China’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement Friday confirming that they will not attend future nuclear arms control talks with the US and Russia, saying that they believe US invitations are “neither serious nor sincere.”
This follows up comments earlier this week in which China said they’d only join if the US nuclear arsenal were reduced to their approximate level. Unsurprisingly, the US wasn’t going to do this, so they’re not going to attend.
This was always expected to be the case. Russia and the US each have around 6,000 nuclear warheads, and China has only 320. In global limitations, China’s arsenal is immaterial, and it’s never been clear why the US was so determined to bring China into the talks in the first place.
Russia has in the past accused the US of inviting China just to distract from serious talks, with New START set to expire and no deal in place to replace it. Trump has maintained China must be involved, and seems willing to spurn the talks if he doesn’t get China at the table.
It’s never been clear why TRUMP wanted China involved? Well not crystal clear but I think it’s actually somewhat clear, it’s a “win win” for Trump. If China shows up and actually wants to take part and it works, then Trump has made the deal of he century by getting a major deal made that involves the worlds largest nuke holders. If China refuses he can then blame China and use that to his advantage.
As for China, they should have attended and made their offer in person. Let’s say that offer is that they will reduce their stockpile to 350 nukes and they demand Russia and the US do the same. Now who is the bad guy if it doesn’t happen? China could have held the high ground so easily on this one by simply attending and making what would obviously be a fair offer to anyone who is paying attention. Now they can be blamed and they get nothing. Furthermore, if Russia and the US actually do sign an agreement it will look like China is the rogue state not the US. China will in all likelihood continue to build it’s military forces including a modernization of their nuclear force, anti-China hawks will point to the fact they wouldn’t even sit down to nuke talks as a reason to object to any increase in their military capacity. Of course we can see the hypocrisy in this but many will not.
I’m not sure it was “win win” for Trump if China had shown up. At least not if they had did what you suggested. I think the US would have looked foolish because there was no way we would ever agree to downsize our arsenal to that level. Like you said: “Now who is the bad guy if it doesn’t happen?” However, I do agree there was a “win win” possibility but I think it belonged to China more than Trump.
The way I interpret it, to trump and his acolytes, everything is spun as a win, even making it down a ramp.
While idiots focus on the ramp not his foreign policy.
A general aiding trump on a downhill ramp so he doesn’t fall on his face is a suitable description of whatever passes for “trump foreign policy”
All them %$^%sticks started war after war after war. Trump might not be getting us out of the hole they dug for the country fast enough for you, but at least he didn’t actually rely on these generals when push came to shove.
More than once I expected Trump to be giving the podium speech, with your trusted generals at his side, explaining why the US had a duty to start some new war. But it hasn’t happened yet.
No, like it or not, Trump’s actually in charge and for that he takes the blame for the evil he has done as well as the good.
The generals haven’t been keeping Trump from falling on his face, if by falling on his face you mean, Stumbling into more wars, just the opposite. If they had their way, his policy would have been a race to the bottom, with one new war and one new regime change after another, just like with Obama and W.
You have a funny idea of what those generals are like. You think Trump’s a clown, yet if he listened to the people you seam to think are so smart he would have blundered far worse than he has. And how do we know? It’s because they already did, More than once, under more than one president. Trump’s the only one recently who hasn’t given them a chance to take us into multiple new wars.
Thank goodness he hasn’t relied on those generals to save face. I’m sure they could have shown him how starting a war or two would have been good for press and re-election. Or worse, he might have started a war with Russia to get out from under Russiagate.
Only you would think of those generals as some kind of benevolent force which helps to guild presidents for the better.
That’s what you took from his comment? Astonishing.
He stated that the generals are aiding him and keeping him from “falling on his face”. That’s his words not mine. So yes that’s what I took from his statement. If he didn’t mean it that when they why say it that way? So what did you take from his comment genius?
I took it as a joke. Or sarcasm. Or both. Of course I’m not as smart as you. No one is.
Oh well I didn’t take it that way because I think Dave actually does believe the generals are there helping Trump out rather than Trump being there trying to resist the generals worst suggestions and if anyone should explain what Dave meant that would be Dave.
I took it the way I took it, is that alright with you? Nope, apparently you are the EXPERT on what he means and that gives you the right to jump in with your childish insults. Why not just mind your own business and let Dave explain what he meant? Or are you more expert on Dave than Dave and why the F am I wasting my time arguing about stupid garbage like this? Ohhhhh, wow you scored a point by mindreading Dave, LOL
This low level third grade nonsense is why I don’t waste much time in the comment section here and haven’t for years. What a scintillating conversation this has been. But I’ll give you this, you probably are more expert on Dave than Dave is. LOL
You are absolutely right, I should have let Dave speak for himself. I just found it so mind numbing how you could interpret his one sentence comment into a rambling redundant seven paragraph analysis that in no way could be formed from what he said. And I didn’t insult you. I was actually astonished.
This started by you replying to Dave’s reply to my comment, not yours. Why didn’t YOU just mind your own business? So maybe it was you that instigated this “third grade nonsense”.
More first rate commentary for sure. LOL bunch of freaking idiots arguing over nothing, yep this is why I don’t bother with this comment section. It’s this lame all the time.
You’re bitching about something you initiated. You don’t say this: “While idiots focus on the ramp not his foreign policy”, the rest of the lameness never happens.
If he wasn’t actually willing to sign a treaty then yes they could have made Trump look bad. I still think it does to an extent simply because it didn’t come across as a genuine offer anyway.
“Let’s say that offer is that they will reduce their stockpile to 350 nukes and they demand Russia and the US do the same”.
China`s stockpile is already 320.
Without US ally France ( 300 ), GB ( 120 ), israel ( 200 ) NAT0 ( 150 ), and
india ( 150 ), Pakistan ( 150 ) in a new treaty, makes no sense.
The USAF Counterproliferation Center officially reported to Congress that Israel had 400 nuclear weapons as of 20 years ago. They are the world’s third largest nuclear power, after the US and Russia.
That is hidden behind fake numbers, that have been publicly announced wrong for decades.
I should have said 300 but whatever, same point either way. They could have made a small token gesture and still been so far below our capacity that the US and Russia would have had to make HUGE reductions, which who knows, they might be willing to do. How many nukes do you need, it’s expensive to maintain them, so why not get rid of most of them and modernize the rest so we are less likely to have an accident start a war.
Why should China make another gesture to the US, Who is run by gangsters, a country that breaks every treaty and agreements, a country that spends more on military than the next 8 combine, a country that has no problem in nuking civilians, constant waging conflicts, wars and invasions, killing civilians, robbing, occupying and destroying their countries.
A country that constantly breaks international laws and refuses to be a signatory to the ICC.
A country that has over 800 military bases around the world, encircles countries with its bases, like China.
A country that has a nuclear first strike doctrine and believes it can win a nuclear war.
A country that has declared China a threat and an enemy.
At this moment the US has send 2 aircraft carrier fleets to the China sea “to show force” why?, because China has the audacity to hold drills……not out of the US or any other countries coast…..but Chinas coast.
History has shown with countless examples that groups and countries have caved in, shown gesture, just to see the US raise its demands or break the agreement anyway.
The US has been working on dismantling arms control mechanisms for years. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was scrapped under George W. Bush, purportedly to protect the US and its allies from possible attacks by Iran and North Korea, but the reason was Russia. To hinder a Russian retaliatory response after a US nuclear first strike (Russia`s answer is Hypersonic missiles )
The INF was axed by Trump, the biggest agreement breaker.
And now the last one, START will be axed.
Why? You just listed a bunch of good reasons. They have a lot to lose by not showing up and nothing to lose if they had gone. Conversely they might have gained something by going and they lost an opportunity by not going.
There is an old saying that goes something like this; You miss all the shots you never take.
You missed totally the point, it is waste of time having a dialog with you.
The US/Russia will sign an agreement
because both are weary of the CCP,
who is a rogue state.
Not as rogue as Israel or the DNC.
The DNC? Not that they aren’t but why signal them out? The US is rogue, not just the DNC.
Because we’ve (the media) have become habitual in using names other than the country’s name when labeling the villains in countries we don’t like. For example, the CCP but not LIKUD for that regime.
“It’s never been clear why the US was so determined to bring China into the talks”
Yes, it has. The US wants to use “nuclear” talks to limit China’s conventionally armed short and intermediate range ballistic missiles and its longer range cruise missiles.
This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons concerns. It is about conventional attack on Taiwan and on the USN operating in the South China Sea.
Why would we risk American lives on a geographic location we don’t even have diplomatic relations with (Taiwan)?
China’s FM is truly insightful and concise. Trump would have found a way to further jerk them around, with no conceivable benefit to China possible. Trump is a master of saying meaningless things and posturing with no interest or ability in actual diplomacy.
Yup, with trump and the gop it’s more more and even more war spending. Diplomacy ? Just for photo ops.
He had good caused, only he is the last person on earth to represent them well.
When New START is discarded the demise of the Non-Proliferation Treaty will follow. That is when the real arms race (or rather race to re-arm) will begin. World leaders need to know where in the cycle of history we are.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
“Only if France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan show up at the table.”
When it comes to Nukes its kind of like playing Russian Roulette with a loaded single shot weapon, nobody wins and those who survive only wish they were dead. The US has used Nukes, who can trust us?, we have to be willing to show all others that we have come to our senses, that we know we made a terrible mistake and will be the first to start reducing our stockpiles if others will do the same.