Russia Reportedly Violating START Nuclear Arms Treaty

According to a report on FoxNews, defense officials claim that the Russians are violating the most recent nuclear weapons treaty by failing to destroy the components of SS-25 ICBMs. They are simply unbolting the components instead of destroying them which means in the future they could be easily reassembled.

One more reason not to trust the Russians.

All nuclear armed countries are violating the non-proliferation treaty by not working to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Of course, you don't have a problem with that. Or with treaty violations in general.

What can you do? START was dead when the US waived their treaty obligations to build a nuclear "defence" shield in Russia's front garden.

ABM Treaty is no longer in effect. The U.S. withdrew from it using proper provisions outlined in the text of the treaty itself.

The U.S. never signed or ratified any treaty prohibiting deployment of anti missile systems in Eastern Europe.

The U.S. has dismantled more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world (aside from the U.S.S.R.) ever built. I would say that the U.S. has done more than its share of eliminating nuclear weapons.

The requirement was that they work to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. They clearly are not doing so, thus are in violation.

And again, if you weren't being dishonest, you'd admit that you have no problem with treaty violations when it suits the US, and consider the US unbound when it suits the "national interest", an absurd degree of leeway which you hypocritically refuse to allow to other nations.
You forget that you've posted about this before.

Both points are debatable, but that's not the point. Even if you were right on both counts, that wouldn't change the fact that the US threatened Russia instead of pursuing disarmament. The best you can do is show that they did so within the letter of the law.

ABMs threaten no one. If the Russians are so upset about ABMs why don't they build their own system?

Of that's right.

They already have one protecting Moscow and have had it for decades.

That doesn't make my point any less relevant.

Yes it does. You really don't comprehend why trying to hold someone else to a different standard than yourself is a problem for any argument you make on that basis, do you?

That's bullshit, and you know it. The American shield was set to target incomings over Eastern Europe and Russian soil, and that's not even getting into its breaking MAD. You can try again if and when Putin stations a shield in Canada and Mexico, with missile trajectories pointed at New York.

How many jizz-bullets hit Dayton's TV screen as he heard this report?
My random guess, a baker's dozen.

Putin can't station missiles in Canada given that Canada is a NATO ally of the United States.

As for Mexico it would make no difference to me as long as the ABMs were non nuclear (like Americas).

Most American nuclear missiles are submarine based and would be unaffected by ABMs in Mexico.

Spin.

If the rest of the world has built one of something, I build twenty and get rid of fifteen, I've still worsened the situation, not helped it.

And the U.S. hasn't even tested any nuclear weapons in what 25 years.

@Dayton3, meet the point; point, meet Dayton.

"Treaties are meaningless" - Dayton L. Kitchens

Do we really need to? I think we have that down to a science by now. Japan might weigh in on this though.

Someone needs to, and soon. How am I supposed to get my superpowers without a nuclear test to kick start them.

Treaties are supposed to constrain other countries. The Russians in this case.

I don't believe they should restrict the freedom of action of the United States based on the principle of super sovereignty that I've explained a number of times here and elsewhere.

Yet again, it's do as I say, not as I do with you, eh? You're unreal.

Of course. It is the way of the world.

Only in your delusion.

That said, people with your kind of attitude are the reasons we still have oppression and wars.

You give us way too much credit.

Then you shouldn't be surprised that other nations consider treaty obligations with the US to be less than binding.

Not surprised what they consider but they should still consider any treaty obligation they sign on to with the U.S. to be utterly and completely binding.

Why should they if you're saying America can just ignore it's own obligations?

Because the United States given its status as the most important nation on Earth. Most important to peace, stability, and prosperity (that benefits all nations) is allowed to determine which treaties it honors and breaks.

Other nations don't have that.

God, you're fucking stupid.

If the U.S. doesn't follow its own treaties, how do you expect other countries to? Fear?