Welcome to PatsFans.com

No nukes!!!

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Holy Diver, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Ummmm....

    pretty awesome if you ask me...


    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.



    Obama-led UN council backs broad nuclear agenda - Yahoo! News
  2. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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!
  3. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Pretty hard to act when the most powerful nation in the world has been pursuing an imperialist agenda for the last 60 years.
  4. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,337
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +127 / 4 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    I'll believe it if i ever live to see it.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2009
  5. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,075
    Likes Received:
    467
    Ratings:
    +1,025 / 8 / -19

    #87 Jersey

    Gaddafi was right ... 65 wars since the security council started.

    Mommar may be crazy, but he's not stupid.
  6. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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.
  7. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    And let's face it, the man knows how to dress.
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,141
    Likes Received:
    192
    Ratings:
    +649 / 2 / -9

    I have a Bridge I would like to sell to Beautiful Prince Obama.
  9. 2000army

    2000army Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    #12 Jersey


    lol ..... Nukes are the only thing that has kept you from speaking Japaese/Russian/Chinese/German unvoluntarily for the past 50 years
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,518
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +554 / 7 / -9

    2300 words is:

    - 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.

    PFnV
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,749
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +358 / 11 / -27

    Is a small step, better than no step at all... it might only be on paper, but it has moved from an idea to a plan...

    We can all hope, can't we???
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,622
    Likes Received:
    210
    Ratings:
    +500 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    This is like banning police from carrying guns and saying "NO GUNS".
  13. KontradictioN

    KontradictioN Do you even lift? PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    Messages:
    27,397
    Likes Received:
    606
    Ratings:
    +1,751 / 30 / -48

    No Jersey Selected

    His intentions are good but unfortunately it will never work. First of all, we will never get rid of ours. I don't care what Obama says. Second of all, Iran just showed the whole world what it thinks of this statement by firing off a test missile. Third of all, how is the U.N. going to stop the world's superpowers from carrying nukes? Tough rhetoric? Last time I checked, Russia and China have been rarely impressed by tough rhetoric.

    Like I said good intentions though. Unrealistic... but good. We should all make peace with the fact that the world will eventually be obliterated by nuclear warfare. :cool:

    By the way, that last part was a joke for the no-nonsense liberals in here.
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2009
  14. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    We need to get the Star Wars shield up and running about as accurately as the ATM system we have in the USA. Any elimination on the haves' part before then is too likely to lead to a scenario similar to the Simpson's episode where all weapons were eliminated and then some azzhole found a board with a nail stuck in it and took over the world.

    Until then I'd really rather be a have.
  15. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    As usual PFnV a thoughtful post, and you are right, it is a positive step IF it amounts to something. My guess is that it will not, even if we have a President committed to the goal of a nike-free world we still have a Congress that presumably is not (or at least enough members of Congress). The same problem applies to other nuclear nations, and applies to having to trust rogue states with no way to verify compliance.

    Also India went nuclear in the 70's and Pakistan in the late 90s, neither under Bush.
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,518
    Likes Received:
    290
    Ratings:
    +554 / 7 / -9

    Oh hell. Thanks for catching those, Stokes. My apologies to Mr. Bush, who was only responsible for one new rogue nuclear state (as opposed to the two relatively stable nuclear states that tested in the 1970s and 90s.)

    Sadly I do agree with your conclusion... I think we're just seeing the eventuality we knew was coming based on how the NPT is supposed to work versus the great powers' real belief: that is it "our" right to have these things, and just plain not "their" right.

    We're seeing the limits of unilateralism: Ultimately to prevent any specific country from obtaining nukes, one has to be on that ground, in those countries, in one guise or another. For some IAEA inspections and the like can do the trick. For others, the idea of a "nuke free except for us and these other 8 guys" will mean occupying nations as they get close.

    So we have a universe of choices we don't like:

    - proliferation (unacceptable!), or

    - the military burden of invading and occupying every Icarus of the world who insists on flying too close to the sun (as shown with Korea and Iran, we can't handle that at the same time as we pursue other interests militarily such as Iraq,, or

    - diplomacy (politically unfeasible.)

    I think it is crystal-clear that this board and everywhere else they talk politics will be afire with this subject (no pun intended) for years to come. We will scream and rant and rave and stamp our feet that something must be done about this or that emerging nuclear power, and then at the end of the day, that nuclear power will simply emerge, regardless of how much thundering and blustering we or other "haves" do in the UN or elsewhere.

    I do not think there is a workable unilateralist solution to the problem of proliferation, and at the moment, there is not political will at least in the U.S. to pursue a multilateralist solution.

    We can't even cap carbon emissions without it becomming a zero-sum game in which the developing world has "conned" us to our own detriment, in the minds of many Americans.

    PFnV
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,091
    Likes Received:
    213
    Ratings:
    +502 / 6 / -2

    This should sum up the UN in a way most everyone can understand.

    YouTube - Team America: World Police- Kim Jong Il & Hans Blix (HD)


    So when do we all sing Kumbaya together? While I think the idea is terrific, and noble, it's worthless. As Stokes said, who's going to enforce such a concept, or treaty? Try no one. Furthermore, the existence of nukes is what has prevented a world war from happening since August of 1945. Don't get me wrong, I think we should absultely prevent the proliferation of nukes. The idea of some loon leader having the ability to evaporate major cities at the push of a button, or handing it to some terrorism jihadist to use in NY, or London, is frightening. The proof is in the pudding though. The UN has no balls. It's a giant trust fund, and welfare check distributor, for the worlds most insiginificant, and corrupt people. Stopping the spread of nukes should be attempted, but the simple truth is that more, and more nations will become nuclear regardless. Iran's getting the bomb, and there's nothing we can do about it. I'm ok with that as I've said before. I'd simply let it be known that the second a nuke goes off in the world, and it's traced to Iran, they become glass. I'm serious about that.
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,821
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +225 / 8 / -13

    All sizzle no steak.


    Iran's response, firing missiles and bragging they can reach Jerusalem and US bases.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2009
  19. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    There goes Obama again...following in the footsteps of that famous liberal we all know and love:

    ...A liberal in terms of domestic politics, Reagan’s views on foreign affairs were largely unformed—although by 1945 there was one aspect of world affairs on which his views had formed instantly and permanently: He loathed nuclear weapons. Immediately after the United States dropped two atomic bombs over Japan in 1945 to end World War II, Reagan became involved in anti-nuclear politics. He was an ardent proponent of the abolition of nuclear weapons and the international*ization of atomic energy. In December 1945, Reagan intended to help lead an anti-nuclear rally in Holly*wood. He planned to read an anti-nuclear poem at the rally, but Warner Brothers, the studio to which Reagan was contracted as a film actor, informed him that he could not participate, ostensibly because it would violate his performance contract, but almost certainly because the studio did not want that kind of political attention. So we were denied our first chance to see Reagan’s anti-nuclearism in public.

    Many views that Reagan held in the mid-1940s changed as he evolved from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican. But he never abandoned his hatred of nuclear weapons and his desire to eliminate them. Reagan’s “dream,” as he himself described it, was “a world free of nuclear weapons.” He pursued that dream as a personal mission....


    [​IMG]

    President Reagan's Legacy and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
  20. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I totally agree with you about how things will go (2nd to last paragraph), it was the same with China, India, Pakistan, etc. Unfortunately I see proliferation as unavoidable, and I would argue that our best bet is focusing time and effort on establishing a robust missile defense shield, as well as a big push aimed at increasing our ability to detect radioactive material at as many points of entry as possible. That's the best response I can see, as power games between big players on the world stage (US, Russia, China, etc) prevent any real action to block proliferation or to commit to a no nuke world. Iran will develop a bomb in the next 10 years, and from there my guess is states like Saudi Arabia are going to say "what about us?" and we'll be forced to accept them as a nuclear state, and on and on it will go. Best we can do is prepare ourselves for scenarios in which nikes are launched against us whether it be from a state with a crazed leader (N. Korea?), overthrow of an unstable regime by terrorist elements (Pakistan?), accidental launch or theft of fissile material (Russia?).

    The big question is whether it is worth sinking billions into a program that may never work to our hopes and also (hopefully) may never be used. Personally I'd like to see some money funneled away from other military development projects and into this, but that is not a popular opinion once the outcry comes about shutting down current plants and losing jobs as happened with the battle over the new fighter a few months ago.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>