“Nuclear arms reduction will give Russia and US more weight”
Published: 01 June, 2009, 13:36
TAGS: Military, Nuclear, Russia, USA
A new strategic arms reduction treaty will strengthen the positions of Russia and the US in the non-proliferation area, especially in light of the rocket launches by North Korea, believes analyst Viktor Kremenyuk.
According to the deputy director of the Institute for USA and Canada Studies, the recent nuclear test by North Korea only proves the necessity of Russia and the US working together in the field of non-proliferation.
“Without meaning so, North Korea helped us [US and Russia] to understand that there are a number of things we have to carry out immediately,” Kremenyuk said. “In this sense the significance of the Russian-American agreement on START becomes even more important because that will signify that we are not going to become monopolies in strategic weapons, that we are going to reduce them to an acceptable level. That will give us additional power to press other nations against proliferation.”
01.06.2009, 12:31
9 comments
"I wish the US was a communist country"Amiri Baraka, a poet and political activist, spoke with RT about communism as a perfect system, as well as about detainee torture in the US and reasons behind America not preventing the 9/11 tragedy. |
01.06.2009, 15:34
Russia and US talk strategic arms reductionThe second round of Russian-US consultations on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty has begun in Geneva. Talks between experts will last for two to three days. |
And the US is setting a fine example invading illegally, torturing, raping: do we really want everyone to follow the US example! I think not. Arms reduction means fantacy seduction. Russia is missing a golden opportunity to sell the brand Russia Nuclear Inside. They could have developed an international nuclear strike system, available to any state facing US or NATO aggression. Overseen by Russia and even maybe a majority of the UN security council, excluding US and NATO members. The independent safeguards would be on, until the US or NATO try to invade, assessed by simple criteria, e.g staging of troops. Then the safeguards come off and control transfers to the country under potential attack. The system could be predominantly tactical, with some strategic nuclear weapons. The first aim would be to get the US or NATO aggressor to back off. If that fails they could go all out against the US and NATO. It would be a worldwide detterent, which would address the double standards issues. Then no one would need an aspiration to have a separate system, there would be no case for a North Korea or any other state to have a separate system. With US and NATO aggression thwarted, there would be a chance for peace.in the world. The logic is straightforward and proven, the US and Russia are responsible players in the Nuclear arena, so faced with Nuclear conflict, rationality takes over, and diplomacy works. Weak frightened positions always lead to conflict, strong balanced ones prevent conflict, due to the driver of individual surviveability. Take Iraq, they didn't have nuclear weapons, the result, kick the door in and get killing. North Korea has nuclear weapons, the result, lets talk and negotiate. Not a difficult concept to grasp is it.