ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
UNITED NATIONS – With President Barack Obama presiding, the U.N. Security Council on Thursday unanimously endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with "undiminished security for all."
Thursday's 15-0 vote delivered a global consensus — countries ranging from Britain to China to Burkina Faso — that may add political impetus to dealing with nuclear violators, advancing arms control in international forums and winning support in the U.S. Congress.
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
A lofty and worthwhile goal, but somewhat hollow coming from the body that failed completely in stopping proliferation to India, Pakistan, and North Korea and seems determined to do the same favor to Iran. This part struck me as particularly appropriate for the UN:
"The 2,300-word document did not authorize any concrete actions, but it urged action on a long list of proposals before the international community."
2300 words with no concrete action. Yep, that's about par for the course!
A lofty and worthwhile goal, but somewhat hollow coming from the body that failed completely in stopping proliferation to India, Pakistan, and North Korea and seems determined to do the same favor to Iran. This part struck me as particularly appropriate for the UN:
"The 2,300-word document did not authorize any concrete actions, but it urged action on a long list of proposals before the international community."
2300 words with no concrete action. Yep, that's about par for the course!
Pretty hard to act when the most powerful nation in the world has been pursuing an imperialist agenda for the last 60 years.
Pretty hard to act when the most powerful nation in the world has been pursuing an imperialist agenda for the last 60 years.
I don't think the blame for the failures of the UN's stated goal of preventing nuclear proliferation can fall solely at the feet of the US.
At any rate, it is a lovely idea but it simply won't happen because adherence to any treaty is unenforceable. Say we sign on and agree to disassemble all of our nuclear weapons, who's going to inspect and confirm that? Will we be letting UN inspectors who could potentially be spies into our most secure facilities? Will they be taken by bus to area 51 to confirm we have no stockpiles there? The same question is raised for every nuclear nation. Who will police China? Russia? Heck they couldn't even do a credible job in Iraq or North Korea, forget about searching siberia for bunkers!
Don't get me wrong, if this new resolution actually ends up improving the UN's ability to stop proliferation then its a great thing, until we see something come of it though I'm skeptical.
- About 10 typed pages
- About 3-4 opinion columns
- About the size of a short story
While we'd all prefer concrete steps etc. etc. etc. (which of course take a tremendous amount of time, wrangling, and in the US, subsequent bitter battles over ratification,) said UN lofty theorizing can -- can -- point toward a framework within which actual treaties etc. can be worked out.
We're still about at the same place as previously on this issue: developing nations point to lack of progress toward zero among nuclear powers, and nuclear powers want to stick to the nonproliferation part of the nonproliferation treaty without regard to their own stockpiles.
By the way, the "bad guys" of the world who want but dont have nukes do not see 2000 warheads as appreciably closer to zero than 5000 warheads (while they struggle to produce a dozen or two.)
"A DOZEN OR TWO?!??!??" you exclaim. "THESE ARE NUKES!!!"
Precisely their point.
The nonproliferation bargain has always been that the nuclear power will work toward a world without them, their own stockpiles included. The non-nuclear states, in return, would not develop them.
That game is well into the fourth quarter right now. At the moment Russia, France, the US, Britain, China -- the original 5 nuclear states -- have been joined by Israel (we think--there is no public acknowledgment,) Pakistan, India, and Korea. Did I miss somebody? That's 9.
Not proffering an answer here. Just noting where we are. For a long time we dissuaded the nuke-seeking states by claiming motion toward zero. The motion was never fast enough for their tastes. Now the question of the day is how to stop the non-nuclear nations from becomming nuclear nations.
Well, we know how. They've signed onto it, for the most part.
But this is a diplomatic solution, and we've moved away from diplomacy to the point where I don't think the framework holds too much longer, particularly after the manipulation of this issue in this decade, in particular, where we showed we were willing to make up charges of WMD production in order to further our geopolitical agenda.
N Korea, India, and Pakistan went nuclear under Bush.
No nukes!!!
Linear Mode
