Talk:Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cold War  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

We should be careful when suggesting that the influence of defense contractors was essential to decision making at SALT:

"The combination of these factors meant that the military and political leadership on both sides had an incentive to reduce their arsenals. Factoring in the industrial complex, if the talks led to allowances for fewer but more advanced systems, this would allow for further expenditures and thus keep the military-industrial complex happy."

This is not a neutral analysis.

Section Detailing History of Nuclear Arms Control[edit]

I wonder if this should be included or merits inclusion on a separate page. SALT is the most visible of the treaties, so I can see its utility as a portal of sorts, but still... Deleting CIA coverup reference :) Upshotknothole (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Photo[edit]

The photo of Brezhnev and Ford signing a comunique is misleading, it suggests that Ford signed the SALT1 treaty when it was actually Nixon becuase it was signed two years before Ford became president. Also the T in SALT stands for Treaty not Talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence II is wrong. "T" in SALT = Talks. "T" in START = Treaty. Check the links below the article with the text source of the SALT agreements on with best regards from VINCENZO1492 17:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Salt Talks[edit]

I've always heard them referred to as the "SALT Talks", so I'm going to create a redirect page with that name. I know, it's a redundant acronym. xxxyyyzzz 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is 'ABM'[edit]

There's no definition on this page as to the meaning of the abbreviation 'ABM'. 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Ballistic Missile. Basically, a missile that shoots down ballistic missiles. Rklawton 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Which treaty was it?[edit]

Was it the SALT treaty where nuclear weapons were banned from outer space by the USSR and USA?

That was the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which predated SALT. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The title[edit]

Why 'Seals And Lambs Treaty'? I understand it to stand for "Strategic Arms Limitation Talks"

Factual error-it says Joseph Biden of Delaware signed this treaty

SALT I confused with START I[edit]

I'm pretty sure that some author has confused SALT I with START I. The SALT I currently reads

SALT I is the common name for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement, also known as Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. SALT I froze the number of strategic ballistic missile launchers at existing levels, and provided for the addition of new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers only after the same number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and SLBM launchers had been dismantled.

That sounds like START I. If you can verify this, go ahead and change the entry.--Gadlen (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. "L" in SALT = Limitation = freezing the number of weapons. "R" in START = Reduction = decreasing the number of weapons. with best regards from VINCENZO1492 17:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You do not have a section: Reasons for not allowing total disarmament.[edit]

A) Defense, self-defense (guns). B) Inhibiting a water monopoly society from using enslavement principles while maintaining their own arsenals.

A is important, because it limits the potencial of a Walk-IN. B is important, because it limits any internal putz that would lead to a Water Monopoly Incest cycle, by providing alternate external solutions.

Within the past 40 years, it have been both ´dictators´ and ´water monopolistic´ theologists whom have proposed complete nuclear disarmament. These same individuals also push for internal enslavement within their own nations, under their own ´one god´ principle (supremist fascism orientations), which overal has a deterant called ´a nuclear weapon´.

To mention a few: Middle East Islam Sects, African Dictators, South American social communist. All these want ´walk-in´ rights without there being any potencial of any opposition to those demands, and overal have gone out of their way to not allow the use of guns by citizens, and that last, on pure humanitarian grounds that have no humanitarian reasoning except that humanitarianism where a ´walk-in´ could be shot. (IE: Humanitarianism for the crook or dictator, but for none other).

There is an interesting aspect to this, if you are of that thought and mind, and that aspect is: ´where would you run too, too whom would you run, if there was a severity of abuse under a complete disarmament?´. There is very little doubt that that would be to someone whom could counter, but such an entity/individual would no longer exist.

Increasing disarmament talks is a very, very, very bad idea, a NONE deterant to any individual with a ´I´m now master of the Universe principle¨. These days, that is defacto the ´United States of North America´ itself, and has been since the retraction of Russian sponsored forces in Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't have such a section because Wikipedia does not use ideas you made up especially those that bear little relation to reality. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote such ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)