a time when Moscow-Washington relations remain frosty over the Ukrainian crisis, the war in Syria and allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential race and upcoming US midterm elections. US officials have previously alleged that Russia violated the treaty by deliberately deploying a land-based cruise missile in order to pose a threat to NATO.

Yet another international treaty the Trump thinks he can throw away….And of course Russia will have something to say…..

A day after President Trump announced his intention to scrap a landmark arms control deal with Russia, the Kremlin called the pullout “a very dangerous step.” Trump is sending national security adviser John Bolton to Moscow to meet with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, and was to relay Trump’s decision. Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov was quoted as telling state news agency Tass on Sunday that a US withdrawal “will cause the most serious condemnation from all members of the international community who are committed to security and stability.” The 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty bars the US and Russia from possessing, producing, or test-flying a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 300 miles to 3,400 miles, reports the AP.

Britain said it stood “absolutely resolute” with the US, while Germany called Trump’s move “regrettable.” Heiko Maas said Sunday that the three-decades-old treaty is “an important pillar of our European security architecture.” Maas says Germany has repeatedly urged Moscow to “clear up the serious allegations of breaching the INF treaty, which Russia has so far not done.” He says Germany is urging Washington to “consider the possible consequences” of its decision, including for a US-Russian nuclear disarmament treaty beyond 2021. But Britain’s defense secretary, Gavin Williamson, blamed Russia for making a “mockery” of the pact and called on the Kremlin to “get its house in order.” Independent Russian political analyst, Dmitry Oreshkin said, “We are slowly slipping back to the situation of cold war as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, but now it could be worse because (Russian President Vladimir) Putin belongs to a generation that had no war under its belt.”

Once again Our Dear Supreme Leader has taken it upon himself to make the world a little less safe…..nukes unregulated not a very promising situation.

Yes, We Have A Treaty

Nope, has little to do with the two egocentric leaders that met just a couple of days ago……very little……

There was news that was lost during the Putin/Trump meeting……news that would have been the talk of the town if it had occurred a few days earlier or later…..

For decades presidents and world leaders have been trying to ban nuclear weapons…..while the two major leaders were massaging each other the rest of the world did something about all these WMDs.

Those who want to rid the world of nuclear weapons can celebrate a milestone at the UN Friday—122 nations backed the first global treaty to ban them. The big caveat? The nine nations known to have a nuclear arsenal, including the US, boycotted the negotiations, reports the Guardian. So what’s the point? Advocates say they hope that once the treaty is in force—which will formally happen when 50 nations ratify it later this year—the nations that currently have nukes will eventually come around.

‘Starting point’: “We don’t expect them to sign the treaty right now, but it’s a good starting point for changing perceptions,” Beatrice Fihn of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons tells the New York Times. Indeed, the treaty includes language that would allow nuclear weapons states to join, reports the AP.

  • The treaty: See the 10-page treaty here. Those who sign it promise not to develop, test, manufacture, or possess nuclear weapons. Nor would they allow any nuclear arms to be stationed within their borders.
  • The vote: Of those nations that took part in the negotiations, 122 voted in favor and only one—the Netherlands, which has nuclear weapons from the US on its territory—voted against. Singapore abstained.
  • US objection: “We have to be realistic,” said Nikki Haley, the American ambassador to the UN, earlier this year. “Is there anyone who thinks that North Korea would ban nuclear weapons?”
  • All in favor: At National Geographic, Ari Beser assesses the pact and thinks it’s long overdue. He channels Winston Churchill, saying that while this might not be the end of the age of nuclear weapons, “it is the end of the beginning of the battle to rid Earth of this terrible scourge.”
  • The 9 nations: 24/7 Wall St ranks the nine nations with nukes, ranging from No. 1 Russia, with 7,000 warheads, to No. 9 North Korea, with 10 to 20. The US is No. 2 with 6,800 warheads.

Reagan was working to this end….Carter was working to this end…..few others in leadership tried to bring about this ban with little success…..personal thought….this will not fly with the Trump cabal…..

Wonder how this will play in the news?