CNN: Trump says the US is ending decades-old nuclear arms treaty with Russia

[soryang]

Trump says US is ending decades-old nuclear arms treaty with Russia
By Sophie Tatum, Ryan Browne and Kevin Bohn, CNN

Updated 9:19 PM ET, Sat October 20, 2018

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump announced Saturday that the US is pulling out of the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, a decades-old agreement that has drawn the ire of the President.

"Russia has violated the agreement. They've been violating it for many years," Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One to leave Nevada following a campaign rally.

"And I don't know why President Obama didn't negotiate or pull out. And we're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we're not allowed to," he said. "We're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we've honored the agreement..."

and:

Trump, speaking with reporters on Saturday, referenced China when explaining his reasoning for pulling out of the agreement.

More:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/20/politics/donald-trump-us-arms-agreement-russia/index.html

[lapfog_1]

1. My guess is that Putin wanted out but doesn't want to be tagged with it

So he got his lapdog Donny to do it for him.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

3. My thoughts exactly.

ALL those diplomatic hours of honorable negotiation on all these treaties, and he's just shredding them. It'll take so much work to fix what he tears up in a fit.

[NurseJackie]

2. Been nice knowing you.

[democratisphere]

4. drumpf has been itching for target practice with nuclear weapons since he took office.

I'm heading to Antarctica to avoid the coming Nuclear Winter. Might be back in the Spring if drumpf hasn't blown the world to Kingdom Come.

[John Fante]

5. Gump already said he wants to invest heavily in more nukes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna809701

This is just an excuse to start doling out defense contracts. Talk about wasteful spending.

[former9thward]

10. This is an Obama administration policy.

However, there is one facet of national security -- arguably the most important one -- where President Obama is turning out to be a real hardliner. That area is nuclear weapons. Obama has backed investment in new nuclear delivery systems, upgraded warheads, resilient command networks, and industrial sites for fabricating nuclear hardware that, when added to the expense of maintaining the existing arsenal, will cost $348 billion between 2015 and 2024. At least, that's what the Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year. If the Obama plan continues to be funded by his successors, it will be the biggest U.S. buildup of nuclear arms since Ronald Reagan left the White House.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/12/15/obama-backs-biggest-nuclear-arms-buildup-since-cold-war/#22f9e3d52a0f

[John Fante]

11. Nice whataboutism.

Upgrading existing systems =/= increasing nuclear warheads. Those dropped under the Obama administration, as they have under every administration since the Cold War ended.

[former9thward]

14. According to the Federation of American Scientists they dropped at the lowest rate

of any recent administration.





https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/05/hiroshima-stockpile/

[John Fante]

15. Keep spinning. Looks like Obama had the fourth largest drop of the nuclear era.

Wasn't he supposed to be a "hardliner" on nukes? So much for that argument, eh?

[former9thward]

16. Nice spin.

You notice scientists don't buy it. I will be waiting for links to your assertions. I hope you give them. I am willing to be educated. Are you?

[John Fante]

17. Link? I'm referencing the numbers in the graph YOU posted.

Your attempts to deflect blame from Trump have failed.

[VOX]

6. "...we're not going to let them...go out and do weapons and we're not allowed to..."

“They get to play with their toys, and I don’t? Either I get to play with my toys JUST like they do, or I’ll take my nukes and go home!” (“Just kidding. Vlad told me to scuttle this, and he’s my BEST friend!”)

[RockRaven]

7. Here's a bit of journalistic malpractice evident in this article:

nowhere in the article does it explain what authority the executive branch has to make this determination, or what the treaty says about the mechanism for withdrawal is if some entity (POTUS? Congress? someone else?) deems Russia in violation, nor what the consequences, in terms of predicted Russian reaction to no longer being even nominally bound by this treaty, are.

What a load of lazy twaddle...

Anyone who reads this article and thinks they understand what is going on... you are fooling yourself. Given the behavior of Trump and the GOP Congress and Putin in the past decade (or less), these omissions from this supposedly explanatory article are really unforgivable.

It's almost as if CNN is content to dumb down their content to the 4th-grade level that USA Today aspires to... oh, wait, they are, as long as they get ratings and clicks.

[soryang]

9. The Guardian article mentioned the notice provisions

Article XV. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

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

[RockRaven]

12. Dear CNN: when The Guardian is providing more facts/context than you are, you've f-ed up royally

Perhaps that is too harsh... maybe I should reserve that scurrilous comparison for The Daily Mail.

[soryang]

13. I don't think the NY Times article addressed your points either nt

[Grassy Knoll]

8. " OBAMA- " Drink, LOL...

This Fuck Cant Handle Being Prez, Blame Game.