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.”

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    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?

  • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    the US has zero credibility sticking to agreements & every two weeks a general or politician openly talks about attacking China. this is going nowhere

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        MAD as in the nuclear event, should it come to pass. MAD just as a condition of geopolitics is much more debated over.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.