Externe

Hint scut = defensiva , oare ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

"The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons.

Signed in 1972, it was in force for the next thirty years until the US unilaterally withdrew from it in 2002."

Mda .....

spere deosebire de acesta SALT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

"Negotiations started in Helsinki, Finland, in 1969 and focused on limiting the two countries' stocks of nuclear weapons. These treaties have led to START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). START I (a 1991 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union) and START II (a 1993 agreement between the United States and Russia) placed specific caps on each side's number of nuclear weapons."

Deci tratatul anti-scut semnat 1972, tratatul de limitare a numarului de rachete balistice semnat deabia in 1993

Adica intai s-a semnata anti - scut si abia apoi s-a semnat anti - racheta, asa ne arata istoria cu documente, asa au gandit ca e acceptabil la vreamea aceea generalii , diplomatzii si politcienii ce l-au semnat.

Ma rog or fi fost aia din vechine niste prosti si nu intelegeau ei doctrina lui Alamar daaaaa daca acu USA s-a sucit si se CACAT pe ele tratate vechi . In aceste condiztii oare nu e de asteptat ca si cealata parte semnatara sa fie libera sa ia contramasurile care le crede de cuviintza ?

Caaaa de intamplat s-a intamplat ceva USA s-a cacat pe el temelia ( primul acord semnat ) dezarmarii nucleare si se poate astepta firesc la niste consecintze.

Ca daca temelia nu mai e ...... nici restul nu prea mai sta in picioare deci .... free for all, everthing goes, free for all