Trump wants denuclearization talks with Russia and China, hopes for defense spending cuts
Trump wants denuclearization talks with Russia and China, hopes for defense spending cuts
didn't Trump pull out of the last denuclearization treaty?
I was gonna make a joke about this being the thing that finally makes Democrats fight Trump... But then I saw all the pro-nuke .world comments. We're so cooked
USA have absolutely abysmal records of upholding nuclear disarmament so IF it is even a serious proposition, the reason for it it's the quickly incoming time when Minutemen missiles will have to be decomissioned while its replacement is so much overbudget and overtime that it seriously risk scrapping of entire project. Meaning the perspective USA will lose main part of its strategic armament is real.
Also you never, ever trust USA on any nuclear deals.
Also let's not forget that the US is literally hiring Elon Musk to help then "win" the nuclear war, their words not mine.
How anyone can think their denuclearization proposal is in good faith is beyond me.
Since this actually sounds like a good decision... Over/under on Trump promising to double the amount of nukes and turn China into a nuclear wasteland unless they do something for him, by the end of next week?
I don’t know gambling metrics and terminology, so I’ll just answer “yes.”
Denuclearizing worked out so well for Ukraine.
Having less nukes is not the same as disarmament it's not even comparable. They dropped two nukes and did that much destruction in Japan, 2, and those were 1940s nukes, even with this change the US would still have thousands of nukes.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/
the United States admits to having 5,550
Ukraine went to 0 nukes, the US has 5000+ nukes, how would that even be comparable if the US let's say went down to 1000 nukes. That's still 1000 nukes more than 0.
Nukes wouldn't have saved them from being couped
I'll believe it when I see it. Military spending increased in his first term and talk is cheap.
If he actually followed through on cutting the military budget by half, it'd be an incredible move and I'd start considering him the lesser evil. But it's all for show, it's triangulation to appeal to certain groups. End of the day, he's a right winger and right wingers won't cut the military.
The comments in this thread are prime examples of why Democrats lost the election.
Denuclearization is a good thing.
Yes it's a good thing, but the US is utterly devoid of honour and trustworthiness and there's no chance they will actually follow through with denuclearizing their own arsenal, so this proposal is meaningless and no country should take it seriously.
True. The US is the only country that ever used them and the only country where politicians regularly threaten to use them. Somehow though they get to act as if they are the only ones that can be trusted with them.
A good thing for the country with bigger conventional warfare capabilities, none sovereign country is giving up their nuclear deterrence after what happened to Libya.
It is nominally a good thing. In the real world, however, I'd be working as hard as possible to ensure I had a nuclear program to discourage specifically Donald, Putin, and Elon
Those three aren't as bad as Netanyahu and he too has nuclear weapons.
No it's not. Maybe you haven't heard but there is a war in Ukraine. They gave up nukes in exchange for pinky swear promises that their sovereignty would be respected.
I dont care if you think Ukraine couldn't use them or if they would have been invaded if they didn't agree. The Ukraine war is a giant fucking advertisement for owning nukes.
The only thing psychotic hairless apes understand is immense violence. We are not civilized. We are cavemen with atom bombs and spaceships.
Every country should own nukes. Every country without nukes doesn't matter and is ripe for exploitation or invasion.
Every country should own nukes.
I agree with this.
Everyone who downvoted you were wrong and you were right about having nuclear weapon. The whole damn point of nuclear weapon is to raise the cost of going to war with said country so that nobody ever fucking try to go and start a war. This is single-handedly the biggest contributor to the longest period of peace in our history. We would've already been well in our way to WW5 or WW6 if we didn't have nukes.
I thought Lemmy might be different, but it's astroturfed to hell.
“We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully much more productive,” Trump said.
🫨
Like lining the pockets of me and my owners while systematically weakening the country
That's the sad part. They only get the first half right. 😂
So what's gonna happen when a finger on the monkey's paw curls for this?
As much as I hate it, the doctrine of mutual destruction seems to work. The removal of it might lead to immediate hot world war
Never gonna happen, cant trust the wild beast
I refuse to believe trump will do anything decent like this
Seems like a good deal to me.
Yeah because we're both super duper good at keeping our promises.
What he actually wants is denuclearization for only China and Russia so the US can use its unchecked nuclear force to threaten the world.
Everyone's perspective is the same on Lemmy it seems or close and its getting old so much snide comments and negativity. We all should consider this a win regardless of how goofy any side is, its the thought that this approach is reaching the decision makers. Planting the seed.
I think this is likely one of the smartest things Trump has ever persued if it comes to fruition even partially a mere slither. The modern battlefield is fought with technology. Using drones/robots and infosec psyop and the list goes on and on.
Conventional war has more risk than worth now days leaves nothing but a pile of rocks nothing to claim but dirt.
While I don't think anyone will give them up soon sure even bad actors will hodl old means eventually the value prop and cost to maintain will sputter out, we all should know we have been heading that direction for a very long time. Progress no matter how small is a step in the right direction.
You can trust Lemmy for serious and well informed political analysis!
But seriously though,I agree with you. Lemmy doesn't seem to have heard of SALT treaties and act as though there is no precedence. While not perfect, it is better than nothing.
Idiots thought can fool the other 2. 🤣
Trueanon rule 6: never give up your nukes.
When orange man starts talking about denuclearization agreements
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we see a rush toward re-nuclearization after these last couple years.
What are the odds Ukraine would be invaded by Russia if they had nukes?
Would Trump be joking about making Canada a 51st state if they had nukes?
Trump and the rest of the American government is showing NATO and every other country that we're one election away from abandoning our promises to our allies. Nobody can be trusted.
Any country would be a fool to consider giving up their nukes after seeing the shitshow.
so he is about to sell america out. good luck, voters
i guess ill look forward to /conservativeMemes about how bending the knee is is a good thing.
“hUrRr rUsSiA sTaNdS fOr PeAcE iN eUrOpE”
Yeah with all the ways he seems to be actively trying to ruin the country I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to see him have the US do it first and then the others "can follow" after they see we did it.
Except what they'll follow with are nukes aimed at us to ensure we can never get in their ways again. :/
As long as he gets a few million Rubles and Yuan in his pocket, he would absolutely do this.
downvote? how about explaining.
Not the downvoter, but how about you explaining how restarting nuclear disarmament talks is selling out the American people?
The world is closer to nuclear war now then ever in history. It is now 89 seconds to midnight
America has already been sold out. Almost every year, no matter who's in charge, the military gets bigger while everything else gets cut. The only people who benefit from it are military contractors and politicians. Of all the many wars since WWII, not one of them has actually benefitted ordinary people, and a lot of them have made the lives of ordinary people much worse for no reason. But because it's what the rich want, there's complete bipartisan support for it. People are struggling more and more every day to access education, healthcare, even basic necessities, while even our infrastructure is falling apart, but we have an endless supply of bombs and weapons, spending more on that than the next 9 countries combined.
If you actually care about US security, you should support cutting the military in favor of domestic spending, because at this point, who's going to stick their neck out to protect such a dysfunctional system? But no, even the supposedly "left-leaning" party is fully on board with militarism and jingoism while the core rots. To the point of attacking conservatives from the right over it!
As I say in my other comment in this thread, Trump isn't actually going to cut the military, he increased military spending in his first term and will most likely do so again. However, because of insane liberals who somehow still believe in "benevolent interventionism" even after Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump is able to triangulate and pick up antiwar, libertarian types who can't see through his act. Liberals do everything in their power to help him by openly supporting militarism and denouncing anyone who opposes it as a "Russian bot" (or similar), regardless of their reasons.
The bizarre thing is how someone can square the circle of angrily opposing military cuts while not recognizing that they're a right-winger.
The man’s playing 4D chess with nukes again. Proposing to halve defense budgets while the world’s still a tinderbox—classic Trumpian audacity. Because inviting autocrats to a firesale on their only leverage is peak stability strategy.
Russia’s already ditched New START, China’s sprinting toward nuclear parity, and here we are, recycling the same failed playbook. Arms control via vibes and handshakes—because trusting Putin and Xi to pinky-swear their way to disarmament worked so well last time.
The math doesn’t lie: Cold War stockpiles could glass the planet a hundred times over. Modernizing them isn’t strategy—it’s a pissing contest funded by taxpayer dollars. But slashing budgets unilaterally? That’s not diplomacy; it’s naivety with a side of geopolitical Russian roulette.
Maybe focus on not setting the Middle East and Ukraine ablaze first. Priorities, folks.
Love how you think it's Russia and China that made empty promises meanwhile the USA unilaterally pulled out of every nuclear treaty, direct NATO to bomb sovereign countries, pinky swore to Saddam that Saddam could take military action in Kuwait and then subsequently invaded him, work with Siemens to install wiretaps in every single ambassador's phone literally all over the world, has a standing policy to invade the international court of justice if an American is ever on trial, is the largest drug trafficking operation in the world, actively engaged in torture programs by just moving prisoners to other nations and torturing them there, trains death squads and unleashes them on poor and indigenous communities in Latin America, and has dropped more bombs during "peacetime" than China has during its entire modern existence.
But yeah, it's China and Russia who can't be trusted.
Looking at these comments: so now liberals love nuclear weapons?
Americans are ruled by a politics of opposition. Anything Trump does, the opposite must be good. Anything Biden does, the opposite must be good. Nobody thinks about anything from scratch.
if that was the case, trump would be antizionist
Not trusting Russia used to be bipartisan.
This isn't something you should be proud of lol
Bilateral denuclearization agreements with Russia used to be bipartisan, too.
Not really, you people just killed and imprisoned anyone that wasn't racist towards Russians for years until there wasn't anyone outwardly neutral or positive towards Russia.