Comments by "Caroline Collett" (@carolinecollett956) on "AEK Media"
channel.
-
95
-
24
-
21
-
15
-
14
-
12
-
7
-
7
-
@ Who is truly American 🇺🇸? I would think it was Native Americans are and everyone else are immigrants . Mayflower, in American colonial history, the ship that carried the Pilgrims from England to Plymouth, Massachusetts, where they established the first permanent New England colony in 1620 , Everyone is from Everywhere and whites usually descend from European countries like Ireland 🇮🇪, Italy 🇮🇹, Germany 🇩🇪, England 🏴, Scotland 🏴, wales 🏴 African Americans and every other country, full of different cultures and faiths to make the mosaic of societies . Therefore Elon Musk is a warm welcome and a asset
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As a matter of policy, the United States does not aim to defend the homeland against a Chinese or Russian nuclear attack; rather, it seeks to deter such attacks through the threat of retaliation. However, both Beijing and Moscow worry that, in the future, the United States may be able to deploy missile defenses capable of negating their nuclear forces and leaving them vulnerable to coercion. They have responded accordingly.
In 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin gleefully unveiled a range of new developmental nuclear delivery systems—an intercontinental hypersonic glider, a nuclear-powered cruise missile, and a nuclear-powered torpedo—that he stated were a response to the demise of the ABM Treaty. History appears to back him up. The glider, which has now been deployed, was first tested in about 2004—just two years after the U.S. withdrawal took effect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The U.S. Exit From the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty Has Fueled a New Arms Race
President BUSH claimed the United States needed to leave the treaty to protect itself. Now it’s clear that was a mistake . Twenty years ago today, then-president George W. Bush announced that the United States would withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This cornerstone of the Cold War arms control regime, signed in 1972, sought to cap the arms race by limiting homeland missile defenses, thus reducing pressures on the superpowers to build more nuclear weapons. Bush, however, claimed that the treaty had outlived its purpose, since “the hostility that once led both our countries to keep thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert” had died alongside the Soviet Union. Instead, three months after September 11, 2001, he argued that the treaty was hindering the United States from protecting itself against “terrorists” and “rogue states.”
It’s clear now that withdrawing was an epic mistake . The United States’ homeland missile defenses are porous; why else would Washington worry that North Korea is deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)? Yet those defenses have succeeded in fueling arms races with Russia, whose hostility toward the United States is alive and well, and now with China too. This experience should prompt Washington to try to negotiate new limits on missile defenses, and it provides a cautionary tale about the very real costs of withdrawing from international agreements.
1
-
1
-
1