world

U.S., Russia hold arms talks despite tensions

18 Comments
By MATTHEW LEE and ROBERT BURNS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Look at how well the Biden administration can multitask. To be fair, a chimpanzee could make being president look easy and professional compared to 45.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Senior diplomats from the United States and Russia held what the State Department described as “substantive and professional” talks on arms control and other strategic issues on Wednesday despite myriad other differences that have sent relations into a tailspin.

What was substantive? What changed?

The Pelosi Boys are just running in circles chasing their tales.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What was substantive? What changed?

Just as during the Cold War, nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to maintain and just as in the Cold War both sides are motivated to reduce the numbers of these weapons in their arsenals so they don't have to spend so much to protect their nations. Everything about nuclear weapons, their storage, transportation and security are an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional arms. Paying for nukes takes money away from other pressing defense needs like ships and airplanes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Desert TortoiseToday  08:13 am JST

What was substantive? What changed?

Just as during the Cold War, nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to maintain and just as in the Cold War both sides are motivated to reduce the numbers of these weapons in their arsenals so they don't have to spend so much to protect their nations. Everything about nuclear weapons, their storage, transportation and security are an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional arms. Paying for nukes takes money away from other pressing defense needs like ships and airplanes.

Ok, so what was substantive, and what changed?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Look at how well the Biden administration can multitask.

Talking and getting Putin to keep his word are two entirely different things.

To be fair, a chimpanzee could make being president look easy and professional compared to 45

And still Putin thinks Biden is weak. Let’s see how long it is before Russia does another backstab. When Putin takes Joe seriously then we will be getting somewhere.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funk

When Putin takes Joe seriously then we will be getting somewhere.

I don't know if Putin thinks Biden is weak or not, but he had total control over his previous puppet in the White House. At least that has changed.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sadly, I don't think the Russians can be trusted to keep their word. They are already in violation of the INF treaty.

Then there is the fact that China is not bound by any limits on their own weapons.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Ok, so what was substantive, and what changed?

The US abandoned IMF and has previously prohibited land based cruise missiles and IRBMs soon to enter service. The Army is buying Tomahawks and the Navy will soon have a sub and maybe surface launched ballistic missile with an HGV. SM-3 Blk II can hit an ICBM target, a brand new capability the Russians and Chinese now have to worry about, especially when teamed with the AN/SPY-6 radars on the soon to commission Burke Flight III DDGs. The USAF also has a new 6th gen fighter called NGAD prototyped and mostly tested with a production decision coming soon. The first two B-21 Raiders are being built right now in Palmdale and the Air Force isn't saying how many nearly as large and similarly shaped but unmanned RQ-180s are out there, or even showing an official photo of one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sadly, I don't think the Russians can be trusted to keep their word. They are already in violation of the INF treaty

INF (not IMF as I mistakenly typoed above) is done. The US walked away in the face of Russian violations and the fact that China isn't bound by the treaty. The US is already fielding the first weapons that would have violated the old INF treaty. The rockets used as targets to simulate enemy ballistic missiles happen to be easily weaponized. In fact one of these target rockets used in these tests is based on the formerly banned Pershing II missile.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't know if Putin thinks Biden is weak or not, but he had total control over his previous puppet in the White House.

And the irrefutable proof of that is? What? No platitudes or CNN hyperboles please.

At least that has changed

Yup, frighteningly

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass4funk

I don't know if Putin thinks Biden is weak or not, but he had total control over his previous puppet in the White House.

And the irrefutable proof of that is?

Trump: “My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it's Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump: “My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it's Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be

Thats not an affirmation of anything, that’s a personal opinionated belief, which he’s allowed to have.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bass4funk

Thats not an affirmation of anything, that’s a personal opinionated belief, which he’s allowed to have.

Yeah. Because he was Putin's puppet. ;-)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yeah. Because he was Putin's puppet. ;-)

And your proof of that? Oh, you don't have any, forgot about that...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And your proof of that? Oh, you don't have any, forgot about that...

I’ve posted so much evidence of this already. You just refuse to accept it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump: “My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it's Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this, I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

This is not a personal opinion; it’s the opinion of the president. No other president in history has sided with an adversary over our country so often. Why did Trump do this?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Desert Tortoise

and the fact that China isn't bound by the treaty

If the U.S. wants China to be bound by this treaty then it will have to bring to the table NATO members Great Britain and France with their nukes, or make a separate treaty with China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

P. SmithToday  12:23 pm JST

I’ve posted so much evidence of this already. You just refuse to accept it.

Opinion isn't evidence.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites