US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

There was also talk about equiping South Korea and Japan with nuclear weapons

I wonder how this will work out with the NPT. Or is Trump's plan for the US to withdraw from the treaty?

For those nuclear states, which the US is one of them, Article 1 of the NPT states

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

TLDR, nuclear states can't give nukes to non nuke states.

From the other end, non nuclear states, which Japan and ROK are, there is article 2

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices..

TLDR Non nuke states can't receive nukes.

The $.64 question is: can the PotUS unilaterally (ie, without consent of the Senate) terminate a treaty that has already been ratified by the Senate?

The answer is Maybe. Depends on who you ask and no one has asked the SCotUS.

It depends on if there is corresponding federal law concerning the treaty. Not all treaties have corresponding federal law, but many do.

Example 1: Treaty has been ratified by the Senate but there are no corresponding federal laws. Can the PotUS unilaterally decide to withdraw from the treaty?

Maybe. US Presidents claim they can, US Senate claims they can't. It would have to go before the SCotUS. Both sides have strong arguments. The key issue would be that while ratification obligates the Senate, does it obligate the PotUS. The issue has never come up before.

Example 2 Treaty has been ratified by the Senate but there are corresponding federal laws. Can the PotUS unilaterally decide to withdraw from the treaty?

Well the first part would be answered by example 1, but the PotUS can't unilaterally cancel federal law. Only the congress can do that or the SCotus can invalidate the law. So it might be true that the PotUS can unilaterally decide to withdraw from a treaty, the PotUS would still be bound to abide by the existing federal law.

This will be very interesting to watch unfold.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by eddie

Nice to see Trump switch the wire tapping blame from Obama to the Brits now,lol

yep, brilliant move, point to the Fox news story so they take the heat and keep the Obama wiretapping story alive for another news cycle.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I was rather shocked at the POTUS body language in front of the world press and his ignoring of Merkels offer to shake hands.

I wonder what so-called psychologists etc. would make of this body language as well as wondering if Merkel might face criticism in her own country for not leaving the meeting pronto.

Well POTUS can pretty much do what he wants and Merkel will just take it. After all, she did nothing when Obama was caught wiretapping her phones which is a much worse insult IMHO.

Personally I doubt Trump intentionally snubbed Merkel. It is more likely he just did not hear her.

[Rockstar]

I wonder , since we have well established bases in each country could we move and maintain control of such weapons in these countries without defying existing treaties.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Well POTUS can pretty much do what he wants and Merkel will just take it. After all, she did nothing when Obama was caught wiretapping her phones which is a much worse insult IMHO.

Personally I doubt Trump intentionally snubbed Merkel. It is more likely he just did not hear her.

Having taught foreign students it can be very awkward speaking and listening via translator. There are times you just dont know what to do with yourself.

[ikalugin]

I wonder how this will work out with the NPT. Or is Trump's plan for the US to withdraw from the treaty?

US doesnt need to withdraw from the treaty, as US is already de-facto violating it (US has a claim that de-jure they are not violating it because the custody of the weapons has not been transfered yet, after all we haven't seen a conflict in Europe that would warrant nuclear use) and has been violating it all along with it's policy of deploying it's weapons on allied territory, training and planning for transfer of the weapons to said allies in the times of war.

I dont see why if B61-12s can exist in Turkey they can't exist in the same capacity in ROK.

The only concern that I do see is the Chinese reaction, as B61-12 despite their modest looks are top notch first strike counter force weapons.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Well POTUS can pretty much do what he wants and Merkel will just take it. After all, she did nothing when Obama was caught wiretapping her phones which is a much worse insult IMHO.

Personally I doubt Trump intentionally snubbed Merkel. It is more likely he just did not hear her.

If Trump slighted her then .. he didn't slight her later: http://nypost.com/2017/03/17/trump-d...ring-photo-op/

When reporters asked whether there would be a handshake, Merkel leaned in and appeared to ask, “Do you want to have a handshake?”

Trump did not even look back at her.

By contrast, the president did shake hands with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May when they visited him in the Oval Office.

A photograph taken when Merkel first met with Trump earlier in the day outside the White House shows the two leaders shaking.

If Merkel felt slighted, she didn’t show it.

During a joint press conference afterwards, she thanked Trump for his “very warm and gracious hospitality.”

[Rockstar]

Find it odd this sudden talk of nuclear weapons, lack of patience, pre-emptive strikes dropping democracy and freedom bombs on N.Korea. All the sabre rattling could be for South Korean public consumption in an attempt to use fear to sway an election to the more conservative party. As it stands the South Korean liberal party has a good chance of winning the upcoming elections. They tend to take a different approach to their Northern neighbors.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Find it odd this sudden talk of nuclear weapons, lack of patience, pre-emptive strikes dropping democracy and freedom bombs on N.Korea.

It is also ideological.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I wonder , since we have well established bases in each country could we move and maintain control of such weapons in these countries without defying existing treaties.

That is what we did to circumvent the NPT restrictions. We called it "Nuclear Sharing". After all sharing is caring.
Since the NPT would immediately become void in times of declared war (both de jure and de facto. this is one of the key differences between a treaty and a convention), the US stationed nuclear weapons with foreign non-nuclear states but the permissive locks remained in US control.

To the US, this meant that they did not transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, but in emergency, permissive controls would be released to that state.

There is disagreement about whether nuclear sharing violates the NPT.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That is what we did to circumvent the NPT restrictions. We called it "Nuclear Sharing". After all sharing is caring.
Since the NPT would immediately become void in times of declared war (both de jure and de facto. this is one of the key differences between a treaty and a convention), the US stationed nuclear weapons with foreign non-nuclear states but the permissive locks remained in US control.

To the US, this meant that they did not transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, but in emergency, permissive controls would be released to that state.

There is disagreement about whether nuclear sharing violates the NPT.

If so, what is the problem with doing the same with ROK?

[Rockstar]

I dont see any problem with deploying nukes to the ROK (again). I read somewhere in past times we used to have tactical nukes in the ROK. After of a joint declaration between ROK and the DPRK calling for a nuke free peninsula we removed them around 1991. But as we all know the north has been full speed ahead developing nukes and delivery systems since that kumbaya moment.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

If so, what is the problem with doing the same with ROK?

It will be the same problem as before, but as before the US will just ignore any complaints

Because: 'merica

[Catfish]

Well Trump's all over the news here once more. But i admit i am not really interested anymore, i just wonder how long he will last.
News is full of german scandals and this Erdoghan idiot, it's enough already.

[vienna]

Many people here are also wondering how long he'll last...

An interesting analysis of Trump's worst enemy -- himself:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/20/...g-lying-mouth/




<O>