I Call For A World Initiative to Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons

... even ours !

Joshua Hergesheimer says it better than i could ...
source: In pursuit of suitable deterrent : Aljazeera.Net
In addition to stipulating that non-nuclear countries commit to remaining non-nuclear, Article IV of the NPT imposed obligations on nuclear states to work towards the reduction and eventual elimination of their nuclear stockpiles.
...
Recently, the British government entered into discussions about replacing the UK's ageing nuclear deterrent. And not only is America refusing to take any meaningful steps towards disarmament, but there is speculation that the US is covertly pursuing a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons for use in otherwise non-nuclear contexts.
...
The American position therefore seems completely paradoxical: while Bush is moralising about how North Korea's actions constitute "a threat to international peace and security", the fact remains that America, the only country to ever employ a nuclear device, has massive stockpiles of weapons and is considering the development of new weaponry.

The moral of the story seems to be that if America, the world's superpower, is unwilling to scale down its nuclear stockpile - believed to number around 10,000 - then the demand for other countries not to follow the nuclear path seems exceptionally hollow.
...
The US must recognise that giving up its nuclear weapons is the only sure way to convince others not to "go nuclear".
... please read the entire article.

Please refer to the Wikipedia article on the current NPT for further details about that treaty.   What I am calling for is a new treaty that would mandate the immediat cessation of manufactur of new fissionable materials, and the immediat dismanteling of all nuclear weapons in all countries that possess them.  It would mandate the implementation of effective measures of verification.

Update 1-6-7  In a brilliant show of hypocrisy, after Bush pushes Iran and Korea to step back from the nuclear brink, by proposing "a major step forward in the building of the country

Tags

  1. nukes
  2. npt
  3. item 4880
  4. nuclear proliferation
  5. iran
  6. item 4909

Comments


Mark de LA says
I thought the nuclear abolution crowd was into getting rid of all nuclear weapons, not nuclear technology. You are probably closer to them, isn't that their plan ?


Mark de LA says
source: ... extension of the IAEA, to be responsible for the control, storage, transport, and elimination of all fissionable materials.
...hmmm... an international body called the UN couldn't even keep Saddam Hussein from bribing members of the UN & the IAEA got kicked out of Iran .  With all that power in the hands of one organization, it sounds like the beginning of a wonderful black market in fissionable material for whoever gets that franchise!  I want that franchise.


Seth says
M 2006-11-07 08:27:11 4909
It always helps when starting out on an endeavor to check out the ecology of your proposition if it ever became real. If you get results do you really want them the way you envisioned ?  The nuclear material never disappears even if it is not still in bombs.  I don't know how hard it would be to transform all the bomb material back into uranium ore, but I suspect that would be impractical & silly. So you end up with all this nuclear material hanging out which, from some perspectives, is more valuable than gold, drugs or a super-heavenly piece of ass. It has to be stored forever. Plutonium half-life is 24,110 years. So for 24K years you have some very valuable stuff that has to be protected & stored without mistakes. What does your NPT do with that challenge ?
The Treaty to Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons (WTTEANW) would implement an international body, probably as an extension of the IAEA, to be responsible for the control, storage, transport, and elimination of all fissionable materials.

Mark de LA says
With all the nukes gone, the WMD of choice then becomes either poison gas or biological or (heaven forbid) hundreds of suicide cells with individual explosives, poisons, biologicals attacking population centers & water, food & other resource centers.


Mark de LA says
Here is the nuclear abolition crowd . NPT is proliferation oriented. But then nuclear energy is a solution to energy without oil & air polution & global warming.

Seth says
M 2006-11-07 06:29:51 4909
Here is the nuclear abolition crowd . NPT is proliferation oriented. But then nuclear energy is a solution to energy without oil & air polution & global warming.
My call is limited to nuclear weapons. Lumping that up with abolition of nuclear energy just makes it harder to achieve.  The NPT was the most similar treaty that actually happened and that is why i took it for my starting point.  What i am calling for is to go back and do it completely.  This treaty is proposed as a better alternative to the measures that abre being used now to prevent new countries from developing nuclear weapons.  Sanctions just do not work, and i predict that they will not work in the case of Iran. 

Mark de LA says
It always helps when starting out on an endeavor to check out the ecology of your proposition if it ever became real. If you get results do you really want them the way you envisioned ?  The nuclear material never disappears even if it is not still in bombs.  I don't know how hard it would be to transform all the bomb material back into uranium ore, but I suspect that would be impractical & silly. So you end up with all this nuclear material hanging out which, from some perspectives, is more valuable than gold, drugs or a super-heavenly piece of ass. It has to be stored forever. Plutonium half-life is 24,110 years. So for 24K years you have some very valuable stuff that has to be protected & stored without mistakes. What does your NPT do with that challenge ?

Seth says
Actually Article IV of the NPT does not imposed obligations on nuclear states to work towards the reduction and eventual elimination of their nuclear stockpiles.  However it is in the preamble as follows:
source: preambel of the NPT
Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,

Seth says
M 2006-11-20 12:33:21 4240
I don't think the US is interested in eliminating nuclear weapons in the world!  I don't think that is workable.  They are a deterrant to those who want to live which is mostly everyone except the Islamist-extremists & suicide bombers.  The idea is just as silly as saying, lets all the cops give up their guns & make a pact with all the criminals not to carry or get guns either, IMHO.
Well you are right about one thing ... the US is not interested in eliminating nuclear weapons in the world.  But the current statagy of escalating sanctions is not working ... i don't believe it has ever worked to prevent nuclear proliferation.  Then the use of nulear weapons as a deterant to other nuclear weapons is certainly unnecessary, when every other nations also disarms.  Note that was always in the plan ... nobody is suggesting a unilateral diarmament.  Saying to other countries, "We will keep our nukes, but you must get rid of yours" is straight on hypocrisy.  The world will get behind a treaty to eliminate all nukes, if the US ends it's hypocrisy.  This is a workable paln ... the only thing lackin is the political will of the United States.

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-01-07 14:31:04 4909
M 2007-01-06 22:06:44 4909
seth 2007-01-06 19:54:24 4909
M 2007-01-06 15:31:21 4909
OTOH, if we got rid of them all then we would have the need to invent something equally obnoxious!
Why?  Are not the arguments we to tell other states not to develop weapons of mass destruction, just as valid against our own arsenal?  Is there some reson that the world needs weapons of mass destruction? 
It's the essence of the nature of the right-wrong game.
Not at all ... try answering the specific quesntions and not taking shelter in accuations of rwg whenever you can not.
   Well, first off, calling people assholes never stopped a nuke!  A little RWG on your part ? Second, I already discussed this matter in your 4240 in the comments. Since we will never agree, I wish you nice blessings & good luck!  BTW, the right-wrong game is imbedded human nature in all conflicts. Giving it up one-sided will not make it end. Those that are left will just split into polarities & fight some more. Until humanity evolves to the stage that they can't ignore eachother's pain & sufferings there isn't much hope. Bows & arrows, swords & catapults gave way guns & bombs.
   I wonder what's next after atomic bombs fade into history? Maybe star wars like death rays & sonic stun weapons?

Mark de LA says
Yep, we probably don't need any more nuclear weapons that can't be tested (except, perhaps upon Iran & North Korea). OTOH, if we got rid of them all then we would have the need to invent something equally obnoxious!


Seth says
M 2007-01-06 15:31:21 4909
OTOH, if we got rid of them all then we would have the need to invent something equally obnoxious!
Why?  Are not the arguments we to tell other states not to develop weapons of mass destruction, just as valid against our own arsenal?  Is there some reson that the world needs weapons of mass destruction? 

Seth says
M 2007-01-08 09:08:48 4909
seth 2007-01-07 14:31:04 4909
M 2007-01-06 22:06:44 4909
seth 2007-01-06 19:54:24 4909
M 2007-01-06 15:31:21 4909
OTOH, if we got rid of them all then we would have the need to invent something equally obnoxious!
Why?  Are not the arguments we to tell other states not to develop weapons of mass destruction, just as valid against our own arsenal?  Is there some reson that the world needs weapons of mass destruction? 
It's the essence of the nature of the right-wrong game.
Not at all ... try answering the specific quesntions and not taking shelter in accuations of rwg whenever you can not.
   Well, first off, calling people assholes never stopped a nuke!  A little RWG on your part ? Second, I already discussed this matter in your 4240 in the comments. Since we will never agree, I wish you nice blessings & good luck!  BTW, the right-wrong game is imbedded human nature in all conflicts. Giving it up one-sided will not make it end. Those that are left will just split into polarities & fight some more. Until humanity evolves to the stage that they can't ignore eachother's pain & sufferings there isn't much hope. Bows & arrows, swords & catapults gave way guns & bombs.
   I wonder what's next after atomic bombs fade into history? Maybe star wars like death rays & sonic stun weapons?
Point is what is the answer to these questions: Are not the arguments we to tell other states not to develop weapons of mass destruction, just as valid against our own arsenal?  Is there some reson that the world needs weapons of mass destruction?

Mark de LA says
     Those who do not play by the rules like gangsters, gangs, felons & those dedicated to evil & treachery will acquire guns & whatever they want regardless. When state sponsors of terrorism like Iran & North Korea declare their intent to wipe out the West I deem it prudent to keep our weapons just for survival & retribution. North Korea already proved they can't be trusted in an agreement on their nuclear weapons which bamboozled the Clinton administration.  Iran is very overt - take them at their word! The UN is just a debating society too impotent to solve any REAL problems. Probably, endless talking is good as long as it slows down the pace of armed conflicts in some cases. You might ask (to paraphrase Rodney King) can't we all just outlaw war ?
     The times of Mary Poppins have not yet arrived. Be patient!


Seth says
source: Talking Points Memo
"What worries me is setting out a doctrine that pre-emptive strikes are not only justified by an actual gathering threat but by hypothetical futuristic scenarios which have no bearing in the present reality. You can

Seth says
source: nyt
Smuggler

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-01-25 09:22:38 4909
source: nyt
-snip- old news
This is where the "war on terror" should be focusing.  The existance of this kind of market is a far greater danger to us than anything that is happening in IRAQ.  

Actually, that was what Saddam was looking for once the sanctions were lifted.  I suspect that if someone carries weapons grade radioactive material in his leather jacket that he won't live very long no matter how much money he gets for it.  Long live Darwin !

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-01-25 10:16:22 4909
M 2007-01-25 09:43:58 4909
Actually, that was what Saddam was looking for once the sanctions were lifted. 
Source ?
Reasonable assumption.  He had a nuclear weapons program. (declassified Iraqui papers published  in Arabic last year) Traces of weapons grade material were found in his flooded facilities early in the war. He had large amounts of cash on his hands. He had no qualms about getting stuff on the black market.


Seth says
M 2007-01-25 09:43:58 4909
Actually, that was what Saddam was looking for once the sanctions were lifted. 
I still don't know what period of time you are referring to or the dates on the "declassified Iraqui papers".   It is well known that Saddam had WMD programs in the 80s. Israel even took out their reactor prior to its becomming operationalThe IAEA found actual evidance of these programs after the first Gulf War, the UN applied sanctions, and the IAEA attempted to verify their destruction. When we invaded IRAQ in 2003 no fissionable materials were found.  All of that is common knowledge now.  Your sentence above, stated in the past tense, has no time period for which it was actually true.  It's a little like saying that if Hitler had the ABomb late in WWII he would have used it against London.  No shit, Sherlock

The news, just today released, however, contains actual evidence of a growing illicit market in radio active materials.  I find it reprehensible that the administration does not go after this threat to our security.  Instead people seem to point to threats to Iran or Saddam's demise as evidence that things are being done to make terrorist nukes on our shores less probable.


Seth says
M 2007-04-27 08:09:11 4909
Any news today ?
I edited it today to change the title from "treaty", which already exists, to "initiative" which does not.  With the fall of the SSSR and the nuclear non proliferation treaties the world seems to have forgotten that the current nuclear powers purposuly neglected to progress on their pledge to dismantel these weapons.  The people of the world need to bring that back to the forefront of our counsciousness.  You 7004 reminded me of the urgency of the problem.

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-04-27 08:38:04 4909
M 2007-04-27 08:30:14 4909
Can you find a treaty where it was pledged that ALL would be dismantled.  I think that half of them have already been dismantled.  I think it is an ongoing process.
You probably can legitimately quibble on the "ALL" part of the agreement, but for a nuclear weapon free world you need that as a goal and i doubt that any reasonable person would disagree.  As to ongoing process, i see not evidance of any of that whatsoever.  Do you?  Rather out country is even now arguing on how best to rennovate its nukes.  That is not a good direction for us to be going.
Basically then, your documentation is sparse & you are out of the loop as far as what is going on. Rennovation of nukes is necessary to keep them from blowing up! I applaud that action! Radioactive material degrades electronic circuits.  Our poison gas arsenal has the same problem sitting mostly there in Utah. It is being destroyed at a slow pace awaiting a better method besides incineration.  Chemical weapons are a tricky business to undo because you have to be 100% perfect in not letting any stuff out. Nuclear material is easier because there is a set method to take them apart.  The challenge is where to put the Pu & the U without terrorists getting their hands on it.


Seth says
M 2007-04-27 08:30:14 4909
Can you find a treaty where it was pledged that ALL would be dismantled.  I think that half of them have already been dismantled.  I think it is an ongoing process.
You probably can legitimately quibble on the "ALL" part of the agreement, but for a nuclear weapon free world you need that as a goal and i doubt that any reasonable person would disagree.  As to ongoing process, i see not evidance of any of that whatsoever.  Do you?  Rather out country is even now arguing on how best to rennovate its nukes.  That is not a good direction for us to be going.

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-04-27 09:15:04 4909
M 2007-04-27 08:58:26 4909
Rennovation of nukes is necessary to keep them from blowing up!
Dismantling them is far more effective!  It's even cheeper.  With a bit of ingenuity the fissionable material could be used as an energy source helping solve yet another problem.
You don't know that - you are out of the loop on the technology!   Switching a circuit board or a module in place is far less time consuming than taking the whole thing apart & converting the fissionable material to the form that works in nuclear power reactors.  Some of the material like the hydrogen bomb stuff is not convertable to anything we have yet; no fusion power reactors yet!

Seth says
M 2007-04-27 08:58:26 4909
Rennovation of nukes is necessary to keep them from blowing up!
Dismantling them is far more effective!  It's even cheeper.  With a bit of ingenuity the fissionable material could be used as an energy source helping solve yet another problem.

Mark de LA says
seth 2007-04-27 10:00:08 4909
M 2007-04-27 09:50:28 4909
seth 2007-04-27 09:35:18 4909
Obviously i am not a nuclear expert, and i am not aware that your are either.  But i'll bet you that it can be made cheeper especially if a rector can be invented to use the Plutonium or U235 to produce clean energy.  In any case it is definitely more effective than rennovation at preventing the bombs from blowing up.
Ask Nate if you don't believe me. Anything I could possibly say in this matter is classified!
Waving at alleged secret information does not bolster your case ... in fact it is a cheep and useless argument.
Well, since I was in the military & you were not I think you have become the cheap one in this argument! That's why I forwarded your request to Nate. Anyway, do a little checking online & the fallacy in your argument will shine like the sun!


Seth says
M 2007-04-28 11:16:08 4909
Well, perhaps I should take my half of the RWG somewhere else.  IMHO, I see your proposal no more practical & real world than my quest.  In particular all transformations begin at home inside individual people. [My: item 7004] will be where I continue any further discussion of nuclear weapons.
Yep, thanks, take it somewhere else ... staying specifically on topic does help me focus.  If you have something specifically on the issue of this item, you are, as always, encouraged to contribute.  Btw, i do not believe that "transformations begin inside individual people" ... i respect that we have a totally different orientation on that matter ... but that is for a different node.

Mark de LA says
Sorry, dude, the RWG is the issue.  An atomic bomb is one of the foulest manifestations of such. Until you fix that in yourself (& I in myself) you nor I will not be able to fix it in others.
On another planet & otherwise your call for such an initiative as your title suggests reminds me of a flea floating down a river with a boner calling for the draw bridge up ahead to open.  My case is similar, but I don't have the boner for this issue. My boner is for human transformation. Unfortunately for this blog, I have undertaken a multiple lifetime purpose & can only hint in various places where we touch each other across the void.
...

Seth says
seth 2007-04-27 11:32:58 4909
M 2007-04-27 11:15:35 4909
Anyway, do a little checking online & the fallacy in your argument will shine like the sun!
What fallacy would that be?  I truly do not know.  Please be specific.  There are places above where i have speculated beyond my knowledge ... and i have implied as much above.  But that is not a fallacy in my reasoning ... that is just a matter for further research.  The objective is to create, as you called for in 7004,  a nuclear weapon free world.  Dismanteling the existing nukes is logical prerequisite for that to happen.  In all honesty can you make a rational case to the contrary?   Once that assumption has been accepted, then the next question is what to do with all of that fissionable material.  That is a big problem.  So what would the solution of it be? 

Seth says
Mark you are going to have to respect that i have different types of nodes and that certain types of comments and lavish displays of unrelated materials on those nodes are inappropriate.   This is a rational thinking node.  It is a serious proposal.  It is not a laughfing matter.  Nor is it a node to bring up RWG ... every comment should be well considered.  I don't want people who might be reading this to have to dig through mounds or irrelivant RWG to get to the actual dialogue.  Other nodes on my blog, and other places on fastblogit are free for alls where anything goes and no such heavy handed holding topic will happen. 


Seth says
Well i acknowledge that this proposal is somewhat out of the box of usual American thinking NPT issues.  I think you can acknowledge that your proposal for human transformation is even further out of that same box.  It is as if you took my hail mary and attempted an ever longer pass.  But if your transformation is ever to take place, it must start somewhere on the ground and not up in the clouds.  My proposal is just such a start on the larger issue.  If we can get this off the ground, then we will have tangeable events in play on the larger more difficult issue of rewiring basic human nature ... perhaps even sufficient for the survival of our species.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-05-12 10:43:58 4909
Obama ...
source: ...
Obama's new budget plan includes a little-noted sea change in U.S. nuclear policy, and a step towards his vision of a denuclearized world. It provides no funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, created to design a new generation of long-lasting nuclear weapons that don't need to be tested. (The military is worried that a nuclear test moratorium in effect since 1992 might endanger the reliability of an aging US arsenal.) But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example. That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile. For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program. But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all.
..
Just as Bill Clinton sucked social program money from the Defense Department budget (he called it a "peace dividend") & projected weakness to the likes of Osama Bin Laden with his (Bill C.) useful idiot theory that terrorism was a legal matter, BHO is doing the same & while the rest of the terrorist world (Iran, N. Korea & Pakistan) is getting closer to an atomic bomb to terrorise & blackmail this country he apparently cares not about bombs which are becoming dangerous because of their age. I wonder if one blows up in his own back yard if he still will be able to blame it on Bush.


Seth says
Obama ...
source: ...
Obama's new budget plan includes a little-noted sea change in U.S. nuclear policy, and a step towards his vision of a denuclearized world. It provides no funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, created to design a new generation of long-lasting nuclear weapons that don't need to be tested. (The military is worried that a nuclear test moratorium in effect since 1992 might endanger the reliability of an aging US arsenal.) But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example. That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile. For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program. But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all.
..

Seth says
MR 2009-05-12 10:54:13 4909
seth 2009-05-12 10:43:58 4909
Obama ...
source: ...
Obama's new budget plan includes a little-noted sea change in U.S. nuclear policy, and a step towards his vision of a denuclearized world. It provides no funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, created to design a new generation of long-lasting nuclear weapons that don't need to be tested. (The military is worried that a nuclear test moratorium in effect since 1992 might endanger the reliability of an aging US arsenal.) But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example. That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile. For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program. But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all.
..
Just as Bill Clinton sucked social program money from the Defense Department budget (he called it a "peace dividend") & projected weakness to the likes of Osama Bin Laden with his (Bill C.) useful idiot theory that terrorism was a legal matter, BHO is doing the same & while the rest of the terrorist world (Iran, N. Korea & Pakistan) is getting closer to an atomic bomb to terrorise & blackmail this country he apparently cares not about bombs which are becoming dangerous because of their age. I wonder if one blows up in his own back yard if he still will be able to blame it on Bush.

How does updating our nuke arsenal helps us resist a Osama Bin Laden type of attack?  It does not.  There is no use for these weapons in the 21th century struggle against asymmetric terrorist attacks.  You do not prevent this kind of attack by nuking anybody.  There is no deterrent involved.  Obama is putting the money exactly where it should be put: "increase our focus on nuclear security and transforming the Cold War nuclear weapons complex into a 21st century national security enterpris."  

Mark de LA says
Well, when a nuke goes off and destroys Israel we'll see how much of a deterrent one going back in the other direction has & we'll see if Obama can resist the temptation or gives in to the terrorists.  Frankly, without reciprocity unilateral disarmament of our most important deterrant is just foolish;  mad cow diseasesed liberals notwithstanding. He's just looking for more budget cuts in his favorite whipping boy the military to support his massive spending programs.


Seth says
MR 2009-05-12 11:58:22 4909
Well, when a nuke goes off and destroys Israel we'll see how much of a deterrent one going back in the other direction has & we'll see if Obama can resist the temptation or gives in to the terrorists.  Frankly, without reciprocity unilateral disarmament of our most important deterrant is just foolish;  mad cow diseasesed liberals notwithstanding. He's just looking for more budget cuts in his favorite whipping boy the military to support his massive spending programs.

Iran (or others) are already sufficiently deterred by the current US nuclear ability.   Updating our stash of nukes will have absolutely no effect on that deterrent.   Al Qaeda on the other hand is not deterred by any consideration whatsoever; so updating our stash has no effect on them.  Please focus on the matter at hand rather than confusing the issue with unrelated matters.

Mark de LA says
~


Mark de LA says
Apparently Russia may not be so happy to press Iran on their nukes for a START deal.
Reuters: ... Russia will not agree to tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program in exchange for a new nuclear arms cuts deal with Washington, Interfax news agency quoted a foreign ministry source as saying Tuesday.

Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama's nuclear adviser suggested that progress on a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms pact could help persuade Moscow to be more cooperative on Iran.

"There are no reasons to link these issues or count on Russia being more cooperative in toughening sanctions against Iran if there is progress in talks with the United States on further cuts in strategic offensive weapons," the source said.


...
(I didn't expect it - did you?)

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-09-21 16:46:41 4909
MR 2009-09-21 16:19:59 4909
Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden & Al Queda are looking for some. You never did understand the nuclear deterrant value of the nukes & never will.

Our ability to nuke somebody has absolutely no deterrent value to Al Qaeda ... none whatsoever.  In fact Osama would  cheer with triumph should we ever be tricked into using our nukes anywhere in the world.  The more nuclear stock piles are reduced the less likely Al Qaeda will ever get their hands on some.  You comment shows a lack of understanding of not only nuclear strategy, but also of terrorists strategy.
True, a nuclear deterrent will have no affect on an insane enemy. OTOH, it will have some deterrent value to the host country where the insane enemy lives. You have noticed how outrageous Ahmadinejad's statements have become lately.  How much the Norks use nuclear blackmail to achieve diplomatic parity with the US. BHO appears on the World Stage like a paper tiger to our enemies.  When every tin horn dictator & mullah in the Middle East has a nuke the game is over. As our nukes & Russia's are dismantled the likelihood that at least some from Russia or some other country will end up in the hands of Iran or the terrorists; the temptation to sell them on the black market is too great. Not every one in the Middle East wants to die to get their 72 virgins (sheep, pigs or otherwise). What do the women get out of that promise anyway?  A World without nukes is a pipe dream without the concomitant progress in ethics, morals & spiritual development nowhere to be found today, even in the free World.  Speak softly & carry a big stick but don't be afraid to use the stick. The World should be able to come together to sanction a state completely before disarmament (of any kind) will become effective. The same cold war enemies are still saying NOPE to that! The solution lies mostly in strengthening economic ties to the point that it would be as unimagniable to fight a war with another country or some of it's inhabitants than it would be for a restaurant to poison it's patrons on purpose & expect to continue business. Obama has to go beyond words & more words & more words to right actions & right deeds.  This is not a good deed.

Seth says
MR 2009-09-21 16:19:59 4909
Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden & Al Queda are looking for some. You never did understand the nuclear deterrant value of the nukes & never will.

Our ability to nuke somebody has absolutely no deterrent value to Al Queda ... none whatsoever.  In fact Osama would  cheer with triumph should we ever be tricked into using our nukes anywhere in the world.  The more nuclear stock piles are reduced the less likely Al Queda will ever get their hands on some.  You comment shows a lack of understanding of not only nuclear strategy, but also of terrorists strategy.

Seth says
MR 2009-09-21 14:17:56 4909
Unilateral nuclear disarmament without quid pro quo seems to be in the eye of BHO.
The Guardian: ...

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."


...It's like ban guns in the US & then only criminals who don't give a shit in the first place will be the ones with the guns & the rest of us will be at their mercy.

The descriptions here of planned changes in our nuclear arsenal do look like they are moving towards "A World without Nuclear Weapons" which is what i have called for in this item.  These weapons are not useful to defend our homeland.   Nor does having them make us safer.  They are the archaic remnants of the cold war.   I'm glad we will stop throwing more and more money down the nuclear rat hole.  Let us learn new tricks and not perpetuate last century's mistakes. The more we make our arsenal smaller the more moral force we will have to force others to do the same.  I applaud these moves of the Obama administration.

See Also

  1. Thought War with North Korea with 189 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  2. Thought Satsop Nuclear Plant with 84 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  3. Thought The Shatt Al Arab Waterway Event with 22 viewings related by tag "iran".
  4. Thought about: Virtual Torus with 19 viewings related by tag "iran".
  5. Thought Sabourjian the Jew with 8 viewings related by tag "iran".
  6. Thought Drums of War on Syria with 5 viewings related by tag "iran".
  7. Thought Fun with Google Earth with 4 viewings related by tag "iran".
  8. Thought Hmmmm.... with 3 viewings related by tag "iran".
  9. Thought SOS - This would be absolutely hilarious if it wer'nt so true with 3 viewings related by tag "iran".
  10. Thought The drums of war on Iran with 3 viewings related by tag "iran".
  11. Thought One World or None with 2 viewings related by tag "item 4909".
  12. Thought Such a nice man! with 2 viewings related by tag "iran".
  13. Thought SNUKES with 1 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  14. Thought Same as it ever was.... same as it ever was... with 1 viewings related by tag "item 4909".
  15. Thought about: N. Korea: We may halt nuke test if US holds talks with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  16. Thought about: Iranian official offers glimpse from within: A desire for U.S. ally with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  17. Thought Charm OFFENSIVE with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  18. Thought Wat up w/ dat? with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  19. Thought Surprising Build Up In Centrifuges At Natanz with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  20. Thought Scariest Headline Yet with 0 viewings related by tag "item 4880".
  21. Thought To what end will negotiations bring us ? with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  22. Thought about: Is Iran planning a cataclysmic strike for August 22? with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  23. Thought This Russian is really cranking up an iran strike with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  24. Thought Obama v Nukes part X with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  25. Thought The Nihilist Perspective with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  26. Thought about: aljazeera.net with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  27. Thought The Secret Weapon is Hillary with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  28. Thought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  29. Thought UN Resolution 1718 with 0 viewings related by tag "nuclear proliferation".
  30. Thought Hope & Change the Iran Way with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  31. Thought Global Pain with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  32. Thought Just In Case you Forgot ... with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  33. Thought The Doomsday Machine - Apocalypse Maybe? with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  34. Thought Iranian diplomat kidnapped with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  35. Thought Are we following Zarqawi's plan ? with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  36. Thought Nuff Said with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  37. Thought Ahmadinejad's talk at the UN Security Council Event with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  38. Thought Nuclear jump list at FastBlogIt with 0 viewings related by tag "nukes".
  39. Thought Pour concrete down their oil wells ! with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  40. Thought about: Iran is the real winner in the war on terror with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  41. Thought But they are getting Billions with Sanctions lifting with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  42. Thought Will Israel take out Iran's nukes ? with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  43. Thought Perverted Butterfly Effect with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  44. Thought A fatwa against a potential invasion of Iran with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  45. Thought Paper Tigers, ALL! with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  46. Thought Chilling information with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  47. Thought Context for the masses with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  48. Thought about: Iran uses plant as a message of defiance with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  49. Thought Mamoud's Speech to the UN - Bamboozled! with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".
  50. Thought Persian Journal with 0 viewings related by tag "iran".