How is it pointless? You say they haven't done this before and I pointed out the 7 previous times they have. I thought maybe I was missing something about why you used "unilateral", but I guess not?
You mean except for in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2005, 2007, 2007 (again) and 2012?
They may slightly tweak the terms in keeping with the times, but they've done this 8 times in the past 33 years during which time they've basically succeeded in becoming a nuclear power.
Or are we getting stuck on "unilateral"?
From my POV it looks like you missed a lot, I'm sure it looks similar from your POV.
I think we can both see this is pointless. Let's leave it here.
I read the whole thread and understand you have a different take on the recent summit. No issue there, really, it's a complex issue and there's plenty of criticism to throw at past administrations as well.
Then you stated they have never agreed to this sort of thing before (I think, unless you were using "unilaterally" to exclude everything prior).
That's just factually untrue, as I pointed out with the 7 instances. How is it pointless to settle on the basic history, even if we draw different conclusions?