Withdrawing from INF Treaty is a massive mistake

[HumblePi]

It's right to confront Russia about its violations of the INF treaty but it's profoundly wrong to pull out of the treaty in response. This is going to be a gift to Vladimir Putin and Russia because it removes every legal restraint that Russia has on deploying these missiles. The U.S. gets the blame instead of Russia which is the actual culprit. It's likely to divide us from our allies and will fuel an arms race. There's other steps the U.S. could take that would not put the U.S. in violation of the treaty that would put the pressure on Russia to come into compliance.

The U.S. has a long history with these arms control agreements. Every president from John Kennedy to Barack Obama negotiated an accord with Russia. We went from around 65,000 warheads between the two countries in the mid 1980's to less than 2,000 today. The world was a little bit safer and stable as a result. This is going to lead in exactly the opposite direction. Trump needs to be reminded that the other side must able to find some way to say that they win, otherwise there can't be a successful negotiation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...hdrawing-from-inf-treaty-is-a-massive-mistake

Withdrawing from INF Treaty is a massive mistake

It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

The treaty eliminated, 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

Fast forward to President Trump and his national security advisor, John Bolton announcing their intention to jettison the treaty that ended the Cold War; took Europe out of the cross-hairs of nuclear war; and allowed for major reductions in nuclear arms.

 

[humbolt]

NATO unanimously endorses withdrawal.

 

[Kal'Stang]

NATO unanimously endorses withdrawal.

Link?

 

[Mycroft]

It's right to confront Russia about its violations of the INF treaty but it's profoundly wrong to pull out of the treaty in response. This is going to be a gift to Vladimir Putin and Russia because it removes every legal restraint that Russia has on deploying these missiles. The U.S. gets the blame instead of Russia which is the actual culprit. It's likely to divide us from our allies and will fuel an arms race. There's other steps the U.S. could take that would not put the U.S. in violation of the treaty that would put the pressure on Russia to come into compliance.

The U.S. has a long history with these arms control agreements. Every president from John Kennedy to Barack Obama negotiated an accord with Russia. We went from around 65,000 warheads between the two countries in the mid 1980's to less than 2,000 today. The world was a little bit safer and stable as a result. This is going to lead in exactly the opposite direction. Trump needs to be reminded that the other side must able to find some way to say that they win, otherwise there can't be a successful negotiation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...hdrawing-from-inf-treaty-is-a-massive-mistake

Withdrawing from INF Treaty is a massive mistake

It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

The treaty eliminated, 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

Fast forward to President Trump and his national security advisor, John Bolton announcing their intention to jettison the treaty that ended the Cold War; took Europe out of the cross-hairs of nuclear war; and allowed for major reductions in nuclear arms.

Seems to me "every legal restraint" didn't restrain anything.

 

[humbolt]

Link?

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuc...a-for-us-withdrawal-from-nuclear-arms-treaty/

 

[Kal'Stang]

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuc...a-for-us-withdrawal-from-nuclear-arms-treaty/

Thanks.

In Europe, the move was met with support from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who backed the U.S. position that Russia is to blame for the INF Treaty’s potential demise. In a statement, the NATO nations said that “Allies fully support this action” and “Russia will bear sole responsibility for the end of the Treaty.”

The following should also be noted:

U.S. officials previously have expressed worry that China, which is not party to the 1987 treaty, is gaining a significant military advantage in Asia by deploying large numbers of missiles with ranges beyond the treaty’s limit. Leaving the INF Treaty would allow the Trump administration to counter China, but it’s unclear how it would do that.

However, the second senior administration official downplayed the China impact, saying: “This really doesn’t have anything to with China. This is fully about Russia’s violation to this treaty.”

At the same time, the officials acknowledged a U.S. assessment that China has roughly 1,000 missiles that would be considered noncompliant with the INF Treaty.

 

[Grokmaster]

It's right to confront Russia about its violations of the INF treaty but it's profoundly wrong to pull out of the treaty in response. This is going to be a gift to Vladimir Putin and Russia because it removes every legal restraint that Russia has on deploying these missiles. The U.S. gets the blame instead of Russia which is the actual culprit. It's likely to divide us from our allies and will fuel an arms race. There's other steps the U.S. could take that would not put the U.S. in violation of the treaty that would put the pressure on Russia to come into compliance.

The U.S. has a long history with these arms control agreements. Every president from John Kennedy to Barack Obama negotiated an accord with Russia. We went from around 65,000 warheads between the two countries in the mid 1980's to less than 2,000 today. The world was a little bit safer and stable as a result. This is going to lead in exactly the opposite direction. Trump needs to be reminded that the other side must able to find some way to say that they win, otherwise there can't be a successful negotiation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...hdrawing-from-inf-treaty-is-a-massive-mistake

Withdrawing from INF Treaty is a massive mistake

It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

The treaty eliminated, 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

Fast forward to President Trump and his national security advisor, John Bolton announcing their intention to jettison the treaty that ended the Cold War; took Europe out of the cross-hairs of nuclear war; and allowed for major reductions in nuclear arms.

Oh look!! The Russia bots are here.


Same people who voted for the POTUS who allowed Putin to take control of 20% of our uranium (as in nuclear weapons) reserves (yes, that DID HAPPEN), not propose we stay in an agreement that limits us, and allows the Russian to behave with impunity on the nuclear weapons front.

Obama is thrilled to see you sticking up for his Mancrush, "Vladipoo".

 

[HumblePi]

Oh look!! The Russia bots are here.


Same people who voted for the POTUS who allowed Putin to take control of 20% of our uranium (as in nuclear weapons) reserves (yes, that DID HAPPEN), not propose we stay in an agreement that limits us, and allows the Russian to behave with impunity on the nuclear weapons front.

Obama is thrilled to see you sticking up for his Mancrush, "Vladipoo".

I'm going to, once again, explain to a Trump supporter why Uranium One was a legal transaction and they should really make an effort to get past it. The conspiracy theory is over, it's been debunked. Yet you want to continue to cling to whatever little you have in order to counterpoint the mounting evidence of Trump's dirty dealing and collusion with Russia to win the presidency.

Okay, pay attention, write it down if you need to, copy and paste this to a notepad and save it on your desktop for future reference because I'm going to completely demolish and destroy your old "Uranium One" flag you keep trying to fly. I bet you didn't even know that 'Uranium One' is the name of a corporation, one that's located in Canada, did you?

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States. Uranium One also has exploration projects in Arizona, Colorado and Utah. (got it so far?) Moving on.....

On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

At the time, Uranium One’s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about “20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.,” according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In-situ recovery is the extraction method currently used by 10 of the 11 licensed U.S. uranium producers. Anyone with the proper license can purchase uranium. A licensed individual or company can even buy enriched uranium (which this wasn't) as long as they possess the proper licenses and doesn't exceed the legal amount.

But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Trump was completely wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.


We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.

Now, I realize that's a lot of words to read, but if you want the truth you will read it, digest it, and come to the conclusion as the rest of the worlds has, that the claim by Fox Nooze and Trump supporters that Hillary sold Uranium to Russians is a complete and total LIE.

 

[RetiredUSN]

It's right to confront Russia about its violations of the INF treaty but it's profoundly wrong to pull out of the treaty in response. This is going to be a gift to Vladimir Putin and Russia because it removes every legal restraint that Russia has on deploying these missiles. The U.S. gets the blame instead of Russia which is the actual culprit. It's likely to divide us from our allies and will fuel an arms race. There's other steps the U.S. could take that would not put the U.S. in violation of the treaty that would put the pressure on Russia to come into compliance.

The U.S. has a long history with these arms control agreements. Every president from John Kennedy to Barack Obama negotiated an accord with Russia. We went from around 65,000 warheads between the two countries in the mid 1980's to less than 2,000 today. The world was a little bit safer and stable as a result. This is going to lead in exactly the opposite direction. Trump needs to be reminded that the other side must able to find some way to say that they win, otherwise there can't be a successful negotiation.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...hdrawing-from-inf-treaty-is-a-massive-mistake

Withdrawing from INF Treaty is a massive mistake

It would be a mistake of significant proportions for the U.S. to unilaterally withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would end an important arms limitation treaty, one that eliminated a whole category of nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 500 km to 5,500 km.

The treaty eliminated, 846 U.S. nuclear missiles and 1,846 Soviet nuclear missiles, for a combined total of 2,692 nuclear missiles. President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in 1987. It was an agreement that followed their realization, “A nuclear war cannot be won, and must never be fought.”

Fast forward to President Trump and his national security advisor, John Bolton announcing their intention to jettison the treaty that ended the Cold War; took Europe out of the cross-hairs of nuclear war; and allowed for major reductions in nuclear arms.

LMAO :lamo

10 missiles can change mankind for centuries and you are worried about some treaty that was never honestly being held to by the Russians.

I worry more about Obama's give back of money to Iran's mullahs so they can plant more IED's via proxy, and other terrorist activities that they love funding.

 

[HumblePi]

LMAO :lamo

10 missiles can change mankind for centuries and you are worried about some treaty that was never honestly being held to by the Russians.

I worry more about Obama's give back of money to Iran's mullahs so they can plant more IED's via proxy, and other terrorist activities that they love funding.

What about an arms race being a danger to all mankind do you really not understand? Oh yeah, the old "Obama did this- Obama did that" routine. Speaking of Iran, they are STILL in compliance with the nuclear ban because Europe did not foolishly pull out of that treaty like dumbass Trump did. France, England, China, Russia, they're all still trading goods with Iran and in exchange Iran is holding up their end of the bargain.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It's right to confront Russia about its violations of the INF treaty but it's profoundly wrong to pull out of the treaty in response. This is going to be a gift to Vladimir Putin and Russia because it removes every legal restraint that Russia has on deploying these missiles.

Legal restraint? What are you talking about? Russia has been in non-compliance (the Novator 9M729/SSC-8 LBCM) since 2010. Moscow was provided a year to bring itself into INF compliance. Nothing.

A treaty is worthy and productive only if the signatories honor its terms.

As it is, Russia has been in INF non-compliance since 2010 and China has no INF constraints. The US is left sucking hind-tit and falling way behind.

 

[Grokmaster]

I'm going to, once again, explain to a Trump supporter why Uranium One was a legal transaction and they should really make an effort to get past it. The conspiracy theory is over, it's been debunked. Yet you want to continue to cling to whatever little you have in order to counterpoint the mounting evidence of Trump's dirty dealing and collusion with Russia to win the presidency.

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States. Uranium One also has exploration projects in Arizona, Colorado and Utah. (got it so far?) Moving on.....

On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.


Trump was completely wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.


We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.

Now, I realize that's a lot of words to read, but if you want the truth you will read it, digest it, and come to the conclusion as the rest of the worlds has, that the claim by Fox Nooze and Trump supporters that Hillary sold Uranium to Russians is a complete and total LIE.

At least you ADMIT that Obama ALLOWED PUTIN to TAKE CONTROL OF 20% of our URANIUM RESERVES, unlike much of the rest of the DP Left. The deal for ROSATOM to buy Uranium One was already in the works when the Obama Adm. allowed it to happen.


Excuse me? Was their ANOTHER SECRETARY OF STATE whose OFFICE SIGNED OFF ON RUSSIA TAKING CONTROL OF 20% OF OUR URANIUM RESERVES?

Didn't think so.


You desperate attempt to DOWNPLAY IT CHANGES NOTHING.


LEGAL? Maybe...or NOT, considering Russian CRIMES such as BRIBERY, etc., were overlooked to make it happen..and were NOT REPORTED TO CONGRESS, by the COMEY/MULLER FBI.


THE EXPORTS THAT FOLLOWED, (BREAKING THE PROMISE THAT NONE OF THE URANIUM WOULD LEAVE THE US) were ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL, however, per the Obama Adm. era's OWN Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents.


[

B] Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show [/B]

~ ...The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show


OOPS !!!

Odd coincidence that, here you are, pretending that allowing Russian, The Left's Great Enemy, control of 20% of our NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL, is "OK".


And now, you support continuing with the FAILED AGREEMENT that has seen RUSSIAN VIOLATIONS from the START, while LIMTING US.


If Trump held you positions, YOU'D BE SCREAMING , "TREASON!!! TREASON!!"

 

[HumblePi]

Legal restraint? What are you talking about? Russia has been in non-compliance (the Novator 9M729/SSC-8 LBCM) since 2010. Moscow was provided a year to bring itself into INF compliance. Nothing.

A treaty is worthy and productive only if the signatories honor its terms.

As it is, Russia has been in INF non-compliance since 2010 and China has no INF constraints. The US is left sucking hind-tit and falling way behind.

And what do you do when a country is in violation of a treaty that's more than 30 years old? Since you're the one that mentioned the treaty in 2010; On April 8, 2010, the United States and Russia signed New START, a legally binding, verifiable agreement that limits each side to 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 700 strategic delivery systems (ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers), and limits deployed and nondeployed launchers to 800. The treaty-accountable warhead limit is 30 percent lower than the 2,200 upper limit of SORT, and the delivery vehicle limit is 50 percent lower than the 1,600 allowed in START I. The treaty has a verification regime that combines elements of START I with new elements tailored to New START. Measures under the treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring.

Pulling the U.S. out of that treaty is a great big present for Putin given unceremoniously by his best-butt-buddy, Trump. Flipping over the negotiating table and storming out of the room may have worked in real estate, but when you’re dealing with nuclear treaties, the risk of misplaying your hand isn’t a failed business venture, it’s an arms race and possibly nuclear war. Now Putin can point to the United States and accuse the U.S. of ending the treaty and in the meantime they're the winner because now they're free to proliferate their missile program.

But-but-but you say "but what could the U.S. have done instead?" Measures under the treaty included on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. The treaty also provides for the continued exchange of telemetry (missile flight-test data on up to five tests per year) and does not meaningfully limit missile defenses or long-range conventional strike capabilities.

The real question now is what will the U.S. do going forward to curtail Russia's nuclear proliferation? The answer is that Mike Pompeo has no answer for that question.

 

[Rogue Valley]

At least you ADMIT that Obama ALLOWED PUTIN to TAKE CONTROL OF 20% of our URANIUM RESERVES, unlike much of the rest of the DP Left. The deal for ROSATOM to buy Uranium One was already in the works when the Obama Adm. allowed it to happen.

Debunked Trumpian conspiracy theory.....

The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’

The Alternative 'Russia Scandal'

 

[HumblePi]

At least you ADMIT that Obama ALLOWED PUTIN to TAKE CONTROL OF 20% of our URANIUM RESERVES, unlike much of the rest of the DP Left. The deal for ROSATOM to buy Uranium One was already in the works when the Obama Adm. allowed it to happen.


Excuse me? Was their ANOTHER SECRETARY OF STATE whose OFFICE SIGNED OFF ON RUSSIA TAKING CONTROL OF 20% OF OUR URANIUM RESERVES?

Didn't think so.


You desperate attempt to DOWNPLAY IT CHANGES NOTHING.


LEGAL? Maybe...or NOT, considering Russian CRIMES such as BRIBERY, etc., were overlooked to make it happen..and were NOT REPORTED TO CONGRESS, by the COMEY/MULLER FBI.


THE EXPORTS THAT FOLLOWED, (BREAKING THE PROMISE THAT NONE OF THE URANIUM WOULD LEAVE THE US) were ABSOLUTELY NOT LEGAL, however, per the Obama Adm. era's OWN Nuclear Regulatory Commission documents.


[

B] Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show [/B]

~ ...The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show


OOPS !!!

Odd coincidence that, here you are, pretending that allowing Russian, The Left's Great Enemy, control of 20% of our NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL, is "OK".


And now, you support continuing with the FAILED AGREEMENT that has seen RUSSIAN VIOLATIONS from the START, while LIMTING US.


If Trump held you positions, YOU'D BE SCREAMING , "TREASON!!! TREASON!!"

There was absolutely NO REASON for him to say 'no'. NONE- ZERO

 

[Rogue Valley]

Pulling the U.S. out of that treaty is a great big present for Putin given complements of his best-butt-buddy, Trump.

The INF treaty existed in name only. Don't fall for that Russian disinformation that Moscow is "terribly disappointed". Putin pulled out of the INF at least 8 years ago.

I detest Trump. But on the INF Treaty and the Nordstream-2 pipeline, the Trump administration is right.

 

[HumblePi]

The INF treaty existed in name only. Don't fall for that Russian disinformation that Moscow is "terribly disappointed". Putin pulled out of the INF at least 8 years ago.

I detest Trump. But on the INF Treaty and the Nordstream-2 pipeline, the Trump administration is right.

I disagree, Russians now have free reign to proliferate their nuclear missiles. This is going to increase the pressure and tension in all European countries.

 

[Grokmaster]

Debunked Trumpian conspiracy theory.....

The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’

The Alternative 'Russia Scandal'

Apparently you didn't read your links.


NEITHER DISPUTES the takeover of US URANIUM RESERVES by the Russian Company ROSATOM, majority shareholder in Uranium One.


They just want to quibble about the "%" (arbitrary BULL****) and try to make the absolutely LAUGHABLE "CASE" that the TENS OF MILLIONS "donated" to the Clinton Foundation by owners and shareholders of BOTH Uranium One and ROSATOM ( which is also NOT DISPUTED) had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE URANIUM DEAL. Riiiiiiiight.


Believe what you want,l BUT YOUR LINKS ADMIT THAT THE OBAMA ADM. ALLOWED PUTIN CONTROL OF A SIZEABLE PORTION if US URANIUM RESERVES.

What, exactly, is the "ACCEPTABLE AMOUNT" of America's NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL to be ALLOWED PUTIN TO TAKE CONTROL OF?

 

[Helix]

Withdrawing from INF Treaty is a massive mistake

it will be interesting if the content of the Putin / Trump meetings ever leaks.

 

[Grokmaster]

There was absolutely NO REASON for him to say 'no'. NONE- ZERO

Other than providing NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL to the KNOWN VIOLATOR of the NUCLEAR WEAPONS TREATY you LOVE SO MUCH, whom the left has declared THE BIG ENEMY ( obviously Obama did not agree), yeah, "no reason to say no".


And then, TRUE TO FORM , ILLEGAL EXPORTS Of SAID NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL FOLLOWED.


Yeah... "NO REASON" to not allow Putin control of a sizeable portion of US NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL.







Imagine if TRUMP HAD DONE SO....you'd be marching in front of the White House with torches and pitchforks...

 

[humbolt]

I'm going to, once again, explain to a Trump supporter why Uranium One was a legal transaction and they should really make an effort to get past it. The conspiracy theory is over, it's been debunked. Yet you want to continue to cling to whatever little you have in order to counterpoint the mounting evidence of Trump's dirty dealing and collusion with Russia to win the presidency.

Okay, pay attention, write it down if you need to, copy and paste this to a notepad and save it on your desktop for future reference because I'm going to completely demolish and destroy your old "Uranium One" flag you keep trying to fly. I bet you didn't even know that 'Uranium One' is the name of a corporation, one that's located in Canada, did you?

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States. Uranium One also has exploration projects in Arizona, Colorado and Utah. (got it so far?) Moving on.....

On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

At the time, Uranium One’s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about “20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.,” according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In-situ recovery is the extraction method currently used by 10 of the 11 licensed U.S. uranium producers. Anyone with the proper license can purchase uranium. A licensed individual or company can even buy enriched uranium (which this wasn't) as long as they possess the proper licenses and doesn't exceed the legal amount.

But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Trump was completely wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.


We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.

Now, I realize that's a lot of words to read, but if you want the truth you will read it, digest it, and come to the conclusion as the rest of the worlds has, that the claim by Fox Nooze and Trump supporters that Hillary sold Uranium to Russians is a complete and total LIE.

Why don't you explain all the errors in the OP?

 

[Rogue Valley]

I disagree, Russians now have free reign to proliferate their nuclear missiles. This is going to increase the pressure and tension in all European countries.

Then we disagree. Russia has been proliferating the SSC-8 since at least 2010. Russia has had nuclear-capable Iskander-M cruise missiles in Kaliningrad for 3 years. These can reach 5 NATO capitols.

This is going to increase the pressure and tension in all European countries.

Nothing that wasn't expected. The defunct INF treaty certainly wasn't slowing Putin down. With Crimea/Donbas, NATO is rearming.

 

[Grokmaster]

Then we disagree. Russia has been proliferating the SSC-8 since at least 2010. Russia has had nuclear-capable Iskander-M cruise missiles in Kaliningrad for 3 years. These can reach 5 NATO capitols.



Nothing that wasn't expected. The defunct INF treaty certainly wasn't slowing Putin down. With Crimea/Donbas, NATO is rearming.

Putting it mildly!

 

[Nickyjo]

I'm going to, once again, explain to a Trump supporter why Uranium One was a legal transaction and they should really make an effort to get past it. The conspiracy theory is over, it's been debunked. Yet you want to continue to cling to whatever little you have in order to counterpoint the mounting evidence of Trump's dirty dealing and collusion with Russia to win the

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States. Uranium One also has exploration projects in Arizona, Colorado and Utah. (got it so far?) Moving on.....

On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

At the time, Uranium One’s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about “20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.,” according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In-situ recovery is the extraction method currently used by 10 of the 11 licensed U.S. uranium producers. Anyone with the proper license can purchase uranium. A licensed individual or company can even buy enriched uranium (which this wasn't) as long as they possess the proper licenses and doesn't exceed the legal amount.

But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Trump was completely wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.


We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.

Now, I realize that's a lot of words to read, but if you want the truth you will read it, digest it, and come to the conclusion as the rest of the worlds has, that the claim by Fox Nooze and Trump supporters that Hillary sold Uranium to Russians is a complete and total LIE.

You don't get it, do you? This thing has been debunked, re-debunked, cleared up, many times. It is up against the Trump lie-fed paranoia-land that some of the right occupies, so it will keep coming back more times than Christopher Lee's Dracula in the 60s and 70s. Obama was bad, Hillary was worse. Benghazi, birth certificates, emails, Vince Foster, giving money to Iran... How did the republic survive all that?

And the curious thing to me is that there never seems to be a "therefore," beyond "therefore they are evil." Nor is there a motivation ascribed. It used to be that elements of the right had the go-to explanation that democrats or liberals behaved that way cause they were communists. The fall of the Iron Curtain was great for the world but bad for the paranoid right. "He's a Muslim" or "she had to be doing something wrong with her emails" doesnt cut it paranoia-wise compared to calling someone a pinko. Heck, the right tried but couldn't really get fully apoplectic over Obama's suggestion that we might normalize relations with Cuba.

(Take heart righties, you always have AOCortez. A poor substitute for Beelzebub and Cruella DeVille to be sure, but take what you can get.)

You can expect the uranium stake to be pulled out of the heart of this non-issue and for it to surface once again. You too should save your text.

 

[HumblePi]

Other than providing NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL to the KNOWN VIOLATOR of the NUCLEAR WEAPONS TREATY you LOVE SO MUCH, whom the left has declared THE BIG ENEMY ( obviously Obama did not agree), yeah, "no reason to say no".


And then, TRUE TO FORM , ILLEGAL EXPORTS Of SAID NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL FOLLOWED.


Yeah... "NO REASON" to not allow Putin control of a sizeable portion of US NUCLEAR WEAPONS FUEL.



View attachment 67249586



Imagine if TRUMP HAD DONE SO....you'd be marching in front of the White House with torches and pitchforks...

Tell me something. What remedies do you suggest that Trump takes once we find out that Putin is busy producing new nuclear missiles? What action could he take that would prevent Putin from threatening our European allies with nuclear destruction?

And by the way, Trump has already done enough damage to prompt me to take up a torch and go march in front of the White House already.