Fasces wrote:Who on earth said anything about that?
Oh, sorry, then let's leave it at "stopping missile R&D" then.
Fasces wrote:Who cares? The US should follow suit.
Again, not decommission. Not get rid of. Not end R&D research, as @wat0n put it. Simply put them into a peacetime mode, as China has.
Si vis pacem, para bellum is a peacetime strategy by definition. And the US is currently (since 2021) in peacetime.
@AFAIK that already exists, it's how (theoretically binding) international legal customs are established - once 2/3 of (UN member) states ratify some international convention, it is said to become customary international law and binding. Even then, it STILL makes little sense for the US (and pretty much any other country, including those who aren't even regional powers) to pretend it is truly binding.
There is still no systematic enforcement mechanism of many of these norms, including those related to things like genocide (let alone conventions dealing with more mundane topics), simply because there is currently no world government. So why would the Great Powers suddenly be truly bound by them?
You could say breaking these norms may entail a big political cost (domestic and diplomatic), but if the matter is serious enough it may be worth it. It's the kind of dilemma Russia might be facing right now regarding using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, doing so would be extremely costly politically both domestically (many Russians don't regard Ukrainians as aliens) and abroad (with likely deep diplomatic consequences such as turning Russia into a pariah, economic sanctions, perhaps even NATO military action) yet if Russia's military situation truly becomes untenable, such as Ukraine occupying Crimea or parts of Russia proper, Putin may still decide to go for it.
If China or Russia want to stop a possible arms race, they are free to step up and offer a tripartite deal to that effect. I suspect that, even then, it would not stop but only be put it under some measure of control (e.g. like nuclear test bans). What I don't understand is why would the US do so (let alone act unilaterally to that effect) when it doesn't seem like it is the actor that would need it the most - even financially it doesn't seem to be that big of a factor and military spending is definitely not the biggest threat to the US' government finances in the long run.