Unthinking Majority wrote:The US isn't going to do this unilaterally, nor should they.
This is where we disagree. The US should absolutely do this unilaterally, to show good faith and help repair broken trust.
Unthinking Majority wrote:The good faith should be the US's willingness to do this.
This is only demonstrated after the fact, regardless of the buy in of other powers. To show trust is to assume risk.
If the US is unwilling to assume risk, it isn't demonstrating trust. Trust = risk.
These three policy shifts represent a minimal amount of risk and are a powerful show of American good faith.
They are the bare minimum I would expect from the US before I start assigning blame for lack of additional progress to other powers.
Arms races are dangerous by definition.
wat0n wrote:If anything, China has also been aggressive in the not so distant past. Just ask Vietnam.
A single conflict fifty years ago, compared to US foreign policy within the past fifty years.
wat0n wrote:Why couldn't the policy change overnight? Especially if an attempt to use conventional military force fails.
Chinese missiles are literally disassembled, as confirmed by US sources. The warhead, the missile, and the nuclear core are all maintained in separate facilities. To assemble them would not be instantaneous. Adopting and exercising an NFU policy would help prevent nuclear war just because of that additional action required prior to being able to activate a nuclear strike.
wat0n wrote:But it doesn't have a NFU policy, now. And therefore NATO (not just the US) can't afford to have one.
let me know when China joins the ICC.
My entire point is that the US, as the premier power, should make the first move.
This is a minimal amount of risk. You can't build trust without assuming risk, and this is a minimal amount of risk for the US to take on in the interest of building trust.
If the US is unwilling to assume risk, it is not demonstrating trust.
wat0n wrote:It's interesting how it is the US who always has to take these first steps.
The US is the dominant power. Yes, the US should take the first step. It should put its money where its mouth is. It is the one that built this world order, and which expects other nations to abide by its rules - it should demonstrate its willingness to do so itself. Why propose the ICJ and other similar institutions at all, why endorse it, if it was unwilling to be constrained by it?
Why should other powers trust that the US, which has already proposed the creation of these institutions and then refused to abide by them, would abide by them following their assent?
The US broke international trust in these institutions when it pulled out of the ICJ after Nicaragua v United States
, after it demonstrated
to be constrained by the very institutions that should constrain ALL actors. The onus is on the US to act "first", as a result.
wat0n wrote:How many artificial islands is the US building in Canadian waters?
If the US has no ill-intent, why won't the US sign UNCLOS and respect its rulings?
wat0n wrote: The US and the Soviets did trust each other enough to know that there would be some nuclear enforcement of certain red lines.
We have very different definitions of trust if a Mexican stand-off comes anywhere to meaning 'trust' to you.