It's not a change of subject whatsoever. I already posted a link showing that Trump is giving the go ahead to increase our stockpiles and develop even more deadly weapons.
It seems you won't answer my question because it's obvious that the answer points out a major hypocrisy.
We don't need an agreement with Russia to uphold our own arms policy. We have enough nuclear weapons to satisfy nuclear deterrence. The only reason to make more is to try to match Russia in an arm's race, a race that we put to bed a long time ago but now may be re-engaged.
Well, you're talking about two different things. The warhead in the story you linked to doesn't have anything to do with this treaty. It's a replacement for aging warheads on our submarine-based Trident missile systems.
And what you're talking about is overall nuclear policy, not this treaty.
In any case, when you say:
Just because they reneged it's not excuse for us to do the same.
We are
not reneging. We followed the treaty. We attempted to get the Russians to do so, and still are. And we, if we do, are leaving the treaty based on its own terms, not blatantly defying it like the Russians are.
By all customary international law, and the
realpolitik of which you speak, one of the biggest guarantors of compliance is that if you break the treaty, the other side will, too, and it is
expected that your non-compliance will trigger non-compliance by the other side. It's pretty much the whole point of having a treaty.
In international politics, if you bind yourself to your side of a treaty while the other side blatantly defies it, all you're doing is inviting every other party with whom you have a treaty to defy those, too.
That has been understood for thousands of years.
That's realpolitik.
As for the "moral" argument, if you have a contract with your roofer, and he doesn't roof, are you going to pay him just to be on the right moral side and look good to all your neighbors? Of course you're not.
