Is there a "good reason" we're not being told about?...do we no longer need to worry about a nuclear war? BTW, the article mentions that G.H.W. Bush initiated the program.
Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-treaty-aversion-destroying-cold-war-safety-nets-hastening-ncna1214391
Maybe Biden should offer to reinstate if China signs on also.
Link: https://apnews.com/article/china-us-withdrawal-open-skies-treaty-dc5d2f77537464c48568e39e628f9ade
It was first proposed by Eisenhower, but enacted after the Cold War. It allowed overflights by signatories, to build confidence and decrease the possibility of accidental nuclear war.
Trump killed it because his admin was full of absolute morons.
Biden can rejoin, probably, which would certainly be in the US national interest.
(no message)
Open Skies was designed to prevent accidental nuclear war. An accident is the most likely way one would start.
It was one of the best little agreements we had. Scrapping it was pointless.
It's based on old technology. If it can be updated and the Chinese added I would agree with you.
Objections to it like the crap Pompeo spouted are the cold-war leftovers, not the treaty itself.
It is important to let other countries know that we are not planning a nuclear first strike, Allows them to relax a little, and makes accidental nuclear war less likely.
The Chinese are not relevant here. Their nuclear arsenal is small and not built for offense.
The Treaty on Open Skies was signed in March 1992 in Helsinki by 23 member nations of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
I certainly don't think we should sign a treaty, and then be the only one complying with it.
But, rest assured, Biden will rejoin. He likes treaties that drain the United States of resources and put us at a disadvantage. He thinks that is the friendly thing to do. We will now be doing that in economic treaties/agreements, foreign policy, climate policy, border security, etc. Non-citizens will again take precedence over US citizens. Oh well. It is what it is.
Link: https://www.state.gov/on-the-treaty-on-open-skies/
American public...Republicans need to challenge the Biden proposals, with a goal of achieving "Progress" as opposed to "Perfection" (my pet "theme")...i.e. no more of this "My Way or the Highway"...dig in your heels until you get your ideal outcome. It sounds "smarmy", but I'm excited about the prospect of terrific accomplishments in multiple areas if we can find our leaders truly committed to progress. I'm not naive regarding moneyed interests, etc...but a few "successes" in the early going could be 'habit forming'.
My personal 'quest' is getting unequivocal acceptance of Nuclear Power as the chosen "Grid Level' element of our future energy strategy by Biden and the Dem Party, so I empathize with those who champion other issues.
(no message)
maintain an open mind and Biden's 'profile' on issues indicates a openness to all sources of energy that don't add CO2...As shown in that on-line book I've recommended ("Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air"), the numbers are compelling when you have to make real world decisions, so I remain confident...but not settled, until I see the ink on a Bill and/or Executive Order.
(no message)
worthwhile pursuit.
That said, I do not expect Biden to hold sway (or office frankly) for long and do not think that he will have much real say at all in the overall scheme of things over time.
Do wish you good luck.
I don't see any reason to be excited at all.
What do you think about the current status of our nuclear arsenal?
We haven't tested a nuke since, what, 1992?...almost 30 years ago. I don't know that the device types were officially released for that final test, but even if you assume we developed and tested a bomb in a couple years (which I don't think is reasonable--we were likely testing 1970s technology), we are looking at our nuclear arsenal comprising 30 year old technology at best. I know that they have upgraded, but they've never run a full test. It is like developing a new rifle for the army, and never firing it...you just test the trigger mechanism, the barrell tolerance, etc., but you never actually fire the rifle...you just hand them out to soldiers and hope for the best. Execpt it is worse, because a nuclear weapon is far more complex than a rifle. Any new weapons designs have not been tested. So, the question: Isn't it time to negotiate a pause in the test ban treaty with Russia, and run a few tests (and allow them to do so as well)?
tangentially is that places like Lawrence Livermore Labs use 'super computing' to evaluate the designs of nuclear weapons, thus (hopefully) obviating the need for actual testing....In regards to the issue of "Open Skies" I've also heard that the role of 'over-flights' involved more that looking for evidence of Nuke tests...they were also tasked with finding evidence of major troop movements that could logically be considered as "pre-war" provocations...it's this aspect (if true) that has me worried...especially given Vladimir Putin's propensity for not practicing "Good Neighborliness".
I also don't know how, or if, "Open Skies" and satellite surveillance work together...perhaps "OS" is superfluous and too costly, like the SR-71...just some hairs going up on my neck, and would like to hear from truly knowledgable military and IC folks...Chris seems to be plugged in to some degree.
We’re pretty sure at this point they’re going to work. There is no need to test anymore.
We could cut the numbers down to a few hundreds and be perfectly safe.
The really big treaty is START, which is up for renewal now. Biden should be able to save it.
Trump is advised by people suspicious of all arms control. They see it as “ globalist” and bad.
Back to normal on 1/20.
(no message)
They’ve been tested many times.
There are costs to testing. They are not outweighed by benefits.
(no message)
A one-sided treaty is not a treaty. But, as I said, I wouldn't worry. We will be back in a lot of one-sided treaties. Hell, we will probably send a pallet of cash to Russia to apologize.