woolaf

That's why the fact that its true surprises people so much.

Totally agree, its obvious in the Senate history of support for treaties from Rs and votes against treaties from D's. R's will vote for their guy, even if they don't like the treaty, and D's will vote for the treaty because they like arms control. So R Presidents have a lot of room to move on this.

One of my favorite reminders about the PNIs and the huge effect on deployed warheads is the fact that Dick Cheney was SecDef. Combine this with the significant cuts made to the stockpile under GWB, when he was VP, and Cheney easily wins as the “Greatest unilateral disarmer” in U.S. nuclear history.🙂

My point is that it’s worse than declaring war (because he can’t do that). It’s extra-judicial, contra-Constitutional, and yes, designed to turn the smallest expression of opposition into mass slaughter.

It is not a declaration of war. The Constitution states that only Congress can declare war. It's a statement of unlawful suppression of first amendment rights with the added touch of authorizing the U.S. military to slaughter U.S. citizens.

Next up: William Calley was a hero and cool dude????

Trump obviously didn’t know anything about it. He seems to think the officers made their own decisions to come to a party. And Vance is wrong unless you think that “never happens” and “ not unusual” mean the same thing.

Biden Admin had already moved away 2022 NPR and closer to SPC (in Vipin and Pranay's speeches) and the President's words (even on social media) will always carry more weight than the dense text of an official document. I don't have a solution to this, but I don't think a new NPR would help. (2/2)

I don't disagree about potential costs and increase in ambiguity without an NPR, but you may overstate the benefits of an NPR in resolving ambiguities and bringing clarity. Its useful as public relations in the moment, but variations between Admins already confuse allies and adversaries. (1/2)

Problem is that Trump will sign anything Putin puts in front of him, so it could be worse than starting from scratch.

For negotiations on follow on-treaty, but the two sides still have major agenda issues to resolve (so one year may not be enough) and there's widespread agreement in U.S. policy world that deeper reductions do not serve U.S. interests at this time. So its mostly symbolic.

No. There is nothing planned for that year that would be stopped by an extension, except for maybe some warhead uploading. If they resume notifications and inspections, it would help with confidence and cooperation, but there's no detail on that in Putin's statement. It could provide more time (1/2)

No one says that.

Also counted out the numbers of times I've been through missile defense debates (both in working lifetime and full life time) for my students last night. Proved I'm old. Proved some things never die.

You can read all about this process on pp. 47-50 of this report.
www.congress.gov/crs-product/...

By late Oct. the two sides agreed to pair a one-year extension with a one year freeze on the size of nuclear stockpiles. Russia's one condition was that there would be NO monitoring on stockpile size, just a political pledge. U.S. insisted on monitoring. Impasse just before election.

My thoughts exactly. It also could be the offense/defense conundrum of arms control. I actually mentioned the road to, and collapse of, Reykjavík in class last night. Told them that, without Reagan's near-religious attachment to SDI, we might have eliminated all nukes by 2000. 😉

There was no extension in Trump I because (a)it was Obama's treaty and Trump had already disparaged it, (b)John Bolton, who wanted the treaty killed, convinced him to seek a [nonnegotiable] bigger three-way treaty. In his last year, Trump changed course in 2020 'cause he really wanted the photo op.

All the offers you cite are why I mentioned that we don't know what strings Putin has attached to the offer. He offering "hope" to the U.S. arms control community and balm to Trump's ego. And he wants to look like the "good guy" on nuclear restraint for his own political purposes.

Why would Trump agree to this? Over the objections of everyone in his Pentagon who thinks its a mistake? Signing ceremony and photo op with his bestie, maybe a Nobel prize?

Thoughts: One year probably won't interfere with U.S. expansion, unless crews who upload MMIII get running start. One year probably won't affect Russia plans. We don't know what strings Putin's attaches to this, although his does mention MD in space. Trump will sign anything Putin hands him.

Or whether he knows what happened there?

Did anyone ask him if he even knows where Estonia is?

John Collins, mentor and friend.

So I'm guessing "backyard" was used as a metaphor, not a literal description of the location as being "an hour away from the place where China makes its nuclear weapons."

Today, millions of people suddenly discovered, to their astonishment, that the North Atlantic Treaty also has articles 1 to 4. Thanks to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for their educational efforts

Yes! Absolutely! Everything about it is perfect (even when it is uncomfortable). Narcissistic mother. Odd-girl-out daughter. Son who finds his own faith. And the explanation of the Ashamnu prayer (not I, we) tells you everything you need to know about existing in a Jewish community.

I can't really answer that question as I am actively procrastinating on rebuilding my Canvas page. But my question is "Why are you waiting until 3:20?" Wouldn't the syllabus be more engaging and interesting if the martini arrived earlier?

Al, I’d expect that this In Focus has been in the CRS system for awhile, and was just recently updated to include the last example on Iran. Also, with the 2-page format, the depth of detail and explanation in necessarily slim. There’s probably a much more comprehensive report in the system, too.

Compellence!