Skip to main content

US will leave INF agreement

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/20/trump-us-nuclear-arms-treaty-russia
Trump says US will withdraw from nuclear arms treaty with Russia
Experts warn of ‘most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s’ as Trump confirms US will leave INF agreement

Comments

Anonymous said…
Russia has been noncompliant for decades. Obama hid the confirming intel from Congress for years, until they wanted to look tough for the Iran nuclear deal. About time. Putin needs a jerk on his chain. Besides, why comply with a treaty unilaterally when others (China) are not signatories and are developing INF missiles?
Anonymous said…
This treaty was irrelevant a decade ago.
Anonymous said…
"Russia has been noncompliant for decades. Obama hid the confirming intel from Congress for years, until they wanted to look tough for the Iran nuclear deal. About time. Putin needs a jerk on his chain. Besides, why comply with a treaty unilaterally when others (China) are not signatories and are developing INF missiles?

October 23, 2018 at 5:13 PM"

I am very confused on this. I though Trump works for Putin, so why would he dare yank the chain of his master? Very odd.
Of course it does get the old naugin a joggin, maybe this is exactly what Putin wants so he can increase his arsenal.

Of course it may be that Trump is so crazy and evil that he just wants war with Russia, however again this is at odds with the whole working for Putin thing.

Dam this is odd, I just can not get my head around this.
Anonymous said…
maybe this is exactly what Putin wants so he can increase his arsenal.

October 23, 2018 at 9:52 PM

Read up a little to lessen your confusion. Putin has been "increasing his arsenal" for decades now, with nary a peep from GW or Obama. He needs to be called on it. And if you truly believe Trump "works for Putin" you desperately need some true information for a change.
Anonymous said…
I think he was being sarcastic. The BS story of Trump and Putin and Russia that we don't hear about anymore. One could argue that story backfired.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

tcp1 looking good

I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...