America's Dangerous Obsession With Invincibility - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15256935
Political Interest wrote:
How do you propose to build socialism without a state?



Okay, you *got* me -- *workers* state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators ... roletariat


Political Interest wrote:
Everyone has a homeland and a country, it's no use trying to tell the working class they have no country.



*Fortunately* that's not what I'm doing -- I mean to say that the world's working class doesn't *logistically* require a global landscape of nation-states. The bourgeoisie, by contrast, *does*, because it parcels out land, etc., according to *rentier* values (non-commodity-productive private property), which then necessitates overarching administration / government.


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Political Interest wrote:
Maybe you would like to tell the nations oppressed by neo-colonialism that they have no country.



Effectively they *don't*, like Julian Assange, because "their" country -- Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India -- allows them to be exploited and used by a foreign country.


Qatar World Cup: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)




Political Interest wrote:
Well, my dear communist, I don't think we will have much in common but on the economic question I dislike how Western liberalism makes everyone into mere utilitarian workers, and a person is only the worth of their economic value. I think everyone in a country must be taken care of, they need good housing, good employment and stability for their families. Neo-liberalism reduces all relations to mere economic relations, who can make the most money and who is best at maximising value for a business. That is a cold and rabidly individualistic way to structure social relations. It leads to destitution, misery and all sorts of social dysfunction. Such an economic system is completely alien to me. At the same time I don't like communism, people should have the right to make money to ensure a proper availability of consumer goods.



If you like, I have something for your perusal, along these lines:



...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:

- (Already mentioned) One could work for personal material-economic gains -- the amassing of labor credits -- instead of having to 'like' *both* the socio-political aspect *and* the personal-material-economic aspect of one's work within a strictly-voluntaristic, non-labor-credit, communistic-type political economy. (Individual vs. socio-political realms)



https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338



---


Also:



[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.



---


Political Interest wrote:
Soviets and Warsaw Pact failed in this and that's what partly led to their downfall in the end.



The missile arms race with the West was a major factor:



[T]he breaking of the Polish workers’ movement could not remove the underlying forces which had given rise to it. Rates of economic growth in the Eastern bloc were now no higher than in the bigger Western economies. What is more, the Reagan government in the US was embarking on a new arms build-up (with the stationing of cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe) which the Russian government wanted to match. But the resources simply did not exist to meet the demands this put on the economy. The state capitalist regimes had to reform or risk class confrontation and internal collapse.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 590-591



---


Political Interest wrote:
Culturally I dislike the crassness of it,



'It' being what, again -- ?


Political Interest wrote:
the way it's making people into crass, rude and materialistic idiots devoid of morality. The bonds of social cohesion are eroding and we're losing any sort of uplifting influence in our culture.

I suspect you're one of these American communists who are socially liberal, well that doesn't appeal to me either.



'Bonds of social cohesion' *is* socially-liberal.
#15256938
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, you *got* me -- *workers* state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators ... roletariat


How would it be different to Leninism?

ckaihatsu wrote:*Fortunately* that's not what I'm doing -- I mean to say that the world's working class doesn't *logistically* require a global landscape of nation-states. The bourgeoisie, by contrast, *does*, because it parcels out land, etc., according to *rentier* values (non-commodity-productive private property), which then necessitates overarching administration / government.


What is the alternative to nation states?

ckaihatsu wrote:Effectively they *don't*, like Julian Assange, because "their" country -- Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India -- allows them to be exploited and used by a foreign country.


So, because their governments are abysmal and allow them to be exploited and used by a foreign country this means they don't have a country? Every Indian nationalist fighter of the 1930s might have a slight problem with this idea :lol:. I think the problem is them having terrible governments rather than having countries.

ckaihatsu wrote:If you like, I have something for your perusal, along these lines:


I'm sorry, I don't understand this idea. Please elaborate further.

ckaihatsu wrote:The missile arms race with the West was a major factor:


Yes, it was a major stress on the economies of the Warsaw Pact states, but maintaining a massive bureaucratic centrally planned economy is also very difficult. There are all sorts of bottlenecks. After industrialisation is achieved it becomes very difficult to properly distribute consumer goods. Gorbachev's reforms made the economic situation in the USSR worse but there were already massive structural problems by the 1970s. The Soviets also had an advantage in economic planning because their resource base was so big, however in Poland they had tremendous shortages all through their socialist years.

ckaihatsu wrote:'It' being what, again -- ?


Post-modern Western liberalism.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Bonds of social cohesion' *is* socially-liberal.


In what way? I think the Chinese also value social cohesion.
#15256942
Political Interest wrote:
How would it be different to Leninism?



Form-follows-function here, I'd say, so it's difficult to imagine a revolutionary workers state as being anything *other* than Leninist, strictly.

That said, I think the 'vanguard' aspect is really just a *formality*, that reflects actual on-the-ground foment.


Political Interest wrote:
What is the alternative to nation states?



Two answers to that:

[1] *Generically* / illustratively I think there could be productive and consumptive 'zones', respectively:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image



[2] There is *zero* need for *any* standing-administration governmental-type bodies, including nation-states, because such exist today only to *enforce* elitist demographics / legacies, meaning class rule. My communistic 'labor credits' model has *zero* standing bodies, and no politicians or representatives whatsoever. The composition and 'reportage' of such a post-capitalist 'body politic' is another whole aspect of the model, at the link.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


---


Political Interest wrote:
So, because their governments are abysmal and allow them to be exploited and used by a foreign country this means they don't have a country?



Uh, *yeah* -- that would be a deal-breaker for *me*, anyway, certainly.


Political Interest wrote:
Every Indian nationalist fighter of the 1930s might have a slight problem with this idea :lol:. I think the problem is them having terrible governments rather than having countries.



Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to. (grin)


Political Interest wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't understand this idea. Please elaborate further.



Which part were you looking at?


Political Interest wrote:
Yes, it was a major stress on the economies of the Warsaw Pact states, but maintaining a massive bureaucratic centrally planned economy is also very difficult. There are all sorts of bottlenecks. After industrialisation is achieved it becomes very difficult to properly distribute consumer goods. Gorbachev's reforms made the economic situation in the USSR worse but there were already massive structural problems by the 1970s. The Soviets also had an advantage in economic planning because their resource base was so big, however in Poland they had tremendous shortages all through their socialist years.



'Industrialization' was probably a valid USSR government response *early on*, when the country *had* to industrialize and catch-up to the West, but then it inevitably ran into that 'purpose' problem that we all do, over time -- I think their focus on rapid industrialization led into an *inertia* / trajectory of *remaining* there, also falling into the deleterious arms race.

If anything you're being *kind*, because the human cost was *immense*, from unintended famines, especially.


Political Interest wrote:
Post-modern Western liberalism.



Okay, now *you're* going to have to elaborate, because this is swampy ground, of course.


Political Interest wrote:
In what way? I think the Chinese also value social cohesion.



No contention.
#15256944
ckaihatsu wrote:Form-follows-function here, I'd say, so it's difficult to imagine a revolutionary workers state as being anything *other* than Leninist, strictly.

That said, I think the 'vanguard' aspect is really just a *formality*, that reflects actual on-the-ground foment.


Lenin was a statist, was he not?

ckaihatsu wrote:[2] There is *zero* need for *any* standing-administration governmental-type bodies, including nation-states, because such exist today only to *enforce* elitist demographics / legacies, meaning class rule. My communistic 'labor credits' model has *zero* standing bodies, and no politicians or representatives whatsoever. The composition and 'reportage' of such a post-capitalist 'body politic' is another whole aspect of the model, at the link.


So will there be police, law and order? Taxes, administration? How can a country function without a state?

ckaihatsu wrote:Uh, *yeah* -- that would be a deal-breaker for *me*, anyway, certainly.


Asking people to forget their national identities is not going to work.

ckaihatsu wrote:Po-TA


What?

ckaihatsu wrote:Which part were you looking at?


All of it.

ckaihatsu wrote:'Industrialization' was probably a valid USSR government response *early on*, when the country *had* to industrialize and catch-up to the West, but then it inevitably ran into that 'purpose' problem that we all do, over time -- I think their focus on rapid industrialization led into an *inertia* / trajectory of *remaining* there, also falling into the deleterious arms race.


Well, people need essential commodities and consumer goods. When they can't get access to this they become discontented. I also think most people want to be able to make lots of money. In every country you need businessmen.

ckaihatsu wrote:If anything you're being *kind*, because the human cost was *immense*, from unintended famines, especially.


Yes, collectivisation of agriculture was a huge mistake.

ckaihatsu wrote:Okay, now *you're* going to have to elaborate, because this is swampy ground, of course.


People using rude language, people dressing badly, abysmal crass media, consumerism, materialism. Terrible music and television, terrible cinema.

Lack of social mores and decency. Pissheads and idiots making noise on the street and anti-social behaviour. Lack of safety in public places and risk of getting beaten up by aggressive idiots.
#15256945
Here are two segments of yours, sequentially:


Political Interest wrote:
So, because their governments are abysmal and allow them to be exploited and used by a foreign country this means they don't have a country?



Political Interest wrote:
Every Indian nationalist fighter of the 1930s might have a slight problem with this idea :lol:. I think the problem is them having terrible governments rather than having countries.



Watch what happens to the meaning when I *invert* the order: (!)


Political Interest wrote:
Every Indian nationalist fighter of the 1930s might have a slight problem with this idea :lol:. I think the problem is them having terrible governments rather than having countries.



Political Interest wrote:
So, because their governments are abysmal and allow them to be exploited and used by a foreign country this means they don't have a country?
#15256947
Political Interest wrote:
Lenin was a statist, was he not?



Even Lenin-as-a-statist only goes so far, because the workers state itself is *transitional* -- once humanity can produce for itself instead of for private interests then the vanguard will be *obsolete* at that point.


Political Interest wrote:
So will there be police, law and order? Taxes, administration? How can a country function without a state?



If you mean the transitional-workers-state, that topic isn't my strong suit, but it would presumably be sufficiently effective at outmaneuvering the forces of the bourgeoisie, building revolutionary political momentum towards the finish line, and internal-provisioning stuff, which is the same as for any other government, really.


Political Interest wrote:
Asking people to forget their national identities is not going to work.



Yeah, we covered that:


Political Interest wrote:
Everyone has a homeland and a country, it's no use trying to tell the working class they have no country.



ckaihatsu wrote:
*Fortunately* that's not what I'm doing -- I mean to say that the world's working class doesn't *logistically* require a global landscape of nation-states. The bourgeoisie, by contrast, *does*, because it parcels out land, etc., according to *rentier* values (non-commodity-productive private property), which then necessitates overarching administration / government.



viewtopic.php?p=15256935#p15256935



---


Political Interest wrote:
What?



Oh -- was just saying that one could say 'a-bad-government', or one could say 'a systematic pattern over time of bad government administrations', and those two statements would be nearly equivalent.


Political Interest wrote:
All of it.



Okay, cool -- as a matter of personal policy I usually try to find out some particular *aspect* of what you're looking for, and it's actually a *requirement*.


Political Interest wrote:
Well, people need essential commodities and consumer goods. When they can't get access to this they become discontented.



Sure. No argument.


Political Interest wrote:
I also think most people want to be able to make lots of money. In every country you need businessmen.



*Well*, this is a *fetish*, of course -- this political-like emphasis on the 'management' portion of commodity production is *very* problematic. Just a warning.


Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Political Interest wrote:
Yes, collectivisation of agriculture was a huge mistake.



Yeah, that's *Maoism* in particular. Tragic *and* avoidable.


Political Interest wrote:
People using rude language, people dressing badly, abysmal crass media, consumerism, materialism. Terrible music and television, terrible cinema.

Lack of social mores and decency. Pissheads and idiots making noise on the street and anti-social behaviour. Lack of safety in public places and risk of getting beaten up by aggressive idiots.



Hmmm, sounds a lot like 'crime', so I'm going to have to politely leave you to your own sentiments here.
#15256952
Fasces wrote:So literally nothing to say to defend US first-strike policy then, except that "WhAtAbOuT ChInA? ChInA wOuLd bE wOrSe"?


I didn't watch the OP video, it's 20 mins long. I was responding to your OP text post.

What is the summary idea of the video? I don't have an issue with the US first-strike policy that Biden recently signed off on, as I understand it. He campaigned on a no first-strike policy, which makes sense morally, but doesn't make sense strategically, because showing your enemies you have a first-strike option (even if you never use it) has strategic use as a method of deterrence. So now he signed off on a first-strike policy as a last resort. I'm quite certain the US won't ever use a first-strike nuke, it would be insane.

Look at Putin, I don't think he had any intention of using nukes as a first-strike, but just him mentioning the possibility puts fear in his opponents and makes them more hesitant in opposing Russia, which is the whole point. Russia having a first-strike policy and the US not puts them at a psychological disadvantage. No option should ever be off the table (publicly).
#15256954
Pants-of-dog wrote:We should, though.

If other countries can provide a standard of living that is equal to or greater than ours while using significantly less resources and creating far less pollution per person living at said standard, we should seek to emulate them. Those of us in Canada are actually far worse than the US and China.

It's hard to compare Canada 1:1 to the US or China. China doesn't have near the standard of living and their population density is far higher, as is the US. Canada also has colder winters than the US. It's not that Canada is "more wasteful", it's just a fluke based on their geography and climate and borders. But it's still better for the environment to have a small population spread out in cold weather than having a huge masses of people more densely located together, because total GHG output is far more important than per capita output.

I so not think that is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... c_of_China

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... nd_battles

I just think that the USA is more dangerous.

Give the CCP the power the US inherited after WWII and after 1989 and we'll see. It's not like the USSR behaved better than the USA. And the USSR locked its people behind walls, starved millions to death, and sent others to the gulag, and made war all around the world.

And I disagree that the USA has checks on its power. Even when it is blatant that the USA is going to war simply for oil and power, the populace meekly accepts it or supports it wholeheartedly.

There was a lot of opposition to the Iraq War, and Bush's popularity was quite low when he left office and people were starving for Obama and booted the GOP. But the Bush admin took advantage of post-9/11 patriotism to push a war a lot less people would have agreed with normally.

I didn't say the checks were perfect, there's still gaps, but it's significantly more than what the CCP has. It's a 1-party system. At least in America they can boot Trump if they no longer like him, and they did, and they booted the neocons too, for Mitt Romney and Obama. DeSantis is even leading in the polls for the GOP nomination over Trump.

Because I do not think that the government of China is able to have that much control, even if we assume that the Chinese are all evil and inscrutable and whatnot.

The CCP has so much control they even show up to your house in Canada if you're a Chinese-Canadian in order to threaten you to comply with whatever they want. It's no different inside the actual country. China also has 540 million CCTV cameras in the country to have surveillance on as many people as they can: https://quillette.com/2022/09/25/china- ... veillance/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... estigation

I think the level of authoritarianism in the USA is linked to things like skin colour, indigenous background, mental health, poverty, and several other factors. Rich white people can hold the government and police accountable. Some poor black trans person with neurological issues would have far less ability to hold the system accountable if their human rights were ignored.

Well under that definition you can say every country is authoritarian then. Either way, it's still a fact that the CCP is far more authoritarian than the US government, and it's not even close.
#15256960
Unthinking Majority wrote: I don't have an issue with the US first-strike policy that Biden recently signed off on, as I understand it. He campaigned on a no first-strike policy, which makes sense morally, but doesn't make sense strategically, because showing your enemies you have a first-strike option (even if you never use it) has strategic use as a method of deterrence. So now he signed off on a first-strike policy as a last resort. I'm quite certain the US won't ever use a first-strike nuke, it would be insane.



You asked what are some steps the world can take to create a more stable and peace-governed international system.

Part of that is for the US to assume some risk. You immediately fall back to the cowardly thought patterns of the US State Department.

It would be a good thing for the world for every nation with nukes to abandon a first-strike policy and to put their nukes in a defensive posture that renders them unable to be used in a first strike without significant advance warning. China has done this. India has done this. The USA refuses, because of insane need to establish strategic primacy, a need you yourself can't see past. Ultimately it comes to assuming risk - Biden should adopt that policy because it is morally good, creates a more safe international system, and because the US has enough conventional forces that it doesn't even need the first strike option to establish a deterrant. Who the fuck is going to invade the US because their nukes are stored underground, not flying all over the world to be accidently dropped in the Spanish countryside?

It's such an easy step to take. It poses no real danger to the US. The US leadership and populace refuses to do it because of this obsession with invincibility.

Unthinking Majority wrote:What is the video about?


It is about how the US obsession with invincibility and strategic primacy creates and perpetuates a strategic environment that makes the world more dangerous, especially with regard to missile defense systems.
#15256962

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. It concerns the Israeli settlements in "Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem". The resolution passed in a 14–0 vote by members of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). Four members with United Nations Security Council veto power, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, voted for the resolution, while the United States abstained.[1]

The resolution states that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity". It demands that Israel stop such activity and fulfill its obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention.[2][3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ution_2334
#15256976
Fasces wrote:It's such an easy step to take. It poses no real danger to the US. The US leadership and populace refuses to do it because of this obsession with invincibility.

It is about how the US obsession with invincibility and strategic primacy creates and perpetuates a strategic environment that makes the world more dangerous, especially with regard to missile defense systems.


Honestly I can't really comment since I didn't watch the video. I don't know what "invincibility" exactly means.
#15256978
Fasces wrote:You asked what are some steps the world can take to create a more stable and peace-governed international system.

Part of that is for the US to assume some risk. You immediately fall back to the cowardly thought patterns of the US State Department.

It would be a good thing for the world for every nation with nukes to abandon a first-strike policy and to put their nukes in a defensive posture that renders them unable to be used in a first strike without significant advance warning. China has done this. India has done this. The USA refuses, because of insane need to establish strategic primacy, a need you yourself can't see past. Ultimately it comes to assuming risk - Biden should adopt that policy because it is morally good, creates a more safe international system, and because the US has enough conventional forces that it doesn't even need the first strike option to establish a deterrant. Who the fuck is going to invade the US because their nukes are stored underground, not flying all over the world to be accidently dropped in the Spanish countryside?

It's such an easy step to take. It poses no real danger to the US. The US leadership and populace refuses to do it because of this obsession with invincibility.


One of the problems is enforcing the policy. China and India can say whatever they want in terms of policy, but how does the US or anyone else know this is actually what they're doing? You'd need a team of inspectors in all these countries to ensure compliance. If that's the case ok it could work. The moment tensions flare the inspectors would get the boot I'd imagine. These things are complicated. My assumption is no country, including China, does much of anything just to be "nice".

I assume the US never wants to give up one inch of power the same reason other countries don't. Because of fear and insecurity and wanting to further the interests of your own county because nobody else is going to. You're asking the US to voluntarily give up some of its power, but what assurances does it have that their opponents won't knife them in the back 10 years from now, and then the US is the fool. That's a tall ask based on nothing more at the moment than faith.

What countries like the US, Russia, China, Iran etc need to do is build trust and partnership relationships. Yes sure the US needs to lead that, but it also takes 2 to tango. It seemed like Obama tried with Russia, but Putin hated him by the end for whatever reason, I'm sure he had some legit reasons. Putin, CCP, Iran aren't exactly the most trustworthy actors. US too I suppose. When the Bush admin went into Iraq and engaged in torture and rendition I think the US lost a lot of credibility and trust, it created new norms where countries like Russia could feel free to invade other counties illegally too. Why would they obey international law when the US doesn't?
#15256979
Unthinking Majority wrote:One of the problems is enforcing the policy. China and India can say whatever they want in terms of policy, but how does the US or anyone else know this is actually what they're doing?


Again, you're relying on the same fear that motivates US policy. The risk can never be zero, and striving for that is both unrealistic and dangerous.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon and Department of Defense, confirm that China is unable to launch a first strike nuclear attack and maintains a small nuclear arsenal on peacetime readiness.

“…China almost certainly keeps the majority of its nuclear force on a peacetime status—with separated launchers, missiles, and warheads…” (https%3A//media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/%2D1/%2D1/1/2020%2DDOD%2DCHINA%2DMILITARY%2DPOWER%2DREPORT%2DFINAL.PDF) page 88

Unthinking Majority wrote:You're asking the US to voluntarily give up some of its power, but what assurances does it have that their opponents won't knife them in the back 10 years from now, and then the US is the fool. That's a tall ask based on nothing more at the moment than faith.


The US, as the largest military force on the planet, needs to take the first step. There are no assurances. Nonetheless, it is a step the US must take.

Unthinking Majority wrote:it also takes 2 to tango


The short-term achievable goals that the US could unilaterally make tomorrow that would help establish trust are 1) adopt a NFU policy and go to peacetime nuclear readiness in a manner similar to the PRC and ROI, and 2) agree to abide by international institutions such as the International Court of Justice, UNCLOS, and others.

In the case of 1), the US's largest rivals have already adopted such a policy, in the case of 2), the US expects the world to abide by these institutions but not itself. It should put its money where its mouth is and create credibility in what international norms and institutions do exist by agreeing to them.

Until the US is willing to demonstrate its commitment to the bare minimum, how can it expect others to do the same?
#15256988
Mad Works.

Mutual Assured Destruction has worked for a long time, and it will continue to work.

While there may not be a NFU on paper, we have been using MAD at the same time. NATO was afraid of a crapload of Russian military invading, and kept a preemptive nuclear strike option open. But it's been obvious, since the beginning, that a major European war wouldn't stay conventional. As soon as one side is losing, out come the nukes. That's why we have been so generous with Ukraine, we want to degrade Russian military capability before they get to a NATO country.

If you want something to worry about, worry about war moving into Space. We have avoided war in the past by hesitation. A conflict in Space will cut the time down where you can hesitate to minutes. Humans don't react intelligently on that time scale.
#15256989
late wrote:
Mad Works.

Mutual Assured Destruction has worked for a long time, and it will continue to work.

While there may not be a NFU on paper, we have been using MAD at the same time. NATO was afraid of a crapload of Russian military invading, and kept a preemptive nuclear strike option open. But it's been obvious, since the beginning, that a major European war wouldn't stay conventional. As soon as one side is losing, out come the nukes. That's why we have been so generous with Ukraine, we want to degrade Russian military capability before they get to a NATO country.

If you want something to worry about, worry about war moving into Space. We have avoided war in the past by hesitation. A conflict in Space will cut the time down where you can hesitate to minutes. Humans don't react intelligently on that time scale.



---



NATO chief Stoltenberg suggested the INF Treaty could be expanded to include countries such as China and India, an idea that both the US and Russia had indicated being open to, although Russia had expressed skepticism that such an expansion could be achieved.[91]



On 8 March 2019, the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine announced that since the US and Russia had both pulled out of the treaty, it now had the right to develop intermediate-range missiles, citing Russian aggression as a serious threat to the European continent, and the presence of Russian Iskander-M nuclear-capable missile systems in Russian-annexed Crimea.[95] Ukraine was home to about forty percent of the Soviet space industry, but never developed a missile with the range to strike Moscow,[96] only having both longer and shorter-ranged missiles, but has the capability to develop intermediate-range missiles.[97] Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko said "We need high-precision missiles and we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum", which had provided security assurances relating to the accession of Ukraine and other former Soviet states to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.[96]

After the US withdrew from the treaty, some commentators wrote that this might allow the country to more effectively counter Russia and China's missile forces.[98][99][100]

The INF Treaty’s demise also needs to be understood in the broader context of the gradual erosion of the strategic arms control regime that started with the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, one of the foundations of strategic stability.[101][opinion]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermedi ... withdrawal
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 14
We hit the debt ceiling thursday

If the US defaulted on its debt, meaning it would[…]

@wat0n I have no idea how that is a reply to […]

XogGyux, human exploitation is a choice. It is no[…]

I think our conceptions of 'living', and 'politic[…]