Hello Condi, Hello Henry. Hope you're on board.
Putin is not Gorbachev, Russia is not the Soviet Union, China/NK/Iran are not Russia, 1991 is not 2018, and Trump is not Obama-Clinton.
Asymmetric warfare has no coordinates and requires only one consenting player.
Space is the new battlefield, rendering missiles and range irrelevant.
Space Force is the new frontier for peace. As the only superpower and benevolent force, we must quickly achieve dominion. That is Trump's calculus.
Gorbachev and Shultz are prisoners of their "legacies" and their time.
The latest Paris brew / Terror infused with CO2 / Apocalyptists. Nukes. Fusion / Café au 'bama's delusion
1
The days when Republicans placed experienced professionals such as George Shultz - who had an incredible international career working for Bechtel Corporation - are unfortunately over.
Uninformed and uneducated (really bad) linear thinking tainted with bias and corruption is now the norm for Republicans. Trump is certainly no Ronald Reagan.
When dealing with nukes and the future of humanity, mediocre, self-centered, corrupt politicians shouldn't have any say...
Thank you George!
6
Secretary Shultz,
First, I am grateful for your continued interest in the policies of the United States and appreciate your efforts on a rational approach to nuclear weapons AND global warming. You are a beacon of light in our international relations, economic and environmental policies.
This statement caught my attention and should be a rallying point for a legislative initiative that could be used on a larger international scale for all nuclear weapons, nations like China, Korea, etc. "The inspection provisions expired in 2001, but the United States and Russia could agree to revive them to help resolve the worries about compliance."
I encourage you to also weigh-in on the militarization of space that I can sense is underway. It is a huge mistake.
I hope to get you involved in an international space effort to create a new international agency to fund, develop and deploy a system to Maglev Launch solar satellites to geosynchronous orbit to beam very cheap electricity to receiving "fields" any place on Earth that can be connected to population serving grids.
This idea put forward by James Powell, the inventor of superconducting Maglev transport, is a very practical path to dramatically reducing global warming emissions. In his book, "Spaceship Earth" he also describes a new plant design to compete with the technologies being developed to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the rocks of the Earth. The projected costs is $29/tonne of CO2.
1
Mr. Shultz:
Please tell us how the US can make the Russians honor their commitment to the treaty. If the Russians won't keep their word, why should the US stay in the treaty?
@James, did you read the article? He proposes steps
3
Neither Schultz nor the times nor gorbachov have explained why the US should tolerate Russian cheating of longstanding. It may be there are reasons or that measures short of abrogation are a better choice. If so then we have been let down by treaty supporters who have explained nothing.
1
Regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
“The treaty text was finally agreed in September 1987. On 8 December 1987, the Treaty was officially signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev at a summit in Washington and ratified the following May in a 93-5 vote by the United States Senate.”
Although President Trump has frequently taken actions which appear to reflect a belief on his part that he has the power to unilaterally make or rescind binding international treaties, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that he does not.
Regardless of which party holds a majority in the Senate after the midterm elections, it is very doubtful that 2/3 of the senators will go along with Mr. Trump in his ill-considered plan to withdraw from this treaty.
It is long past time for our senators to stand up to an uninformed reckless president and exercise their constitutional powers.
11
What use is a treaty with Russia if Russia won't observe the treaty?
2
Surely since NATO are on the door step to Russia I would be thinking short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) would be absolutely vital to its defence. Suppose the average speeds of nuclear missiles were in the order of ½ mile/sec. (1,800mph) it would take about 600secs (10mins) to reach a target 300 miles away. Thus, as a deterrent, the Russians would have to develop short range SRMBs’ to travel at 3,600mps to wipe-out every NATO country close by in less than 5mins leaving 5mins to wipe-out every incoming SRMBs’.
1
@Carlisle
I'll not argue with your math but NATO has shown no desire to invade or attack Russia. Granted NATO"S eastward expansion was questionable but the European allies have had to pushed to spend 2% of their GDP on weapons. Russia has nothing to fear from NATO.
The real problem is dictatorship vs. democracy. Dictators are always afraid of having democracies close by.
1
I'm glad there's at least one Republican who's worried about nuclear proliferation; but nowadays cabinet members are chosen, not by their wisdom, but by their toadyism to you know whom.
7
Russia being in violation of the treaty and Putin is saying that he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons can't both be true. Easiest explanation is that Putin must be lying. So if Putin does want to increase his nuclear arsenal, isn't it a bit scary that Trump is giving him free reign to do so by getting rid of the treaty? We must examine who stands to "benefit" by eliminating the treaty. If the only answer is "Putin and defense contractors," we should be questioning why this agenda is something Trump is pushing. Why is Trump creating policies to benefit Russia?
9
@Glasnost
You pose two excellent questions in your comment.
In the work-a-day world, many of us have jobs or have held jobs where our success or failure at our position was closely tied to our ability or inability to “read” people. Business executives, doctors, teachers, social workers, policemen... We need to differentiate truth from lies. Are we being conned? Is this person honest? Sincere?
I mention this in relation to your questions and to the news conference that followed Trump’s private meeting with Putin in Helsinki.
Vladimir Putin holds power over Donald Trump. That was absolutely obvious. Body language. Facial expressions. What was said.
I have no doubt about this. But I also have no idea what Putin has that Trump fears.
In all matters involving these two powerful men, Putin holds the high hand.
Hopefully, Robert Mueller’s team of investigators will soon shed some light on this mystery.
3
@Tom W
Trump has a business relationship with many Russians going back to 1984.
Read Craig Unger's book, House of Trump House of Putin. The book talks about Russian Mafia involvement with Trump. In some of Trump's buildings, 1/3 of the apartments were sold to Russians, using shell companies. It looks like a billion dollars were laundered via Trumps' apartments. Trump has deep, extensive involvement with Russian Mafia.
2
It is a very nice fall day where I am. Calm, sunny, comforting. Over the horizon is the threat of nuclear holocast and global warming.
3
Okay, far-right. This is the voice of Reagan calling from the grave. Schultz is not left-leaning liberal. Got it now?
9
In reward for this thoughtful, rational op-ed piece, former SOS George Shultz will be labeled a RINO by Trump TV and will be disowned by his party's representatives in Congress. Welcome to the new Trumpublican world, Mr. Secretary.
7
The rise of the PRC has turned this into a 3 body problem and thus much, much, more difficult to solve compared to the old binary competition.
The other fundamental asymmetry is that while these weapons are designed to to detonate in Russia and in China, they are not intended to detonate in the U.S., but rather over our allies and our dispersed military forces. If you look at it from our opponents point of view (always a wise and prudent thing to do) this is a moral hazard for the U.S.. And they don't get up in the morning thinking that they are the bad guys and we are the good guys.
1
All other critical issues aside, the 2 most urgent threats to humanity as a whole are still:
1). the threat of nuclear war
2). environmental catastrophe from climate change.
as the consequences of these scenarios can not be undone. This treaty is at least a step in the right direction. To simply reverse it and pursue an accelerated nuclear arms race would be absolute madness.
8
“If we have them [nuclear weapons], why can’t we use them?”
—Donald J. Trump
Calling Dr. Strangelove....
5
@1954Stratocaster
Kudos.
I recently read that when voters were questioned as to the most “alarming” decision made by President Trump, the most popular response involved “separating children from their parents, and then, putting the children in cages.”
I agree that treating families/children in that manner is barbaric. Absolutely unacceptable.
However, if I had been questioned my answer would have focused on the core of your comment, Strat.
As I remember, from a news story during the early weeks of Trump’s presidency, Mr. Trump attended a meeting with the heads of various intelligence agencies and members of the joint chiefs of staff. Trump was being provided with a comprehensive picture of current strategic issues.
The president appeared bored and disinterested, but at one point he offered an observation. Something like — “We have all of these nukes. It seems a shame we never use them.”
I did not take the time to research my comment here and apologize for taking the liberty to paraphrase.
What I do remember most clearly from the day I read that news story, was the feelings of unreality it evoked.
Lying in bed that night, unable to sleep.
“This can’t be happening. A man as unbalanced as Donald Trump can’t hold the most powerful office, be in control of more power than anyone on Planet Earth...”
1
William C Stuart
@CARNESST
46m46 minutes ago
TRUMP is our Victor Frankenstein who purposely has chosen to ignore the results of his actions and thus created a monstrous state of affairs; the horrors having started we are unable to see the end.....we have no hero.
2
Congress will have to fund the new weapons systems that Trump is intent upon pursuing. If they don't we will be left defenseless. Sounds kinda stupid to me.
1
"... Nuclear weapons are a threat to the world. Any large-scale nuclear exchange would have globally catastrophic consequences. …"
Yes, true, and agree that it is beyond idiotic to pull out of this treaty.
But, by far and away the multitude of looming and already baked in environmental catastrophes is an orders of magnitude larger threat. Whether or not any nuclear exchange occurs, it is already all over for the human species (actually most species).
Trump is old, ignorant, solipsistic, and spent. He isn't going to be around too much longer (a decade, maybe two), why should he care what happens.
4
Trump, a posturing pretender of a tough guy, talked about discarding nuclear arms treaties like the ignorant, annoying, drunken blowhard at your neighborhood does. Now he has the power to do it.
Yes America, thanks to the conservatives and Republicans we have a man with the maturity of a spoiled toddler controlling nuclear arms proliferation in the world and, even more frightening, with his finger on the nuclear button.
It's beyond belief.
2
We will vote Trump OUT!
1
So even if Russia is breaking their end of the bargain, we must keep disarming? Yeah, sounds like typical State Department stupidity.
Donald is doing exactly what his master, Putin wants! Anyone supporting this needs their head examined!
Vote Blue, save the Earth, save Healthcare, save Democracy!
6
Trump pulls out of agreement because he has found he can and he wants people to remember him and he competes with Obama’s reputationof being the best President ever. Bless his heart, he does realize, he will be remembered and hated for a very long time, and this well apply to his entire family
“for the sins of the father......”
1
Of course.
Now try to explain that (or anything, really) to that jerk keeping the Oval Office chair warm.
2
Didn't Mr. Trump just tell us that trade wars are good, and easily won? I guess he feels the same way about arms races. Depending on your party, the man is either a genius or an idiot.
5
Sorry George. Whenever I see your name I now think of Theranos and how you were completely and utterly hoodwinked by Elizabeth Holmes and the damage you did to your own family, your reputation and your legacy.
I don't take you seriously anymore
This column reminds me of a similar one by Brent Scowcroft in the run up to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003. That column was aimed at neoconservatives and their myopic slogan that invading Iraq would be a "cakewalk".
Unfortunately for our nation Brent Scowcroft's advice fell on deaf ears. I suspect the same will happen here.
2
I agree completely. Why would we let Russia out of a treaty that significantly limits their ability to threaten others with murderous force?
2
Mr Schultz doesn't understand evil. He doesn't understand power politics, which Putin uses effectively. He ignores the fact that the Russians have been violating this treaty for many years. Wishful thinking brings disaster.
So, Trump wants to build more weapons that mankind can never , or should never, use. This is not a TV show folks. MAD would ensure the world as we know it, would cease to exist.
2
Shultz was competent. The Trump administration is not.
Shame on all who worked for it, voted for it and (e.g. Congressional Democrats) have been spineless and clueless in response to it.
1
Secretary Schultz, surely you see the menace that is Donald Trump. Please ask Congressional Republicans to do the right thing and impeach him immediately.
2
It's not I'm stronger than you are anymore. The United States v Russia. It's more akin to I'll beat your opponent now if you let me win. In the 1989 there was no telling what would happen after the Berlin Wall fell. As there was nothing we could have done to prevent the Berlin Wall from being built. Or could we have back then? Can we now between the United States and Mexico?
GEORGE SHULTZ knows whereof he speaks. He was, after all, at the birth of the current nuclear treaties with Russia. So he's got a better idea than most of what's worked and how it's working. Trump has a remarkable asset in Shultz, whom he could contact via phone, invite to the White House, or draft to be a consultant. Except for the fact that Trump has shown far more interest in inviting pariahs such as Duterte and Putin. And accepting a solid gold dog collar from the King of Saudi Arabia. I men a guy's gotta have the right look. Besides it shines. Trump likes shiny things. Which rules out words on the printed page.
6
The only way to get the uber-ignorant Trump to do something is to say "It will be good for the Koch Brothers"
This might very well be the Orange monster's most dangerous legacy - and he is piling up an impressive number of them: The Supreme Court, Climate Change....etc
1
Is it possible we now have the upper hand? Do we have Technology that would render their nukes duds? Could we be willing to actually use these weapons? Mind blown. I remember sitting in the college cafeteria when the world first witnessed a “smart bomb” it was 1991 and the gulf war was in play and man we never saw such a thing. A bomb dropped from the sky heading straight for a window! Wow what Technology I thought. Now I’m thinking again...
Amen. But please get off the sidelines and tell world more about what you think. Please convince other Republicans to denounce the current administration. Be a voice for America once again. We need you.
3
Nonsense.
America and Russia have 95% of the world's nuclear weapons.
But Israel, India and Pakistan are not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have nuclear weapons in the midst of their irrational ethnic sectarian Jewish, Hindu and Muslim nuclear bombs. Those nations are the prime rogue proliferation threats.
1
Enrico Fermi, the inventor of the A bomb, said:'Anything that has any statistical probability, no matter hw small, will eventually happen'.
1
Putin is violating the agreement. There are two basic approaches Trump can take: 1. deal with that, which is hard to do; 2. kill the agreement. If he kills the agreement Putin gets off the hook, the U.S. looks like the bad guy (good for Putin), and Don the Con has less real work to do. Win-win for him and Putin. It's really not that complicated.
3
Mr. Shultz, I am a Democrat, and I applaud your taking this stand. Please continue to do so. We need to find more common ground in the middle. Our country is in becoming a pathetic mockery of what it was.
3
Trump and the media have raised the risk of accidental nuclear.
We must listen to Shultz and Gorbachev.
2
If there was ever an issue which showed clearly how crazy and incompetent Trump is, it is this one.
Nuclear weapons are not hand guns; They are not rifles; They are not machine guns; They are not fighter jets; They are not bombers; They are not submarines or battleships! They are death personified!!
Even one of today's A bombs dropped on New York or Moscow would effectively destroy either one of these cities. After that it would only be a matter of days before most of the world was destroyed. Madness!!
There are at least 11 or 12 countries which have arsenals of A bombs, including the US (700 A bombs) and Russia (800 A bombs). The very fact that our president is talking about getting out of the treaty should awaken all of us to the fact that this man is dangerously crazy. Congress must act before it's too late for the rest of us and our children. There is no place to hide in a nuclear war. WAKE UP!
3
Hmmmm...where did I last hear about Mr. Schultz?
Oh yeah- it was Theranos and the abandonment of his grandson in favor of the attractive ne’er-do-well Ms. Holmes.
Go make peace with Tyler and then you can come back and tell us about the rest of the world.
Finally, a peep from the ancien regime.
Years ago, when Betty Ford died, I thought about what Republicans used to be: temperate, measured, captains of industry and patrons of the arts. I had a similar sentiment when Barbara Bush died. Were that SHE had been "Bush 43".
Where are the historical Republicans now? Where are Pete Wilson, Christine Whitman, William Weld, John Danforth, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Reagan, Elizabeth Dole? Where are the (yes, Libertarian, but any way) Koch Brothers? Where are all of the "never Trump" Republicans who have allowed this to happen?
Probably, like everyone else, they are at home watching The Bachelor, as the world order drifts into a 1937 redux.
We must preserve the human race and all the life on our planet. Treaty's should be revisited. Putin is the 4th president of Russia since Gorbachev, Trump is the fifth president of USA since Ronald Reagan and times have changed and compliance has been assessed during this period and loop holes and imperfections must have been detected. The treaty so far has held okay and relations and trust has been built and so the 2 countries need to maintain the spirit of the treaty but the devil could be in the details and that needs to revisited and verified.
3
Trump thinks like a bully and believes that he can outspend and out-tech any adversary with the US Treasury and tech, and therefore "win.". This attitude has led to several Trump bankruptcies, leaving the losses to his creditors. Between renuclearizing the world, ignoring global warming, ignoring human rights, and corrupting our democracy, we will all pay for his losses.
3
Where are the current Republicans?
2
On November 6, vote like your and your children's very existence is at stake.
It is.
2
Thank you, Mr. Schultz! Even though we knew that President Reagan had shown some signs of his early dementia, he definitely had a number of statesmen as cabinet secretaries, and he did listen to their sane voices! Now, we have a President with questionable mental state, blatantly self-aggrandizing, with a cabinet and the Congress being totally subservient, ruling us as a Monarch! Where have all the patriots gone?
Knowing what we know, pulling out of nuclear non-proliferation agreements purposefully threatens US national security and that of the world. There is no reasonable justification to increase worldwide tensions and fears. Respect for the preservation of humanity has withered with the current administration.
The experience of growing up during the Cold War is not something I wanted my children and grandchildren to experience. Yet, here we are, on the brink of injecting unnecessary fear, insecurity, and helplessness to satiate the stated purpose of the President and his nationalist sycophants of increasing worldwide disorder.
Pulling out of international treaties is simply irresponsible incompetence and narrow-minded menace at the highest levels. Those who ignore what we have learned over the past several decades give no thought to the people they pretend to serve and protect.
1
Thank you, Secretary Schultz.
I find it interesting that a man who views his policy with North Korea a success because they have not launched any missiles in a year and a half would toss out treaties aimed at continuing that record. In fact, there have been NO nuclear warheads used since the 1940's.A much better record than Trump's. Trump's answer seems to be that the way to negotiate is to point missiles at each other. And if those that stand behind him view negotiations as threatening to throw the first punch, and/ or throwing a sucker punch (which would be so Trumpian), they will be left with the legacy, if anyone is left to ponder on it, of destroying the world. Think of the horror. It is so easy to be so bellicose when NONE of the members of your family have ever donned a uniform or defended America. NONE. If another country was to use one, he would stand there and blame Reagan. For Republicans, that's like blaming Mickey Mantle for the Yankees loss to the Red Sox this year. And all the Republican leaders and the base are more than willing to go spit on Reagan's grave. My, my how times have changed.
1
"President Trump has threatened to..." When someone whom I know, in some manner, well or not, or don't know at all, threatens me-my body, psyche, Identity,my family, friends, even witnessing threatened strangers; me economically, socially, my religion an religiosity, and other beliefs-which do not harm others-my ethnicity, my home, neighborhood, sense of, and actual community,I can and will protect myself. By law? It may depend on where and when. By custom? By inalienable rights? Wired that way in my DNA? Lots of words. Pres. Trump, as person and policymaker, protected by...threatens, daily, by harmful words, tweeted, voiced, written, signed-many garbed in lies- plans, done-deeds,my limbs. And those of others. Including minors.My life. Including those of many others. My psyche and state of well-being and health.Including those of others.
And now, perhaps, my and my environments' very existence. In both shamelessly, even outrageous, transparent and hidden ways. Daily! Our taxes pay the dedicated men and women mandated to protect him and his family from harm's wayS. Who and what will, can protect me from the implications and consequences, temporary and permanent, of his personal, unaccountable harms? Each day! Not waiting for the outcome of close elections.Or in 2020. When I sense, with metaphoric 20 20 perception that I can BE, and am, in harm's way because of harmful policies. Violating people. A culture of impunity. Willful blindness. Deafness.Ignorance.Complacency.
STOP! We’re being attacked from within, not without. Withdrawing from all nuclear weapons treaties just “because” is another reflection of madness and megalomania, not reasoned policy.
Is it possible or even desirable to eliminate all nuclear weapons? It’s probably not practical given China and other countries not party to the agreements, not to mention the likelihood of such weapons being purchased on the black market.
That said, Secretary Schultz needs current Republicans to stand up and deny Trump and Bolton the ability to act unilaterally on an issue if such extreme importance. If it’ll distract his base from the sheer idiocy taking place in front of their faces he WILL attempt a nuclear incident.
We are rapidly becoming a third world tin pot dictatorship.
1
Your last sentence "we should fix it, not kill it" can be applied to the INF and also the deal to stop Iran's march to nuclear weapons.
Trump has put the neocons back in charge, and they are poisoning our foreign policy once again.
Trump stirs up people with a win-at-any-cost mentality who think he will make America great again. But when was America great? When we enacted social security and civil rights, when we had unions to protect our jobs. Trump has cobbled together a republican party who opposes all this, but most of them don't realize who will be doing the winning.
2
I remember 1980's very clear, USSR-USA nuclear weapon treaties and mind set of the time.
Diplomats . political leaders were intellectuals and sane persons.
Now we have Trump, Ultimate Trouble for world.
Re: The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Of this I am 'confident' -- trump will proceed to 'do' with it whatever putin tells him to do.
This is madness. Short- and intermediate range missiles were intended for battlefield use, but were very often staged within almost 1,000 kilometers of major population centers worldwide. Furthermore, such missiles, launched from submarines, were capable of striking large population centers worldwide.
Messrs. Regan and Gorbachev knew about those capabilities when the INF Treaty was signed. Does that mean the Treaty was just for show? A ruse designed to calm the fears of their respective citizenries?
No! Until Putin took control of Russia, the Treaty was being observed. But now, short- and medium-range missiles are appearing openly in Russian arms exhibitions.
Does that necessarily mean that the U.S. should match them, missile for missile? No. Those missiles constituting no significant threat to U.S. territory, now is the time to reintroduce diplomacy, and to use it to embarrass Russian leadership.
The Russians have literally been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and it's clear that Putin hates international embarrassment in his effort to reintegrate Russia into the world order after the fall of the USSR.
But will Trump try diplomacy? Not a chance. His style is to meet threat with threat, blow with blow. Mr. Gorbachev is right. A new nuclear arms race is in the offing, and a spineless Congress will vote funds for it in the name of "patriotism".
@CPMariner
You, Mrs Shultz and Gorbachev are absolutely right.
Unfortunately, Trumpians won’t read this, and couldn’ Care less about facts.
Their world of make-believe is the only universe they care to know.
And I’m afraid future generations will pay for this madness.
So if somebody committed a horrible crime, we should abolish the criminal laws because they were violated? The way to fix violations of the I.N.F. treaty is within the treaty. No treaty, no violations. No criminal laws, no crime.
"Now is not the time to build larger arsenals of nuclear weapons."
Not now, not ever. No wonders about your article and President Mikhail Gorbachev's are being published the same day. The fact that I do not believe whatever Putin says at face value because I consider him extremely deceiving and deliberate, does not mean that he did not exactly the right thing. I even agree with Putin when he wants to bring China to the negotiation table.
I a time when our president should be hosting negotiation to fix violations of the I.N.F. he is in rallies, still attacking Clinton and blaming the press for bombs delivered to some top Democrats. Tillerson was so accurate in his appellative for his boss.
8
Perhaps Mr. Schulz, as a respected elder Republican statesmen, you should be publicly urging other Republicans to vote for Democrats in this midterm election to constrain Trump from destroying the treaty and the world. In the absence of such action, your words are meaningless.
10
In 1956 the Republican platform included the following statements:
- Protect Social Security
- Provide asylum for refugees
- Extend minimum wage
Sounds downright heretical in today's Republican party. Secretary Shultz, why are you still part of this party that has abandoned ALL of its basic principals including the principal of self determination for both women and men.
11
Mr. Shultz, you are correct of course. The problem is lack of global statesmanship on both sides. Putin and Trump are alike in that not only do they place their own country's well-being above all else -- as presidents they must -- but they take it too far. They believe that participating in international agreements to keep peace and limit weapons somehow weakens them, when in fact it strengthens them. Until Trump and Putin are both replaced, I see no progress on nuclear threat reduction.
5
Mr. Shultz...thank you for your welcome comments on the IMF Treaty and your continued service to this wonderful country. Your storied past is a lesson well taught.
I am a strong Democrat, a fellow former Marine and as NYT , columnist, David Brooks, points out so eloquently today, an American proud to call myself a Nationalist. I would opine that that sentiment appears to have long driven your life and your service to the United States. Woe are we as a nation to now have a Commanding Officer who appears not to cherish the very diversity that adds to our national purpose and strength and mocks those who embrace it.
6
Wow, times have changed. Reagan had the wise counsel of George Shultz when making such critically important decisions. Trump, if he recognizes this to be critically important, will gain his counsel from Sean Hannity and his show's ratings. After Trump calls into his show and has a discussion on the subject, he will check the ratings the next day to see how he did. That will be how he gauges his next move. See how much easier things are now? It's tag team, Bolton lights the fire, Trump performs a skit about the fire on Hannity and ratings decide if this is a good issue. If it pulls good ratings, expect lots more on the subject. If not, move on to the next issue. China and Russia do not need to listen to Trump's iPhone calls as they can just watch Hannity to see what is coming next. Trump is a lot of things, but complicated is not one of them.
8
"....a meeting between American and Russian experts to discuss possible violations ..."
Well, that qualifier would eliminate any Trump administration officials. It will require some sort of outside triage or emergency actions by a group of knowledgeable experts.
Trump is getting this from Bolton who is glaringly sub-optimal.
We can't seem to break free of the Trump bacillus, and this action will simply add to the permanent damage being done to America and the world under his administration.
10
It is simply crazy that we give so much power to one person - the president - who is elected every four years, often with little international understanding.
The Koch brothers have finally realized their 40+ year lifelong dream to use their inherited/stolen wealth to put The Con Don and other socially unconscious, morally bankrupt people like themselves in control of OUR United States of America governments. They want to destroy - just to prove they can. It's sick.
WE THE PEOPLE - average people across America and around the world - must purge these destroyers from governments around the world and DEMAND that the Socially Conscious Women and men we hire/elect on November 6 and every election in the foreseeable future put safeguards in place to limit presidential power.
NOW is the time. Before it is too late and WE become war fodder in their demented power wars.
14
A president does not build a legacy by pulling out of agreements that were hammered out by other people in prior administrations. The hard part is coming up with a replacement agreement that is better. Trump does the easy part by pulling out, but aside from tweaks to existing agreements such as NAFTA, he does not do the more challenging part, which requires original thought and hard work.
28
It's no secret that Vladimir Putin would love any excuse to engage in a nuclear conflict to once and for all prove Russia's might and domination over Europe, if not the world.
And he wasted little time in showing this when Donald Trump announced his intentions of pulling the U.S. out of the Nuclear Treaty, by going so far as to threaten European nations with a "possible counterstrike", if they allowed U.S. missiles to be deployed.
It's no great secret that several members of the international community believe Russia has continued to develop medium-range weapons since this treaty was originally signed, just like it's an open secret that the Cold War never really ended.
But it would be in the interest of both countries -- and the rest of the planet, if these leaders would come to their senses with all this saber-rattling, because there are no second chances in the event of a nuclear war.
5
It is a historical Problem:
Politicians or other Leaders must talk, communicate with each other, once Problems arise, and before taking Action. This is called the De-Escalation Process.
Donald also should learn from history and communicate with his adverseries before taking Action on issues like nuclear weapons, international trade, sanctions etc.
But his Problem is his strong obsession to Megalomania,
his desire to be always in the Headlines, just to keep his followers "electrified".
A dangerous Obsession for a world leader
13
Both sides say one thing and do another. I suppose one can choose to see hope in that, since they are not just flatly defiant, at least until Bolton's poisonous influence.
The key factor for Russia is China. This class of weapons is extensive in China, and threatens Russia. Russia is tempted to respond in classic deterrence, with the same back at them.
The US does not want to encourage China to build instead a longer range class of missiles that can reach the US too. Better for the US if Chinese missiles only reach Russia (and Taiwan, and Japan, but not us).
I'm sure the Russians would be willing to reduce China's ability to target Russia but not the US. However, the complications of that are not discussed here.
It wasn't discussed by Reagan and Gorbachev, because back then it just wasn't a problem. China has changed. That is the source of a lot of issues, this among them.
6
@Mark Thomason
If you consider big power politics as the arena, then you can't help but notice that the dominant theme of Russia-China relations is co-operation, which from Russia's standpoint is a fundamental principle. Not so with relations with the U.S. from either of their standpoints is such a principle in effect because the U.S. deems it its sole prerogative to dictate how things will be in the world. Probably, whatever Russian "violations" are comprised of are in response to covert, belligerent actions involving regime change in places such as Ukraine. Remember not only that nuclear weapons played a big part in Ukraine's politics, but also that the Red Army was a vanguard factor in the Ukraine in repulsing the Fascist assault, and that it led the assault on Berlin in 1945. Ethnicity might take second place in the Ukraine to those facts if you asked the people. If you compare the effects upon people in the South China sea with those upon the people in the Chagos Archipelago you cannot help but notice that the Chinese action in the area is benign; the U.S. action in the area and actions elsewhere which issued from there, ruinous, criminal (in concert with Britain), and wholly against international law. It is important to see Strategic Island Defense for what it is, like virtually all of U.S. policy: Expansionist and imperialistic.
The world before nuclear weapons was not safer than it is now. Restricting nuclear proliferation is an absolute necessity, and restricting arsenals among those in the club, so to speak, is also a necessity, but the elimination of nuclear weapons is dangerously Pollyanna. Nuclear weapons are hellish and force on individuals and the human race as a whole frank self examination, but there is no going back. Time to be adults.
3
With increases in nuclear weapons, it is possible that some of these weapons may land in the hands of terrorists. In such a case, we are closer to the end of this world we live in.
12
@msk2
Yes that was the logic, talk in 1980's between Reagan and Gorbachev. Nothing new. except Trump utmost incompetency.
The Obama State Department tried to reason with Putin on this topic starting in 2014 with no results. The official in charge of this relationship was interviewed on PBS yesterday and basically agreed with Trump's decision. I suspect Obama might have done so himself had not the 2016 election been looming.
If the treaty becomes null, then the only response the US has is to position its own missiles in Europe within range of Moscow.
2
I remember Reagan’s negotiations with the Soviets very well. “Trust, but verify.”
When Reagan ran for president, many people thought he was a radical right warmonger. But he was a man of conviction and he surrounded himself with some fine advisors, George Schultz being one of them.
It’s ironic that Reagan would not be acceptable to today’s GOP. Trump is not Reagan, and no one in his cabinet could shine Schulz’s shoes.
A weak treaty is better than no treaty at all.
42
Trump leaves the Iran Deal which was essentially about controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, and now wants to leave the weapons agreement with Russia that has served to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and put restrictions on their development. He's also earlier spoken out extolling the potential benefits to South Korea and Japan of joining the nuclear weapons club and just recently has been coddling the newest member of that club, North Korea, with the sweet nothings of an infatuated lover. If Trump doesn't have it in for our species, he gives a pretty fine impression of someone who is.
31
Well George, this is most welcome but even more welcome would be a firm statement that once again the Republican party is embarking on a disastrous path. What would it take for you to repudiate Trump and John Bolton? The time has come.
124
Thank you Mr. Shultz for writing this important protest. But are you still a republican? A follower of a party that has abandoned every ideal held by such men as President Eisenhower who decried war from his deep experience. Trump is one of those people who begging himself out of a war will risk the fate of the human race to throw us into another, the bone spur hero who has proven himself a coward by attacking such heroes as John McCain or any soldier who happens to be a Muslim or a different skin color..
But more to the point abandoning the INF treaty will give a green light to every country capable of making these weapons to do so. Trump says he wants to stop North Korea and curb its weapons, but how will Kim Jung Un receive this news? To tare up a treaty is much harder than making one which requires thought an diplomacy something Trump has shown himself unable to do in any truly dangerous situation. Trump may push that red button that follows him every where yet, and still brag that it was the greatest nuclear war ever.
28
I just finished commenting on the op-ed by Mikhail Gorbachev on this topic (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-..., and I was very respectful of him. I’m habitually a helluva lot more respectful of George Shultz, but these themes and arguments are beginning to chafe a bit, and he had the bad luck to come up second, not first, in the pitching rotation.
I note that the most strident defenders of retaining our participation in the INF Treaty are superannuated former leaders who played significant if not always central roles in its 1987 signing and ratification. I’d like to hear counterpoints from the ideological heirs of those who argued against Senate ratification in its original form back then (most of the actual participants, such as Jesse Helms, the Democrat who headed up the Foreign Relations Committee that reviewed the Treaty, weren’t spring chickens THEN, and have long since left this vale of tears). Trump isn’t exiting the treaty on a whim – Obama’s crew ALSO found the Russians in violation of it, and I’m sure Trump’s own people have had extensive discussions on the matter. I’d like to hear their views.
I’d also point out that almost all such agreements were not with the “Russians” but were with the Soviet Union, which presented a far greater threat to us and actually had materially different interests than Putin’s Russian Federation. Perhaps ALL these treaties should …
5
… be reviewed for continued relevancy to the interests of BOTH parties.
It’s motherhood and apple pie to argue that nuclear weapons are “bad” and agreements to eliminate classes of such weapons by definition are “good”. But at one time the stability of the world depended largely on the arsenals of such weapons maintained by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Let’s not be too hasty about lambasting Trump over the abandonment of one agreement. Let’s hear ALL the arguments.
3
@Richard Luettgen
"most of the actual participants, such as Jesse Helms, the Democrat who headed up the Foreign Relations Committee that reviewed the Treaty"
You've blown your credibility with that statement. Jesse Helms was a REPUBLICAN Senator from North Carolina, & a pretty fervent Republican - one who helped organize the conservative resurgence in the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms
1
'Trump isn’t exiting the treaty on a whim...'
Everything Trump does is on a whim.
If the Russians are in violation, we should work to correct this, not destroy the agreement. Such abdication should be a last resort. It is not clear we have put the effort in to to try to resolve the dispute. It could be exponentially harder to recreate this than to fix it.
Trump conducts diplomacy like he is swinging a baseball bat in a china shop, with the likelihood he hits himself in the face with it. He takes irresponsible risks without knowing the subject matter or the ramifications of his rash and ill-considered threats.
Everything Trump touches dies. Trump is human paraquat.
Those with the capability to change this course, and get us on track to use alternative options to resolve what Trump is turning into a crisis, should do so.
There may be a time to make such a hard decision. The time may now be premature. The decision should not be made until we have competent leadership.
3
The Reagan administration worked hard to get these types of weapons eliminated. Now comes our bumbling president, who doesn’t have the sense that God gave to a hamster, wanting to pull out of the agreement, just like he pulled out of the the Iran agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. He has also been lining up NATO for destruction. The real problem is the republican party, who somehow had a huge problem with a couple of Hillary’s email sent from a private server, but not with Trump’s phone being hacked by the Chinese and Russians, even as he continues to use it to tweet that he doesn’t use it. We have been assured that the Russians won’t get any national intelligence from listening to Trump’s phone calls, because he doesn’t read the daily intelligence. If we put dysfunctional people in office, we should expect dysfunctional policies.
76
@Mark
I agree. The real problem is the Republican Party. The Party-Over-Nation Party.
16
It would be good if any of the Republican Congressmen had as much sensibility, and the guts to stand up to Trump and Just Say, No! Sigh..
8
Why should we leave a treaty that Russia doesn't follow. A 1-sided treaty isn't in our nation's interest. We only handicap ourselves if we allow Russia to gain Intermediate ranged nuclear weapons, yet we do not have that strategic option. Either way, Russia is not the real threat the U.S. faces. Sure they are an annoyance, but China is the real threat that U.S. and likely the world will face in the 21st century, and they certainly won't be following any treaties.
6
@GameOver Why blame China? Following international treaties seems pretty out of fashion in the US these days.
4
The bottom line is that no matter how much Trump asserts that he wishes to get along with Russia, the reality which governs his judgments is twofold; that is, the perfervid wishes of the plutocrats' lackeys who advise him dictate the disavowal of the Intermediate Nuclear Arms Treaty in favor of a revamped arms race which could, so they and he surmise(s) bring about regime change in Russia and an open door there to conquest by the west--militarily, and also that this arms race would provide as he puts it, so gushingly, "Jobs, jobs, jobs." in order to fulfill his fantasy world which includes the transformation of the U.S. into a military dictatorship. That he is a pathological liar, and that the press sometimes comes to his aid in projecting all sorts of anti-democratic foibles which adhere in Trump on to V.V. Putin does not help the cause of freedom one iota, except that (freedom) of one John Bolton who is drawn in like manner to Trump in a megalomaniacal accord which bares their true interests--self-glorification. All people should be completely intolerant of this latest "protective" gambit.
7
Trump's strategy of winning elections can be distilled in one simple idea: Activate the worse, baser, lower instincts in a swath of the electorate. His strategy seems to have worked (or may have got some helping from Comey and Russians). Once he is seated in the W.H. he uses the full force of the power of the office to turn his base of supporters into a Cult.
- Every trade deal by his predecessor is "most horrible deal".
- Iran nuclear containment deal is "most horrible deal"
- Nuclear treaty with Russians is "horrible treaty"
And, on and on.
None of the above is so bad as his proclivities for violence. Over and over again he keeps goading his supporters to violence. And, this too is not so bad as when he keeps repeating that the system is rigged. Had he lost the election - there is little doubt he would have goaded his cult followers to start a violent upheaval in this country. Let Charlottesville be a warning.
16
This is all about John Bolton and his deranged vanity.
In Michael Lewis's terminology, John Bolton is the living embodiment of the 5th risk. And he's decided unilaterally to take these risks in the area of nuclear weapons. What could go wrong?
40
GOP do not have the guts to contradict the Trump regime. They fear being called names and having negative behaviors attributed to them.
9
Another voice of reason, that will ignored by the current administration.
9
Mr. Schultz, what does a "treaty" mean when one party treats it as a complete joke?
2
@Bobo The Treaty still acts as a limiting factor on Russia's arms development. They are violating certain provisions in isolated cases. The Russians do not regard it "as a complete joke," and neither should we. I would prefer that we compel them to abide by the Treaty than see us renounce it, and enter a brand new phase of the Cold War. I also think that, together with the Russians, we should compel the Chinese to become a signatory. In other words, let's make maximum efforts to rid the world of these weapons. There's no other sane course of action.
12
Trump's willi-nilly destruction of most previous treaties, however necessary even if imperfect, seems malevolous, and inviting further stockpiling of useless nuclear weapons we all swore never to use (as it would assure mutual annihilation). Ought we not have an adult in the room, whispering sweet nothings to this bully, so to control his wild and capricious moves? Can't we work cooperatively....instead of competitively, even contrarian, for the sake of world's peace?
4
Nonsense. Nuclear treaties never work.
@Rolf. Never? You're right of course. The sixty years plus that we've made it without nuclear weapons being used obviously doesn't count, especially since the 2016 election when we put a child in charge.
Russia is blatantly cheating on the agreement. Every administration knows it. Putin is totally untrustworthy. Any and all treaties with Russia are worthless until there is a change in regime.
Dan Kravitz
2
Thank you for speaking out. And VOTE in November. You know what’s right, and what is deplorable. Seriously.
8
For those of us who respect and admire this former Secretary of State, here is a deep warning and a profound cri de coeur. It is a warning that every long-term or reasonable Republican in the U.S. Senate should comprehend and heed. And yet, like so much of the rest of the historic Republican Party leadership, they are mute, divided, demoralized and terrorized by the most deplorable and irresponsible fool ever to sit in the Oval Office. And yes, somewhere scripture says that he who calls his brother a fool "shall be liable to the Judgment." But who specializes in calling his brothers fools? Who destroys what brothers and sisters across all political divisions in this country have tried to preserve, strengthen and defend for the life and safety of the world, and, yes, the American people? Donald Trump, and while he defends him, Mike Pence, the quintessential Republican Christian. Wake up, Mr. Vice-President. Your country and the peace of the world are betrayed by the man before whom you quail and shiver. For the love of God, America, Republicans! Wake up!!!
23
Reagan was a racist with retrograde ideas about a lot of things but he was not, so far as I could tell, a sociopath. Neither was Gorbachev.
Unfortunately, we now have leaders facing off both of whom, evidence suggests, are sociopaths. Both of them have displayed a willingness to hurt and/or kill anyone in order to aggrandize not their nations but themselves.
This does not bode well for the planet--or at least for its allegedly sapient inhabitants.
31
@Justin
Agreed. Reagan was retrograde about many things, but he could learn fro experts and was living in the real world. This treaty was one of really great achievements.
3
@Justin Think of Reagan as John the Baptist to Trump's role as the redeemer. Don't forget that Reagan like Trump presided over the looting of the Treasury. The first of three such episodes.
1
Mr Shultz, I like you so much! I have worked w you via Stanford on stem cells, Clarke Center, Paul Berg's retirement, etc., ...and also via the Episcopal Church (both St. Bedes and the seminary CDSP). I'm so glad to see you taking this stand! But why aren't you and Condi doing more to stop our crazy president? You are old so you don't have much to lose politically. You are a person of intellect, integrity and benevolency! The Republican party needs your guidance and wisdom! Please voice your opinion more often! Thanks for taking a stand on this crazy treaty Trump wants to disband. Pls also comment about some of the other dangerous steps Trump is doing to make our country the laughing stock of the world and possibly lead us into another Civil War. Please, please, please. It wd be so great if you wd offer an "alter call" to reasonable, moderate, responsible Republicans to return to their ways of integrity instead of compromising their souls. Please!
41
@Dolly Patterson
Problem for me is that Condi is discredited. All I think about when I see her is mushroom clouds in Iraq. As Bob Herbert wrote in his column on this site, she was "Superwoman who just happened to be wrong about everything".
2
As he showed in the campaign, Trump didn't even know what the nuclear triad is, and wondered why we couldn't use nuclear weapons since we have them.
And so, Trump was rejected by a clear and wise majority of American voters, but party over country Republican Electors installed him in the White House.
Obviously the non-reading Trump never glanced at the 1982 book, "Nuclear War, what's in it for you?"
I recommend this book to anyone who was spared the duck and cover days, but now, thanks to Trump and John Bolton, must learn more
https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Inc-Ground-Zero-Fund/dp/0671450964
25
Maybe the horror of strategic nuclear weapons is still on people’s minds, but the horror of tactical nukes is certainly not. It has to be revived. These are the most tempting weapons in any nuclear arsenal and they cannot be recalled. Their destructive potential is unimaginable. Efforts to eliminate them should be a permanent policy initiative for any government, anywhere in the world, but especially in Washington, D.C.
49
"Leaving the treaty would be a huge step backward." Yep, exactly what Trump wants to do in every area, take us backward. And a majority of US citizens do not want to go along for the ride.
66
I was a soldier during the Cold War and for two years a Team Chief on a tactical nuclear weapons firing team. Mr. Schultz's plea resonates with me in ways most people won't understand. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. We stand to gain much by leading the world in preventing mutually assured self destruction. Instead of withdrawing into a nationalistic cocoon we should raise our differences in both private discussion s with the Russian's and in public discourse with the rest of the world!
105
Thank you Mr Schultz for a convincing rational for sanity. I might add that Putin might enjoy watching the US spend into oblivion on arms increasing our already over the top debt load. Putin is watching our stock markets, our internal decadent politics - the smart thing right now would be cool the arms built up.
Putin is playing him....
40
Mr. Schultz...the Trump Doctrine clearly states that everything must be fixed by killing it first and then 'renegotiating' it with mostly the same terms of the murdered treaty and then renaming it in the name of Donald Trump.
We can retain the substance of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed in 1987, but it will have to be renamed the Trump HUGE Nuclear Weapons Deal Treaty that will simply be 'so incredible'.
I hope you can understand.
A minority of American voters demanded a small child in the White House - and thanks to nationwide voter suppression - were rewarded with one.
Perhaps in addition to agreeing to a future without nuclear weapons, Russians and Republicans can also share their mutual dreams of a future without democracy and without counting all the votes.
154
Mr Schulz y'all built a multi decade political strategy based on tax cuts, race, oil companies, and the south. The Mercers and the Adelsons and the Kochs picked up the ball y'all moved down the field and ran with it. And so here we are.
93
@gnowell: SecState Schultz was one of the most accomplished and effective secretaries of state since George Marshall and, I believe, entirely sincere in his understanding that nuclear weapons must be destroyed. He was far from a "y'all" in your sense and in no way responsible for the hideous politics practiced by the Mercers et al. If our present leaders do not snap-to and acknowledge (and educate themselves in the first place) the dangers of nuclear proliferation-by-tweet, we will be the first generation to turn ourselves to radiation shadows (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The only difference between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons is the delivery system. The use of any nuclear weapon leads only to the use of more nuclear weapons and death and destruction for much of the population and all of the wealth of the target nations and their neighbors. This is the definition of Mutually Assured Destruction. The United States, Europe, and Russia would cease to exist. Which is precisely what the ego-games being played by presidents Trump and Putin would bring us -- MAD death and destruction for us all.
21