Is this for real? US to give Russia nuke secrets of England

[william.scherk]

Like WSS, I'd like to see confirmation from specific Wikileaks items. If Wikileaks has released diplomatic communications indicating that the US government was ready to give Vladimir Putin and his generals highly specific information about nukes in the possession of the British military, the particular items will be getting quoted soon enough.

The Telegraph is the only entity putting forward the charge, and no quotes from or reference to any cable were given. Using the phrase from the report below, however (since the Telegraph story did not quote anything), the source may be the cable 10GENEVA135. That is in the Telegraph trove, but not found by searching the text . . . argh. In any case, the meme has gone wild.

In the meantime, both the US and UK governments have denied any factual basis to the Telegraph story.

From ABC's Jake Tapper:

Both the U.S. and British governments disputed on Saturday a London Telegraph report asserting that the "U.S. secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the report "nonsense," saying the information sharing about U.S. transfers of nuclear weapons to the U.K. dates back to the original START treaty, an assertion backed up by the White House and British government officials.

The report, based on a Wikileaked cable from February 2010 during negotiations over the U.S.-Russian New START nuclear disarmament treaty, discussed an agreed statement on the transfer of Tridents II SLBMs to the United Kingdom.

The parties agreed that "in order to increase transparency in relation to the use of "Trident-II" SLBMs, transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America shall provide notification to the Russian Federation about the time of such transfer, as well as the unique identifier and the location of each of the transferred missiles. The Parties agree that, upon conclusion of the life cycle of 'Trident-II' SLBMs transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America will send notification to the Russian Federation about the time and method of elimination, as well as the unique identifier for each of the transferred missiles."

Crowley emailed ABC News that "Under the 1991 START Treaty, the U.S. agreed to notify Russia of specific nuclear cooperation with the United Kingdom, such as the transfer of SLBM's to the U.K., or their maintenance or modernization. This is under an existing pattern of cooperation throughout that treaty and is expected to continue under New START. We simply carried forward and updated this notification procedure to the new treaty. There was no secret agreement and no compromise of the U.K.'s independent nuclear deterrent."

A knowledgeable source with the British government, speaking anonymously because his government has a policy of not commenting on Wikileaks, says his understanding of the policy conforms with that asserted by the State Department.

Another enterprising person dug for the same material. Rather that rant on about crappy journalism, I will just give a link to his findings, here.

Edited February 6, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Regarding Romney, he was endorsed with a cover story by the National Review, indicating that his Mormon views were not an important issue to NR's predominantly Catholic editors. Huckabee's attempt to bring the issue up was pretty much ignored as "beside the point." If Romney had gotten the nomination rather than McCain, we would have seen the issue of his "Mormonness" breaking-out all over the MSM, with stories about "Everything-That-You-Wanted-To(no, Must)-Know About-The-Really-Strange-Practices,-Beliefs-And-Violent-History-of-the-Mormons." If you doubt this, watch what happens if Romney emerges as the Republican standard bearer against Obama.

Thanks for your rejoinder.

I had thought that Romney's biggest problem vis a vis Mormonism was with the evangelical or social-conservative element in the Republican Party. I would say, on balance, all media had waaaaaaay too much to say about the issue. Even Fox.

Can you imagine an Objectivist candidate who said, "I don't believe in gods. Next question, please." Apparently, America would elect a Satanist before an atheist.

I guess that I should add that I am not a supporter of Romney, Huchabee, Palin, Rubio, or anyone else currently mentioned as possible Republican candidates. But my guess is that those on the Right will once again be faced with the choice of the "lesser of two evils."

I am old enough to recall John Anderson and Ross Perot. Why does the US so rarely come up with a candidate that independents can get enthused about, do you think?

Mo Mo Mo Mormon . . .

[Jerry Biggers]

Regarding Romney, he was endorsed with a cover story by the National Review, indicating that his Mormon views were not an important issue to NR's predominantly Catholic editors. Huckabee's attempt to bring the issue up was pretty much ignored as "beside the point." If Romney had gotten the nomination rather than McCain, we would have seen the issue of his "Mormonness" breaking-out all over the MSM, with stories about "Everything-That-You-Wanted-To(no, Must)-Know About-The-Really-Strange-Practices,-Beliefs-And-Violent-History-of-the-Mormons." If you doubt this, watch what happens if Romney emerges as the Republican standard bearer against Obama.

Thanks for your rejoinder.

I had thought that Romney's biggest problem vis a vis Mormonism was with the evangelical or social-conservative element in the Republican Party. I would say, on balance, all media had waaaaaaay too much to say about the issue. Even Fox.

Can you imagine an Objectivist candidate who said, "I don't believe in gods. Next question, please." Apparently, America would elect a Satanist before an atheist.

I guess that I should add that I am not a supporter of Romney, Huchabee, Palin, Rubio, or anyone else currently mentioned as possible Republican candidates. But my guess is that those on the Right will once again be faced with the choice of the "lesser of two evils."

I am old enough to recall John Anderson and Ross Perot. Why does the US so rarely come up with a candidate that independents can get enthused about, do you think?

Mo Mo Mo Mormon . . .

Thanks! You're welcome!

After viewing that clip and listening to Keller's views, my sympathies would be with Romney. Keller's views lead to a totalitarian conclusion: if one really believes that acceptance of Mormonism will lead all adherents to hell, than as an evangelical Christian, one must do everything possible to save them, even if they don't want to be saved. Their views are unimportant. After all, they are in the grip of Satan. I think that that view gives license to use force, if necessary, to "save" their souls. This type of thinking is also seen with certain Islamic fundamentalists. But I digress.

I think if Romney announces that he is running again, there will be the same opposition to his religion that surfaced before. First, from the evangelical Christian right. But if push comes to shove, and they conclude that it will be Romney OR four more years of Obama, most (Keller-types excluded) conservatives will grumble among themselves, but otherwise shut-up.

With the liberal MSM, it will be a different story. Once they conclude that their idol, Obama, could conceivably lose to Romney, there will be a deluge (aka, "shit-storm") of articles, TV "documentaries," web postings, about how "controversial" Mormonism is. We should be focusing on his political record (RomneyCare), but that will probably take a backseat to discussion of his religion (or, more exactly, they will concentrate on certain violent aspects in Mormon history and also some rather bizarre theological views and neo-Masonic rituals). If Obama's Presidency is at stake, the MSM will start throwing mud (or worse).

You mentioned independents, like Perot and Anderson. What I remember is that, at first, the MSM was intrigued with Perot. But as Perot's popularity increased, it appears that the MSM concluded that he might be a threat. From then on, the tone changed. There were intimations that he was "not quite sane," "erratic, unpredictable," "Egotistical," a "wild man." Maybe even "paranoid." Anyway, that treatment pretty much squashed his chances.

With John Anderson, the media handled him with kid gloves because he had two sterling qualities: He was liberal on most social-economic issues. And most importantly, he was actively opposing Reagan. So he was portrayed in a somewhat romantic light. He was the "Don Quixote" fighting valiantly against the "extremism" that had taken over the Republican Party. But when their pro-Anderson publicity failed to help his candidacy, or to derail Reagan, the MSM lost interest in him.

As you said, any candidate that publicly declares that he is an "atheist" is most likely, politically dead.

I don't know of any candidate that has won any major office after such a declaration (in America. It may be different in some European countries). If anyone knows of an instance of an atheist politician winning in America, I would like to hear about it.