Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Say Goodbye To More Nukes
SYSOP    4/15/2014 6:32:18 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
ddg       4/15/2014 8:21:33 AM
Of course everyone knows how well Putin keeps treaties.
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/15/2014 11:41:31 AM
The Americans too under Obama, because they BROKE the same !@#$%^& treaties.
Of course everyone knows how well Putin keeps treaties.

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/15/2014 2:34:12 PM
The Americans too under Obama, because they BROKE the same !@#$%^& treaties.
Of course everyone knows how well Putin keeps treaties.
Which ones did Obama break and how?
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/15/2014 4:33:48 PM
The ones which guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity of course.
 
Not hard to figure that one out. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

frylock       4/15/2014 7:42:51 PM
"The ones which guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity of course.
 
Not hard to figure that one out. "
 
Actually it is.
 
The US did not violate Ukraine "soverignty or teritorial integrity".
 
Nowhere in the treaty does it state the US must use military force to protect Ukraine's  "soverignty or teritorial integrity"
 
Sorry there is no equivalence here. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       4/16/2014 10:19:34 AM
"Nowhere in the treaty does it state the US must use military force to protect Ukraine's  "sovereignty or territorial integrity"
 
Agreed.  But I think it was very unwise to do  so very little about it..  The lesson here for nations aspiring to own nuclear weapons, or nations with nuclear weapons (that we wish would give them up)...
 
A signed slip  paper has no real defensive value.. while a nuclear weapons program, might just keep your unfriendly neighbors out and your territorial integrity intact.
 
Is that the lesson we want nations to take away from this incident?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       4/16/2014 9:35:19 PM
Yes there is.
 
The equivalence is this:
 
 
Q.E.D.
 
 

 
Sorry there is no equivalence here. 
 
 


 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/17/2014 5:30:24 AM
Yes there is.
 
The equivalence is this:
 
 
Q.E.D.
 
 
Sorry there is no equivalence here. 
Sorry, the site editor seems to have messed up your response. I am assuming that you are referring to frylock’s post.
 
I fail to see how the document you referenced supports your claim. Could you indicate or copy the relevant section?
 
Quote    Reply

Sty0pa       4/17/2014 12:07:40 PM
 
 "Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. The Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the United States of America of December 4, 2009 confirmed their commitment."
 
Essentially the agreement was "give up the nukes you inherited from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and we'll ensure you are secure".
This was not a treaty, it was not a guarantee.  This ALONE affirmed to anyone watching at the time that it was toilet paper, not worth the ink used to print it.
NEVERTHELESS, one would hope that the US would stand by general assertions of policy, and not hide behind pedantic hairsplitting.
 
Again, for anyone paying attention: the Obama administration has shown our allies that the US holds its word to be rather cheap, and to examine our IOUs very carefully for 'escape clauses'.  I'm not even saying we had any geopolitical choice here: the original memo was stupid anti-nuke grandstanding, and there was NEVER a possible future where US forces were going to be deployed to protect the Ukraine from it's most likely predator: Russia.  (Seriously, there's nobody else that mattered; did we think Ukraine was going to be attacked by Moldova?)
My guess is that our abandonment-in-principle-if-not-in-letter will be the impetus for at least a half-dozen surreptitious nuclear development programs on the planet.
 
We've *proven* nonproliferation is a joke.  Nukes are the 'ace' card, hard to use in any context but the ultimate guarantor of a state.  The only possible argument against acquiring such a weapon is the idea that an overwhelmingly powerful trustworthy state would instead guarantee sovereignty at least as reliably as having a handful of your own nukes.
 
The key word being "trustworthy". 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/18/2014 3:45:38 AM
Though I find myself agreeing with much of your low opinion of the current US administration, the agreement does NOT a suicide pact requiring the US to instantly go to war with anyone attacking the Ukraine.
 
Diplomatic means are being taken, and economic means are being threatened.  If / when those don't succeed in resolving the issue then military force may come into play.
 
p.s.  The US and Russia have announced an agreement.  No details are available, but I'll bet that the Russians bargained the Administration down to something vague enough to twist 7 ways before Sunday.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics