BEIJING, Aug 29 (Reuters) - The United States is pushing China to break a longstanding resistance to nuclear arms talks, seeing a “limited opportunity” for early two-way conversations on the superpowers’ approach to the issue, a senior Biden administration official said.
The renewed U.S. push for nuclear talks comes as U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met top Chinese officials in Beijing to try and resolve gaping differences on a broad range of issues.
“We saw some limited opportunity to open, at least the beginnings of conversation on the subject in the last months, but it’s been fits and starts, and I think it will continue to be fits and starts,” said the official, who sought anonymity because the matter is a sensitive one.
“They’ve signalled some willingness to start nibbling around the margins of arms control, but then they’re not very forward-leaning about following through on that,” the official said.
“So, I would say in 2024 the conversation is slightly more ripe than it was in 2022. But there’s a long way to go for us to be in the type of rigorous dialogue that we should be in.”
the US has zero credibility sticking to agreements & every two weeks a general or politician openly talks about attacking China. this is going nowhere
Undoubtedly this is because the US approaches deproliferation with a “you first” mentality, and then once the other side starts, the US says “jk lol.” The US can’t be trusted to hold it’s end of bargains like this so why would a serious country entertain talks with the US like this?
"Would you please disarm yourselves while we aggressively posture and arm your neighbors? It would be very uncooperative of you to refuse. "
usa will limit its warheads count to 400 to match china?
That would be good. Nobody likes MAD.
What the fuck? The USA has been pursuing nuclear first strike capabilities for decades, is the only major power that officially holds a nuclear first use policy, is the only country to use nukes in conflict and they chose to use them on civilian population centers of an adversary that was literally negotiating a surrender. The USA unilaterally pulled out of multiple nuclear treaties and it gave the colonial project of Israel nukes in violation of non-proliferation.
MAD is the only thing protecting the rest of the world from the psychotic nation that is the USA
MAD as in the nuclear event, should it come to pass. MAD just as a condition of geopolitics is much more debated over.
The nuclear event would just be D - destruction. MAD, mutually assured destruction, is a political status. We are in the political status of mutually assured destruction should the USA ever follow through on its psychotic ramblings about winning nuclear wars and reserving the right to a nuclear first strike.
Yeah, but if I said “nobody likes destruction” that would be ambiguous. MAD is just about the only snappy way of saying it that people understand - even “nuclear apocalypse” is bound to create arguments over the definition of apocalypse, because this is Lemmy.
I mean, think what you like despite the evidence. Whatever keeps you safe.
I think you might have responded to the wrong comment.
I will refer you to my previous comment.
