It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Osirisvset
originally posted by: generik
makes a lot of sense. after all why follow and have a treaty that the other side is violating?
We're not talking about a treaty to save some wild woodducks or something, this is nuclear weapons which I would think deserve a lot more diplomacy than just tearing up a treaty. I guess we just have to wait for more details. Any negative news about nukes makes me nervous as I daresay it does to anyone born pre-1980.
originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Allaroundyou
No we use Russian rockets to make up for Obama's and Bush's blunders in running NASA we got a space station that once the shuttle fleet was grounded we had no way of tending and ferrying crew thankfully the Russians still are using Soyuz rockets to carry our guys back and forth to space station.
Yep. And now we've got Astronauts drilling holes in the ISS because they've had enough...
Can a sitting president unilaterally remove the US from a Treaty that was ratified by the congress?
The key language is Article II, Section 1, which says that the President has the “executive Power” of the United States. To the framers of the Constitution, this power had two important components, both relevant to the question of treaty termination. First, the most familiar aspect of executive power is the power to “execute” the laws – that is, to enforce them or carry them into effect. Under Article VI of the Constitution, treaties function as laws, and, as the framers recognized, they are part of the “laws” that the executive executes. One element of “executing” a law (or treaty) is deciding when it does not apply, or no longer applies, on the basis of its own terms.
While I will agree that I (myself) have even been called a leftist douche bag for my criticism of Trump, it's been valid criticism.
originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shawmanfromny
How is this move safer for americans?
I have no idea but quite a few people seem to be taking about how if the Russians aren't falling it then neither should the Americans....so lets just all start building up our nukes again and have 30 years of teaching kids what to do in the event of a nuclear strike.
originally posted by: Quark
Proof of Russia's violation of latest SALT treaty. Russia is moving Iskander short range missles to Kaliningrad, bing it. USA is pulling out of a 1 sided treaty is purly geopolitical. Trump wants China involved in the next treaty to reduce nukes, especially medium ranged missles. We have none and China has thousands and the ruskies have 1000's too. Those medium ranged missles threaten every US ship, base and ally in the western pacific. It's in our interest to negotiate a new treaty and have China involved too. Geostrategy folks, the Dems have cowtowed to China along w/our security ever since Clinton sold China our nuclear secrets for monetary gain.