Arms control a top issue at Russia-US talks Tuesday in Sochi

From ABC News


U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's first trip to Russia is scheduled to start Tuesday in the Black Sea coastal city of Sochi, where he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are sitting down for talks and then having a joint meeting with President Vladimir Putin. A look at the top issues Pompeo and Lavrov are expected to discuss before briefing Putin:

ARMS CONTROL

The state of arms control treaties between the United States and Russia is likely to feature prominently in the talks.

The U.S. unilaterally pulled out of a 1987 nuclear missile pact this year, accusing Russia of violations. Putin responded in kind, saying he was suspending Russia's participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty and accusing Washington of making false allegations.

Trump has said he wants to negotiate new arms control accords that reflect current conditions and to bring in other nations, notably China.

COMMENT:-

China could not care any less about what Trump wants at this point, dragging them into his spat with Russia over 30+ year old nuclear missile pacts is probably an epic waste of time.

The best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior. This is especially true with Russia. The best over all strategy when in talks with Russia, promise to disarm and reduce our stockpile. After the talks are over, continue to beef up our military, improve and increase our nuclear and conventional firepower as much as possible.

OrphanSlug said:

China could not care any less about what Trump wants at this point, dragging them into his spat with Russia over 30+ year old nuclear missile pacts is probably an epic waste of time.

Click to expand...

I can't quite figure out exactly where your are saying the Chinese position on the 11 point scale would be.

Are you saying that the Chinese position would be around a "2" or around a "3"?

mrdeltoid said:

The best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior. This is especially true with Russia. The best over all strategy when in talks with Russia, promise to disarm and reduce our stockpile. After the talks are over, continue to beef up our military, improve and increase our nuclear and conventional firepower as much as possible.

Click to expand...

In other words, the "best over all strategy" is


or have I misread your post?

TU Curmudgeon said:

In other words, the "best over all strategy" is

Lie in your teeth (and complain that "The Other Guy" isn't "negotiating in good faith"), followed by breaching the agreement (while complaining that "The Other Guy" isn't abiding by the terms of the agreement).
​

or have I misread your post?

Click to expand...

You didn't misread it at all. Thugs in Russia, are no different than a street thug here. They count on you to be honest and follow the rules. And as I said, the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior. Making a good faith based bargain, doesn't work if only one negotiator is bargaining in good faith. Russia props up regimes like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. They are evil. If they gain an advantage, and have an opportunity to take down the US, or her allies, they would do so in a hot minute. As distasteful and vile as that may be to ones sensibilities, it's necessary when dealing with evil regimes. That's why Trump acts all lovey dovey with Putin, whilst doing everything in his power behind the scenes to defeat him. You gotta keep him off balance. A dilemma to be sure, but to ignore it would be suicide. And I hate to admit it, but Trump with all his faults and cringeworthy tweets, is the right man at the right time, sadly. Again, JMHO.eace

mrdeltoid said:

You didn't misread it at all. Thugs in Russia, are no different than a street thug here. They count on you to be honest and follow the rules. And as I said, the best predictor of future behavior, is past behavior. Making a good faith based bargain, doesn't work if only one negotiator is bargaining in good faith. Russia props up regimes like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. They are evil. If they gain an advantage, and have an opportunity to take down the US, or her allies, they would do so in a hot minute. As distasteful and vile as that may be to ones sensibilities, it's necessary when dealing with evil regimes. That's why Trump acts all lovey dovey with Putin, whilst doing everything in his power behind the scenes to defeat him. You gotta keep him off balance. A dilemma to be sure, but to ignore it would be suicide. And I hate to admit it, but Trump with all his faults and cringeworthy tweets, is the right man at the right time, sadly. Again, JMHO.eace

Click to expand...

You could substitute "the United States of America" for Russia in most of your post (also changing "Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc" to "Iran [under the Shah], Iraq [under Hussein], South Korea, most of South America, most of Central America, Vietnam, Taiwan, most [post colonial] African countries, The Union of South Africa [prior to the end of Apartheid], etc" and reversing "Trump" and "Putin") and your post would be just as true.

That isn't what the Founding Fathers had as their "Original Intent" and that also isn't the way that things have been for most of American history, but it certainly appears to be the currently operative (since the end or WWII) system in the US.

TU Curmudgeon said:

You could substitute "the United States of America" for Russia in most of your post (also changing "Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc" to "Iran [under the Shah], Iraq [under Hussein], South Korea, most of South America, most of Central America, Vietnam, Taiwan, most [post colonial] African countries, The Union of South Africa [prior to the end of Apartheid], etc" and reversing "Trump" and "Putin") and your post would be just as true.

That isn't what the Founding Fathers had as their "Original Intent" and that also isn't the way that things have been for most of American history, but it certainly appears to be the currently operative (since the end or WWII) system in the US.

Click to expand...

Of course I gotta disagree with you there my friend. No matter who is out CIC, there's no moral equivalent between Communist, fascists or theocracies and a constitutional republic. Our constitution remains in tact.....SO FAR, although there are many on the left that would like to change it. There are no checks and balances in the countries I mentioned. As for the ruthless tactics when dealing with dictators like Putin, and the mad mullahs of Iran, we learned that the hard way. We were in talks with Japan to work out a deal to end US Sanctions on Japan and barter some way to bring peace. While the logistics were being negotiated for further talks Pearl Harbor was bombed. The plans had obviously been drawn up the whole time the talks were progressing, though not productively. For the record, I believe the Japanese attack on the US was warranted as the oil embargo choking off much needed supplies to the Imperial army, can be construed as an act of war. And it was a military installation. When I hear the term "sneak attack" I chuckle to myself. If you are going to war with another country, you don't give them a warning. Also, you may be surprised to hear that I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the to biggest terror attacks in history, as they were not military installations. The motive was to terrorize the Japanese to the point that they would surrender, and they did. I don't blame them.

mrdeltoid said:

Of course I gotta disagree with you there my friend. No matter who is out CIC, there's no moral equivalent between Communist, fascists or theocracies and a constitutional republic.

Click to expand...

Please consider that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Vichy France, both halves of Vietnam, Peron's Argentina, Batista's Cuba, Castro's Cuba, and the ROK were also "constitutional republics, then get back to me on the inherent superiority of "constitutional republics".

mrdeltoid said:

Our constitution remains in tact.....SO FAR, although there are many on the left that would like to change it.

Click to expand...

And many on "the right" (whatever that means in the US)

mrdeltoid said:

There are no checks and balances in the countries I mentioned.

Click to expand...

Actually you didn't mention any countries at all, and the Constitution of the United States of America does not include the phrase "checks and balances" either.

mrdeltoid said:

As for the ruthless tactics when dealing with dictators like Putin, and the mad mullahs of Iran, we learned that the hard way.

Click to expand...

Yes, the US never had any history of double dealing and/or lying when negotiating treaties in the past.

mrdeltoid said:

We were in talks with Japan to work out a deal to end US Sanctions on Japan and barter some way to bring peace.

Click to expand...

If you believe that, then your education as to what was actually taking place has been sadly neglected.

mrdeltoid said:

While the logistics were being negotiated for further talks Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Click to expand...

Actually there were no "negotiations regarding reducing sanctions". The President set those sanctions at one level (which would have allowed the domestic Japanese economy to function, but lower level functionaries in the State Department upped the sanctions to a total embargo of materials that the Japanese required in order to avoid starvation

mrdeltoid said:

The plans had obviously been drawn up the whole time the talks were progressing, though not productively.

Click to expand...

The "plans" were that the Japanese government would do exactly what the US government ordered it to do or else the US would completely cut off Japan's essential raw materials.

mrdeltoid said:

For the record, I believe the Japanese attack on the US was warranted as the oil embargo choking off much needed supplies to the Imperial army, can be construed as an act of war. And it was a military installation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether the embargoes constituted an "act of war" or not, what they did do was place the Japanese in the position of either going to war (and possibly salvaging something out of the situation) or not going to war and becoming (essentially) an American vassal state.

mrdeltoid said:

When I hear the term "sneak attack" I chuckle to myself. If you are going to war with another country, you don't give them a warning.

Click to expand...

Of course, the stalling of the Japanese ambassador who had been instructed to present the Japanese message that a state of war existed between Japan and the USA until AFTER the time which it was supposed to be delivered (and that time was PRIOR to the time that the attack was scheduled to commence) was just plain sneaky.

mrdeltoid said:

Also, you may be surprised to hear that I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the to biggest terror attacks in history, as they were not military installations.

Click to expand...

Many people who do not know that Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters (responsible for the defence of all of southern Japan and was also a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops really do think that Hiroshima was not a military target. Nagasaki was an important port city (and it wasn't actually the intended target). Those who are unfamiliar with the projected casualty figures for either "Plan A" (the Army's favourite) which was invasion and direct killing or "Plan B" (which was the Navy's favourite) which was total blockade and mass starvation are also unfamiliar with the fact that the US have been conducting conventional bombing strikes that were killing more people than either of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings.

mrdeltoid said:

The motive was to terrorize the Japanese to the point that they would surrender, and they did. I don't blame them.

Click to expand...

Did you know that the "motive" in ANY war is to "terrorize" the other side to the point what they surrender?

I didn't think so.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Please consider that Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Vichy France, both halves of Vietnam, Peron's Argentina, Batista's Cuba, Castro's Cuba, and the ROK were also "constitutional republics, then get back to me on the inherent superiority of "constitutional republics".



And many on "the right" (whatever that means in the US)



Actually you didn't mention any countries at all, and the Constitution of the United States of America does not include the phrase "checks and balances" either.



Yes, the US never had any history of double dealing and/or lying when negotiating treaties in the past.



If you believe that, then your education as to what was actually taking place has been sadly neglected.



Actually there were no "negotiations regarding reducing sanctions". The President set those sanctions at one level (which would have allowed the domestic Japanese economy to function, but lower level functionaries in the State Department upped the sanctions to a total embargo of materials that the Japanese required in order to avoid starvation



The "plans" were that the Japanese government would do exactly what the US government ordered it to do or else the US would completely cut off Japan's essential raw materials.



Regardless of whether the embargoes constituted an "act of war" or not, what they did do was place the Japanese in the position of either going to war (and possibly salvaging something out of the situation) or not going to war and becoming (essentially) an American vassal state.



Of course, the stalling of the Japanese ambassador who had been instructed to present the Japanese message that a state of war existed between Japan and the USA until AFTER the time which it was supposed to be delivered (and that time was PRIOR to the time that the attack was scheduled to commence) was just plain sneaky.



Many people who do not know that Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters (responsible for the defence of all of southern Japan and was also a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops really do think that Hiroshima was not a military target. Nagasaki was an important port city (and it wasn't actually the intended target). Those who are unfamiliar with the projected casualty figures for either "Plan A" (the Army's favourite) which was invasion and direct killing or "Plan B" (which was the Navy's favourite) which was total blockade and mass starvation are also unfamiliar with the fact that the US have been conducting conventional bombing strikes that were killing more people than either of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings.



Did you know that the "motive" in ANY war is to "terrorize" the other side to the point what they surrender?

I didn't think so.

Click to expand...

I keep forgetting when we are discussing a thread that you parse every sentence to an extent that would make Bill Clinton jealous. My wife is the same way. :lol: Let me do the readers digest version of the main ideas of my post. Here goes: I don't believe the USA is anywhere close to the evil of NK, Iran, Hitler's Germany etc.

However, the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tactic, not a motive, my mistake. What I'm about to say is my OPINION. I believe it was a terrorist tactic. Terrorism involves noncombatants. It is deployed to exact a desired behavior from those in power. Killing 146,000 people with one bomb was probably enough to do that, but 80,000 more for good measure definitely speeded up the surrender. I am a marine, and I was never taught to terrorize noncombatants. That's a fact. The rest is JMHO.

mrdeltoid said:

I keep forgetting when we are discussing a thread that you parse every sentence to an extent that would make Bill Clinton jealous. My wife is the same way. :lol: Let me do the readers digest version of the main ideas of my post. Here goes: I don't believe the USA is anywhere close to the evil of NK, Iran, Hitler's Germany etc.

Click to expand...

Neither do I, but that difference is NOT due to the fact that the United States of America is a "republic".

mrdeltoid said:

However, the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a tactic, not a motive, my mistake.

Click to expand...

Actually it was "strategic" because the bombing ended up causing fewer (1,000,000+ American and 10,000,000+ Japanese in the estimates of the military planners of the day) than an invasion and also ended up causing fewer (less than 10,000 American and 10,000,000+ Japanese in the estimates of the military planners of the day that a total blockade and the resultant starvation.

mrdeltoid said:

What I'm about to say is my OPINION. I believe it was a terrorist tactic.

Click to expand...

An opinion, being an opinion, need not accord with reality.

If it had to then the Internet would wither and die.

mrdeltoid said:

Terrorism involves noncombatants.

Click to expand...

ALL warfare involves noncombatants - it always has.

mrdeltoid said:

It is deployed to exact a desired behavior from those in power.

Click to expand...

ALL warfare is used to "exact a desired behaviour from those in power (on the other side) - it always has.

mrdeltoid said:

Killing 146,000 people with one bomb was probably enough to do that, but 80,000 more for good measure definitely speeded up the surrender.

Click to expand...

The bombing of Hiroshima killed between 45,000 and 73,000 on the first day. The bombing of Nagasaki killed between 20,000 and 40,000 on the first day.

On March 10, 1945 the USAAF killed approximately 100,000 people in a single raid on Tokyo.

On February 14/15 the combined bombing raids by the RAF, RCAF, and USAF killed between 25,000 and 250,000 (History.com gives between 35,000 and 135,000) people in Dresden. (The wide range of casualty figures is because no one actually knows how many civilian refugees were in Dresden at the time or what happened to them during/after the bombing. The lower number is supported by what documentation the Dresden civilian administration actually had at the time, but [again] no one actually knows if that documentation was accurate.)

PS - I do hope that you will have noticed that the "official numbers" have been produced by people with a considerable interest in keeping those numbers low.

mrdeltoid said:

I am a marine, and I was never taught to terrorize noncombatants. That's a fact. The rest is JMHO.

Click to expand...

For which I congratulate the USMC.