Skip to comments.
US to trim nuclear arsenal (EVEN IF RUSSIA FAILED TO MATCH THEM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk ^
| Tuesday, 13 November, 2001, 08:27 GMT
| news.bbc.co.uk
Posted on 11/13/2001 8:29:35 AM PST by It'salmosttolate
US to trim nuclear arsenal
The US expects Russia to cut its arsenal too US President George W Bush said he would go ahead with substantial cuts in the US nuclear arsenal even if Russia failed to match them as Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Washington for his first official visit.
President Bush told Russian journalists there was no need for long discussions and he expected Mr Putin would produce plans to scale back Russia's nuclear arms.
The US president said he would also argue that the existing anti-ballistic missile treaty was outdated because it prevented the development of defensive weapons systems that reflected real threats.
Mr Bush praised Mr Putin, saying they were close to forging a relationship that would outlive their presidencies.
Mr Putin is on a three-day visit to the US which will include meetings at President Bush's ranch in Texas.
Unprecedented warmth
Mr Bush and Mr Putin have met before and praised each other warmly.
"Now US officials say that warmth can replace the frigid diplomatic dance of past decades, and bring dramatic results," says the BBC's Washington correspondent, Tim Franks.
As he proposes the US cuts, President Bush knows that the cash-strapped Russians are keen to dismantle a large number of their own missiles.
Mr Bush will also ask for, and expect to get, Mr Putin's acquiescence for preliminary testing of America's missile defence shield.
No explicit link will be made with Russian requests, but President Putin may indicate that he would like movement on debt relief and trade access, our correspondent says.
The 11 September attacks have pushed America and Russia closer together. Both leaders see this meeting as a chance to help reshape one of their most important strategic relationships.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Even FreeRepublic doesn't want us to post military operations.
To: It'salmosttolate
To: It'salmosttolate
The US president said he would also argue that the existing anti-ballistic missile treaty was outdated because it prevented the development of defensive weapons systems that reflected real threats
3
posted on
11/13/2001 8:37:53 AM PST
by
Dane
To: It'salmosttolate
Yep, that's unilateral all right. It's just what I've been damning since the first time the idiot proposed it. On some issues Bush has been excellent. On the issue of rebuilding our military he has adopted the Clinton codebook lock stock and barrel.
To: It'salmosttolate
President Bush is showing a great degree ow wisdom in setting the table for negotiations.
To: It'salmosttolate
If this happens then the NWO
MAY really exist after-all.
I mean c'mon we would have to be lying to Russia and the world if we said we were really going to do this.
This statement more or less says "Hey terrorists, come get us"
6
posted on
11/13/2001 8:46:31 AM PST
by
Mixer
To: thinktwice
Tell me one thing, would Reagon have done this?
Thinktwice now.
To: Mixer
Yup and when it happens I'm gonna love to beat those who called US KOOKS over the head with a tin foil bat with lead on the inside.
To: It'salmosttolate
Bush is a NWO Dupe and will implement whatever plans his handlers say he is to implement! It is that simple! We are rapidly moving toward the NWO with a so called conservative in the Oval Office!!!!
To: It'salmosttolate
I'm surprised that there is ANYONE with a brain who doesn't understand that the number of warheads---and even the number of launchers---
DOES NOT EQUAL effective delivery of nukes.
It's just moronic to whine about "cuts" if those cuts are of aging missiles and bomber delivery systems. It is more important that we have a couple of hundred completely devastating and survivable missiles in a variety of new and effective systems.
10
posted on
11/13/2001 8:53:24 AM PST
by
LS
To: It'salmosttolate
Yo! Reagan DID it. Reagan took Minuteman II's OUT of deployment and put in FEWER Peacekeepers; he cut down and reduced the number of nuke capable B-52s in favor of FEWER B-1s, then B-2s.
Happens all the time in an effective military.
11
posted on
11/13/2001 8:54:59 AM PST
by
LS
To: ILoveFreedom&Liberty
This "new world order dupe" thinks you guys have a brain imbalance, and clearly don't understand one thing about either nuclear weapons, delivery systems, or strategy.
12
posted on
11/13/2001 8:57:02 AM PST
by
LS
To: LS
That was only AFTER the enemy had collapsed due to him outspending the commies and causing them bankruptcy.
To: Mixer
Blair renews call for New World Order utopia He repeated the call that he first made during the Kosovo conflict more than two years ago for a
doctrine of "international community". "Some say it's Utopian; others that it is dangerous to think that
we can resolve all these problems by ourselves," he said.
To: It'salmosttolate
We should reduce our nukes only by expending old ones on Bagdad!
-Snerdley
"Never start a fight, but by God, ALWAYS FINISH IT!"
-Captain John Sheridan
Earth Space Station Babylon 5
15
posted on
11/13/2001 9:05:28 AM PST
by
Snerdley
To: It'salmosttolate
Yo! Reagan DID it. Reagan took Minuteman II's OUT of deployment and put in FEWER Peacekeepers; he cut down and reduced the number of nuke capable B-52s in favor of FEWER B-1s, then B-2s.(LS)That was only AFTER the enemy had collapsed due to him outspending the commies and causing them bankruptcy.(It'salmosttolate)
Psst, the Soviet Union fell 3 years after Reagan left office.
16
posted on
11/13/2001 9:06:06 AM PST
by
Dane
To: Snerdley
We should reduce our nukes only by expending old ones on BagdadIf that is the case then I am all for getting rid of some nukes!!!!!
17
posted on
11/13/2001 9:08:28 AM PST
by
Mixer
To: Dane
Psst, the Soviet Union fell 3 years after Reagan left office. And Reagan deserves much credit for their fall. Drink the kool-aid. Unilateral disarmament is a good thing.
To: DoughtyOne
Hey...how many nukes do we need?
19
posted on
11/13/2001 9:10:17 AM PST
by
blutobob
To: Dane
Psst, the Soviet Union
Officially fell 3 years after Reagan left office. It collapsed before that.
Reagon didn't do by "waking softly and carring a big stick".
He did it by walking loudly and carrying a big stick.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson