### - so pull-up a cup of coffee and enjoy a read that kinda brings
everything up to date, although imho/observation there's still no sign of
mandela in the offing ;)

"Come writers and critics who prophesise with your pen
And keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times, they are a-changin'"

confused? then read on + place yer bets :)

***

The United States finds itself wandering in a wilderness of indecision
when it comes to arms control policy.

The situation regarding the status of the last existing nuclear arms
control treaty with Russia — the New START treaty — is dire.
Implementation is currently frozen after Russia suspended its
participation in protest to a stated U.S. policy objective of seeking the
strategic defeat of Russia, something Russia finds incompatible with
opening its strategic nuclear deterrent (which exists precisely to prevent
Russia’s strategic defeat) to inspection by U.S. officials.

https://consortiumnews.com/2023/04/07/scott-ritter-the-future-of-us-nuclear-strategy/

The U.S. is not talking with Russia about the future of arms control once
New START expires in February 2026.

Moreover, fallout from the U.S. policy of seeking strategic defeat of
Russia has seen Moscow radically alter its position regarding future arms
control treaties. Any future agreement must, from the Russian perspective,
include missile defense; the French and British nuclear arsenals, as well
as the U.S.-supplied NATO nuclear deterrent.

Russia has further complicated any future negotiations by deploying
tactical nuclear weapons to its Baltic enclave in Kaliningrad, as well as
extending its Russian-controlled nuclear umbrella to Belarus where it has
mirrored the NATO nuclear umbrella.

The state of play today regarding strategic arms control between the U.S..
and Russia can best be likened to a patient on life support whom no one is
trying to revive.

Russia is in the process of finalizing a major modernization of its
strategic nuclear forces, built around the new Sarmat heavy
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and the Avangard hypersonic
reentry vehicle. The United States is on the cusp of initiating its own
multi-billion dollar upgrade to the U.S. nuclear Triad consisting of the
B-21 stealth bomber, the Columbia class missile submarine and the new
Sentinel ICBM.

If no treaty vehicle exists designed to verifiably limit the deployment of
these new weapons, once New START expires, the U.S. and Russia will find
themselves engaged in an unconstrained nuclear arms race that dramatically
increases the probability of unintended nuclear conflict.

When viewed in this light, the future of global security hinges on the
ability of Russia and the U.S. returning to the negotiating table and
resuscitating arms control from its present moribund state.

Key to this will be the willingness of Washington to incorporate Russian
concerns into U.S. nuclear posture. To achieve this, the U.S. nuclear
establishment will have to be shaken out of the calcified policy
assumptions that have guided U.S. arms control policy since the end of the
Cold War.

First and foremost amongst these assumptions is the need to promote and
sustain U.S. primacy in global nuclear weapons capability. Whether such an
assumption is jettisoned will be tied to the person occupying the White
House after the February 2026 expiration of New START.

This makes the 2024 U.S. presidential election one of the most critical in
recent history. Simply put, the future of humanity may ride on whomever
the American people vote for in November 2024.

The Establishment Standard

President Joe Biden has indicated that he will be seeking a second term in
office. While some have opined that, given Biden’s age, this goal might be
too optimistic, the reality is that if Biden, Vice President Kamala
Harris, or some other person designated by the Democratic Party is in
office to continue the Biden administration’s agenda for another four
years, decisions on the future of the U.S. nuclear posture and, by
extension, arms control policy, will remain in the hands of the same
establishment that has put us in the situation we are in today.

It’s proper to ask, therefore, whether or not the “establishment” is
capable of implementing the changes necessary to get U.S.-Russian arms
control back on track. History suggests not.

Biden ran in 2020 on a promise to change U.S. nuclear strategy away from
the George W. Bush-era policy, when preemptive U.S. nuclear strikes were a
possibility, to a doctrine holding that U.S. nuclear forces exist for the
sole purpose of deterring a nuclear attack against the U.S., or
retaliating if deterrence failed.

However, once elected Biden’s promise fell to the wayside as an
“interagency process” run by unelected bureaucrats and military officers
intervened to prevent campaign rhetoric from becoming official policy.

Biden, like every American president before him in the nuclear age, has
been unable and/or unwilling to expend the political capital necessary to
take on the American nuclear enterprise, and as a result the American
people and the rest of humanity are held hostage by this deadly nexus
between the U.S. military industrial complex and the U.S. Congress.

Congress allocates taxpayer money to underwrite a nuclear
weapons-oriented, defense industry, which in turn feeds this money back
into campaign contributions that empower a compromised Congress to keep
funding the nuclear enterprise – creating a vicious cycle impervious to
change of its own volition.

Biden or anyone Democratic candidate in 2024 is a byproduct of this very
establishment, and a willing participant in the corrupt circle of money
and power that is the nuclear, military industrial-congressional complex..
In short, if Biden or his proxy is sitting in the White House in 2025,
there will be no change in the U.S. nuclear posture on arms control policy.

This means any Democratic Party-controlled candidate voted into office in
November 2024 may very well be the last president to hold office, given
the probability of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, which an
unchanged nuclear posture and arms control policy will foster.

The Trump Standard

Donald Trump, who preceded Biden as the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, has thrown his hat into the 2024 presidential race.

Given the current state of the Republican Party, which has been cowed into
submission to Trump’s “make America great again” brand of populist
politics, it’s highly unlikely the GOP will put up a primary candidate
capable of defeating Trump, his ongoing legal dramas notwithstanding.

Whether Trump could pull off a second successful presidential run is not
the issue here. Instead, the question is whether Trump can promote an arms
control stance different from Biden and the Democratic and Republican
establishments that could break free of existing constraints — giving arms
control a chance.

Trump’s track record is decidedly mixed in this regard. On the one hand,
he has articulated some foundational beliefs which, if incorporated into
official U.S. policy, could radically alter the way the U.S. relates with
the rest of the world and, in doing so, create a new paradigm capable of
sustaining a revised arms control policy.

Trump’s willingness to break free of the ideological prison of rampant
Russophobia by considering the possibility of friendly relations between
the U.S. and Russia makes him unique among mainstream presidential
candidates of either party.

Likewise, Trump’s questioning of NATO’s viability and purpose means that a
future Trump administration could engage in the kinds of policy
restructuring that ends the perpetual state of tension between NATO and
Russia since NATO needs a Russian threat to justify its existence.

NATO’S diminishment as a policy driver would free both the U.S. and Europe
to more rationally explore the potential for a new European security
framework in a post-Ukraine conflict world. Such a posture would, in one
fell swoop, help resolve many of the add-on issues Russia now insists must
be part of any future U.S.-Russian arms control agreement, including
missile defense, French and U.K. nuclear weapons and the U.S.-provided
NATO nuclear deterrent.

More important, however, is Trump’s proven track record in breaking free
of past policy precedent in pursuit of meaningful nuclear disarmament.

The case of North Korea stands out. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim
Jung-un on three separate occasions to try to bring about the
denuclearization of North Korea. While ultimately this gambit failed, in
large part because of the resistance to change on the part of
establishment figures like Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and
National Security Advisor John Bolton, the fact that Trump even went down
that path shows that, unlike his predecessors and successor, he was
willing to go the extra mile in pursuit of ground-breaking change in U.S..
arms control policy.

On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 4:39:48 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> ### - so pull-up a cup of coffee and enjoy a read that kinda brings
> everything up to date, although imho/observation there's still no sign of
> mandela in the offing ;)
>
> "Come writers and critics who prophesise with your pen
> And keep your eyes wide, the chance won't come again
> And don't speak too soon, for the wheel's still in spin
> And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'
> For the loser now will be later to win
> For the times, they are a-changin'"
>
> confused? then read on + place yer bets :)
>
> ***
>
> The United States finds itself wandering in a wilderness of indecision
> when it comes to arms control policy.
>
> The situation regarding the status of the last existing nuclear arms
> control treaty with Russia — the New START treaty — is dire.
> Implementation is currently frozen after Russia suspended its
> participation in protest to a stated U.S. policy objective of seeking the
> strategic defeat of Russia, something Russia finds incompatible with
> opening its strategic nuclear deterrent (which exists precisely to prevent
> Russia’s strategic defeat) to inspection by U.S. officials.
>
> https://consortiumnews.com/2023/04/07/scott-ritter-the-future-of-us-nuclear-strategy/
>
> The U.S. is not talking with Russia about the future of arms control once
> New START expires in February 2026.
>
> Moreover, fallout from the U.S. policy of seeking strategic defeat of
> Russia has seen Moscow radically alter its position regarding future arms
> control treaties. Any future agreement must, from the Russian perspective,
> include missile defense; the French and British nuclear arsenals, as well
> as the U.S.-supplied NATO nuclear deterrent.
>
> Russia has further complicated any future negotiations by deploying
> tactical nuclear weapons to its Baltic enclave in Kaliningrad, as well as
> extending its Russian-controlled nuclear umbrella to Belarus where it has
> mirrored the NATO nuclear umbrella.
>
> The state of play today regarding strategic arms control between the U.S.
> and Russia can best be likened to a patient on life support whom no one is
> trying to revive.
>
> Russia is in the process of finalizing a major modernization of its
> strategic nuclear forces, built around the new Sarmat heavy
> intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and the Avangard hypersonic
> reentry vehicle. The United States is on the cusp of initiating its own
> multi-billion dollar upgrade to the U.S. nuclear Triad consisting of the
> B-21 stealth bomber, the Columbia class missile submarine and the new
> Sentinel ICBM.
>
> If no treaty vehicle exists designed to verifiably limit the deployment of
> these new weapons, once New START expires, the U.S. and Russia will find
> themselves engaged in an unconstrained nuclear arms race that dramatically
> increases the probability of unintended nuclear conflict.
>
> When viewed in this light, the future of global security hinges on the
> ability of Russia and the U.S. returning to the negotiating table and
> resuscitating arms control from its present moribund state.
>
> Key to this will be the willingness of Washington to incorporate Russian
> concerns into U.S. nuclear posture. To achieve this, the U.S. nuclear
> establishment will have to be shaken out of the calcified policy
> assumptions that have guided U.S. arms control policy since the end of the
> Cold War.
>
> First and foremost amongst these assumptions is the need to promote and
> sustain U.S. primacy in global nuclear weapons capability. Whether such an
> assumption is jettisoned will be tied to the person occupying the White
> House after the February 2026 expiration of New START.
>
> This makes the 2024 U.S. presidential election one of the most critical in
> recent history. Simply put, the future of humanity may ride on whomever
> the American people vote for in November 2024.
>
> The Establishment Standard
>
> President Joe Biden has indicated that he will be seeking a second term in
> office. While some have opined that, given Biden’s age, this goal might be
> too optimistic, the reality is that if Biden, Vice President Kamala
> Harris, or some other person designated by the Democratic Party is in
> office to continue the Biden administration’s agenda for another four
> years, decisions on the future of the U.S. nuclear posture and, by
> extension, arms control policy, will remain in the hands of the same
> establishment that has put us in the situation we are in today.
>
> It’s proper to ask, therefore, whether or not the “establishment” is
> capable of implementing the changes necessary to get U.S.-Russian arms
> control back on track. History suggests not.
>
> Biden ran in 2020 on a promise to change U.S. nuclear strategy away from
> the George W. Bush-era policy, when preemptive U.S. nuclear strikes were a
> possibility, to a doctrine holding that U.S. nuclear forces exist for the
> sole purpose of deterring a nuclear attack against the U.S., or
> retaliating if deterrence failed.
>
> However, once elected Biden’s promise fell to the wayside as an
> “interagency process” run by unelected bureaucrats and military officers
> intervened to prevent campaign rhetoric from becoming official policy.
>
> Biden, like every American president before him in the nuclear age, has
> been unable and/or unwilling to expend the political capital necessary to
> take on the American nuclear enterprise, and as a result the American
> people and the rest of humanity are held hostage by this deadly nexus
> between the U.S. military industrial complex and the U.S. Congress.
>
> Congress allocates taxpayer money to underwrite a nuclear
> weapons-oriented, defense industry, which in turn feeds this money back
> into campaign contributions that empower a compromised Congress to keep
> funding the nuclear enterprise – creating a vicious cycle impervious to
> change of its own volition.
>
> Biden or anyone Democratic candidate in 2024 is a byproduct of this very
> establishment, and a willing participant in the corrupt circle of money
> and power that is the nuclear, military industrial-congressional complex.
> In short, if Biden or his proxy is sitting in the White House in 2025,
> there will be no change in the U.S. nuclear posture on arms control policy.
>
> This means any Democratic Party-controlled candidate voted into office in
> November 2024 may very well be the last president to hold office, given
> the probability of nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, which an
> unchanged nuclear posture and arms control policy will foster.
>
> The Trump Standard
>
> Donald Trump, who preceded Biden as the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania
> Avenue, has thrown his hat into the 2024 presidential race.
>
> Given the current state of the Republican Party, which has been cowed into
> submission to Trump’s “make America great again” brand of populist
> politics, it’s highly unlikely the GOP will put up a primary candidate
> capable of defeating Trump, his ongoing legal dramas notwithstanding.
>
> Whether Trump could pull off a second successful presidential run is not
> the issue here. Instead, the question is whether Trump can promote an arms
> control stance different from Biden and the Democratic and Republican
> establishments that could break free of existing constraints — giving arms
> control a chance.
>
> Trump’s track record is decidedly mixed in this regard. On the one hand,
> he has articulated some foundational beliefs which, if incorporated into
> official U.S. policy, could radically alter the way the U.S. relates with
> the rest of the world and, in doing so, create a new paradigm capable of
> sustaining a revised arms control policy.
>
> Trump’s willingness to break free of the ideological prison of rampant
> Russophobia by considering the possibility of friendly relations between
> the U.S. and Russia makes him unique among mainstream presidential
> candidates of either party.
>
> Likewise, Trump’s questioning of NATO’s viability and purpose means that a
> future Trump administration could engage in the kinds of policy
> restructuring that ends the perpetual state of tension between NATO and
> Russia since NATO needs a Russian threat to justify its existence.
>
> NATO’S diminishment as a policy driver would free both the U.S. and Europe
> to more rationally explore the potential for a new European security
> framework in a post-Ukraine conflict world. Such a posture would, in one
> fell swoop, help resolve many of the add-on issues Russia now insists must
> be part of any future U.S.-Russian arms control agreement, including
> missile defense, French and U.K. nuclear weapons and the U.S.-provided
> NATO nuclear deterrent.
>
> More important, however, is Trump’s proven track record in breaking free
> of past policy precedent in pursuit of meaningful nuclear disarmament.
>
> The case of North Korea stands out. Trump met with North Korean leader Kim
> Jung-un on three separate occasions to try to bring about the
> denuclearization of North Korea. While ultimately this gambit failed, in
> large part because of the resistance to change on the part of
> establishment figures like Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and
> National Security Advisor John Bolton, the fact that Trump even went down
> that path shows that, unlike his predecessors and successor, he was
> willing to go the extra mile in pursuit of ground-breaking change in U.S.
> arms control policy.
>
> But there is another side to Trump which bodes poorly for any meaningful
> change in U.S.-Russian arms control. First and foremost is his abysmal
> record on arms control.
>
> He withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, he withdrew from the Intermediate
> Nuclear Forces treaty and he published as policy the most aggressive
> nuclear posture document in recent history, one which, according to Trump
> officials, was designed to “keep the Russians guessing” as to whether the
> U.S. would preemptively use nuclear weapons.
>
> Trump refused to meaningful engage with the Russians on any aspect of arms
> control, and instead embraced the modernization of U.S. strategic nuclear
> forces. In short, there was no light between Trump’s arms control policy
> and that of the “establishment.” Indeed, one might make the case that
> Trump’s policies represented an escalation over the norm.
>
> Then there is Trump’s tendency toward pugilistic bluster driven,
> apparently, by some inner insecurity that requires any U.S. negotiating
> position to be taken from a posture of overwhelming strength and
> dominance. He spoke of being “friends” with Russia, only to openly brag
> about being the “toughest president ever” when it came to sanctioning
> Russia.
>
> He withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, imposing new sanctions, all
> the while promoting the idea of a new negotiation that would resolve the
> Iran nuclear issue. And his North Korean initiative included some of the
> most war-like rhetoric uttered by an American president in the nuclear
> age, promising “fire and fury” if North Korea failed to toe the line.
>
> The bottom line is that the “Trump Standard” for arms control is in many
> ways even more dangerous than that of the “establishment,” promoting as it
> does an aggressive posture founded in dominance.
>
> In the end, Trump proved incapable of acting on his own belief, allowing
> himself to be subordinated to a radical America-first national security
> ideology which promoted the enhancement and expansion of the American
> nuclear enterprise — the exact opposite trajectory the U.S. needs to be
> taking come 2024.
>
> There is no reasonable expectation that a second Trump term would deviate
> meaningfully from that track record.
>
> A New American Standard in Arms Control
>
> The harsh reality today is that neither of the two potential sources of
> viable presidential candidates for the 2024 election — Democratic National
> Committee or MAGA Republicans — are positioned to effect meaningful,
> positive change regarding either U.S. nuclear posture or underlying arms
> control policy.
>
> That leaves the American people, and the world as a whole, with the
> inevitability of a massive nuclear arms race between the U.S. and Russia,
> which will unfold unconstrained by meaningful arms control treaty-mandated
> limitations.
>
> This is nothing short of a recipe for disaster, a witch’s brew of
> ignorance-based fear magnified by the lack of inspections designed to
> mollify concerns over the respective nuclear threats posed by two nations
> no longer willing to engage in meaningful dialogue and, as a result,
> perched on the precipice of an apocalyptic abyss.
>
> In short, a vote for either Biden/the Democratic establishment or
> Trump/MAGA Republicans is a vote in favor of continuous nuclear-armed
> Russian roulette, where there exists only one certainty — eventually the
> pistol will go off. But in this case, it’s not a pistol, but a nuclear
> weapon that leads to general nuclear war and the termination of life on
> planet earth as we currently know and understand it.
>
> The rally held in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 19 provided a platform for
> some voices of sanity who have presidential potential, either as
> independent candidates, or rogue outliers within their respective party
> establishments. Tulsi Gabbard, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Jimmy Dore
> all addressed the threat posed by nuclear weapons and the need to control
> them through meaningful arms control.
>
> But none who spoke have put anything in writing that would remotely
> constitute an arms control “standard” that could compete with either Biden
> or Trump — or their proxies — on the public stage. Moreover, other than
> Dore, a comedian, none of these individuals has announced an intention to
> run, making moot, for the moment at least, the notion of a third option on
> arms control and American nuclear posture.
>
> Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy,
> has announced his intention to challenge Biden for the Democratic
> nomination. While Kennedy, at this juncture, appears to be a long-shot,
> the likely mental and physical deterioration and possible incapacitation
> of Biden between now and November 2024, combined with the inadequacy of
> Vice President Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate, means the
> Democratic field could be thrown open.
>
> Kennedy’s announcement puts him in position to be either the candidate
> himself, or to challenge whatever establishment figure the Democratic
> Party selects for the job.
>
> The question is whether Kennedy is willing or able to articulate a new
> American standard on arms control, one that embraces the best of the Trump
> Standard without the pugilistic arrogance Trump brings with it.
>
> Kennedy has not published a detailed position on arms control and the U.S..
> nuclear posture. But in a recent conversation with me, he spoke about the
> legacy of his uncle, Jack Kennedy, and how he took guidance from that
> legacy.
>
> Any man who draws upon the wisdom and patience displayed by President
> Kennedy to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis would be on the right track
> when it comes to arms control.
how's everyone?
things are fucked up as usual
what's to do then?
fuck it, what else can a poor boy do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLbfviLC09k
live to forget or maybe it should be live to forgive ?

> how's everyone?

### - heya, jus' doin' the best we can under the circumstances innit, what
else ;)

> things are fucked up as usual

### - lol tell me about it + welcome to planet wallyworld (at least that's
wot my malicious kinda humour calls it) - the movie 'idiocracy' is now
people! (am such a rebel :))))

> what's to do then?

### - can't 'do' shit maan, coz who knows what to do ffs??

no one...

life is pure improvisation: music that HASN'T been written down!

(it's the fuckers writin' everything down that's been causing all the
trouble)

> fuck it, what else can a poor boy do?

### - if it moves fuck it?? well it's a philosophy i suppose, and have
defo seen it before, but nah not really my style that, but then who am i
to judge huh :)))

if it falls-over in front of me then try put it back on its feet's more my
kinda style...

it's a curse as well as a gift.

> live to forget or maybe it should be live to forgive ?

### - well now yer talking! hey peeps! have we perhaps JUST found our NEW
mandela??? (crowd roars)

coz that's wot mandela said! so it's crsds for enlightened leader of the
planet!? yaaay!!!

ahem... only problemo being, that you're maybe just a bit 'too good' to be
a mandela? (grinz)

i.e., by THAT 'blueprint' HE was a terrorist-cum-freedom fighter type
innit (margret thatcher and don cheney called him a terrorist) - an
'enemy' of the system, who, as it turned out, was the only fucking person
awake enough to SAVE their damn system by evolving it by a tweak or 3...
forgiveness being a major part OF that 3, the one that allowed them ALL to
move on!

which ain't bad for some black african dude spendin' 27 years in jail for
terrorism huh...

pretty impressive actually!

and coz NOW all the REST of us gots to do, is to find it in ourselves to
DO summat simliar??

(it's defo in us human beings somewhere, mandela being the proof)

i know! what about king ding ping-pong (whatever haha) of n.korea, he's
terrorist enough + BAD enough to qualify for the position, no? - now a
villain he suddenly turns into robin hood, and as such guides all humanity
into a new era of cooperation & peace??

it's just that 'haircut' of his that bothers moi somewhat? (haha)

imho ya just can't TRUST a haircut like that?? (really laffing...)

coz that would be like jesus coming back looking like robert de nero in
taxi driver wearing a Mohican??? (too disturbing haha)

several big-ish dudes having already tried & failed innit: macron & china
just recently; both calling for peace but not really offering any
permanent (read: similarly evolved) solution that suits all concerned...

hmm, now if bin laden had still been alive he might just have qualified,
he too like mandela was a named terrorist/freedom fighter with a bone to
pick with western society, who came from some royal family + also went to
the uk's top university... get the picture?

only problem is he's dead innit! (laffing, so that's out...)

nope, am afraid it MIGHT just be ALL down to... YOU matey! lol ! :)))

sorry, but you're now the world's last BEST hope!?

who they'll no doubt prolly nail to a tree or whatever (they do that here
heh)

but don't worry 'bout that bit, cross that bridge if/when ya have to innit
(grinz)

we're ALL dependin' on you bruv!

and GOD help us ALL :))))