Obama seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons

[jimmy olsen]

Bad idea, even were it possible, which it isn't, nuclear weapons are what has prevented World War 3.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30053670/

Obama launches effort to reduce nuclear arms
U.S. has 'responsibility to act' to rid world of such weapons, president says

updated 36 minutes ago

PRAGUE - President Barack Obama on Sunday launched an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and saying the U.S. has a moral responsibility to lead as the only nation ever to have used one.

In a speech driven with new urgency by North Korea's rocket launch just hours earlier, Obama said the U.S. would "immediately and aggressively" seek ratification of a comprehensive ban on testing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. would host a summit within the next year on reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, and he called for a global effort to secure nuclear material.

"Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked — that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction," Obama said to a bustling crowd of more than 20,000 in an old square outside the Prague Castle gates.

"This fatalism is a deadly adversary," he said. "For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable."

Aimed at North Korea
Obama targeted his comments at one point directly at North Korea,   which launched a rocket late Saturday night in defiance of the international community. The president was awoken by an aide and told of the news, which occurred in the early morning hours in Prague.

"North Korea broke the rules once more by testing a rocket that could be used for a long range missile," Obama said. "This provocation underscores the need for action — not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons."

At a summit with leaders of the European Union later in the day, Obama called for a swift, joint statement condemning North Korea's actions.

North Korea declared the missile launch a success. But the U.S. military said "no object entered orbit," with the first stage of the rocket falling into the waters between Korea and Japan, and the two other stages and its payload landing in the Pacific Ocean.

Addressing another potential nuclear foe, Obama said in his speech the U.S. will present Iran with "a clear choice" to join the community of nations by ceasing its nuclear and ballistic missile activity or face increased isolation.

Proceeding with missile defense
He said the U.S. will proceed with development of a missile defense system in Europe as long as there is an Iranian threat of developing nuclear weapons. If that threat is removed, he said, "The driving force for missile defense in Europe will be removed."

The choice of Prague for such a speech carried strong symbolism, and Obama didn't ignore it. Decades of communism were toppled in Czechoslovakia through the 1989 Velvet Revolution, so named because it was one of the few peaceful overthrows of communism in the Iron Curtain. The Czech Republic split from Slovakia in 1993.

Obama praised the Czechs for helping "bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot."

Obama coupled his call for a nuclear-free world with an assurance that America would not unilaterally give up nuclear weapons. It must be a one-for-all, all-for-one endeavor, he said, and until that is possible, the U.S. will maintain a big enough arsenal to serve as a deterrent.

Drastically cut arsenals?
Few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done. But a program to drastically cut the world atomic arsenal carries support from scientists and lions of the foreign policy world.

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by former President Bill Clinton but rejected by the Senate in 1999. Over 140 nations have ratified the ban, but 44 states that possess nuclear technology need to both sign and ratify it before it can take effect and only 35 have do so. The United States is among the key holdouts, along with China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.

Ratification of the test ban was one of several "concrete steps" Obama outlined as necessary to move toward a nuclear-free world. He also called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy, negotiating a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia, and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons.

Obama also said the U.S. will seek to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by providing more resources and authority for international inspections and mandating "real and immediate consequences" for countries that violate the treaty.

Obama spoke after conferring with Czech leaders. He is nearing the end of a sweep through five nations in Europe, pivoting from the global economic swoon to the war in Afghanistan to, now, the crisis in North Korea and the fate of the nuclear world.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.

[Tamas]

What a goddam' populist good for nothing arsehole this black dude is turning out to be.

[Ed Anger]

We can sell the Poles out faster now now.

[Warspite]

What is interesting is that I think this is the first time a US leader has called for multilateral disarmament, as opposed to bilateral reductions. Unfortunately, this rather steals the thunder from us Brits, who have been in favour of this for years

[Neil]

More naivete on the part of Obama.  If only we all join hands and love together, we can replace the greatest guarantor of peace the world has ever seen:  The atom bomb.

[Tamas]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

[Razgovory]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Who's going to start World War III?   Germany's sorta out of the business.

[Tamas]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Who's going to start World War III?   Germany's sorta out of the business.

:sigh:

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

alternatively: he knows that the nukes aren't going away and is making sure that by proposing the idea everyone else comes of as the bad guys that wish the world to live in fear of nukes.

[jimmy olsen]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Who's going to start World War III?   Germany's sorta out of the business.

Last I looked Russia and China are still in business though.

[Mikael Hakim]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Or he just wants to reduce the number of nukes. Which is a good thing.

[Tamas]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Or he just wants to reduce the number of nukes. Which is a good thing.

In what way does that matter? Either you have enough to eliminate your enemy, which is the point and if you have more it does not matter, or you don't have enough to destroy your enemy, in which case you run a good chance of being nuked to oblivion yourself.

[DisturbedPervert]

We will always need some nuclear weapons, in case of alien invasion, giant asteroid impact, or if we don't get all the muslims the first time.

[Darth Wagtaros]

It made for a great movie.

[Warspite]

Well, either he knows very well that with no nukes around there will be WW3 faster than he could say "change", and thus he is a populist liar, or he actually think no nukes = good thing, in which case he is an idiot.

Or he just wants to reduce the number of nukes. Which is a good thing.

In what way does that matter? Either you have enough to eliminate your enemy, which is the point and if you have more it does not matter, or you don't have enough to destroy your enemy, in which case you run a good chance of being nuked to oblivion yourself.

Beginning to reduce your own stockpiles in coordination with others sends signals. Firstly, it can ease tensions between rival powers, as it did at the end of the Cold War. Although both the USSR and USA had the power to destroy civilisation, the fact that they could come to the table and hammer out an agreement that reduced their absolute power helped create credibility and trust between the two powers.

In today's context, it can be seen as a 'quick win' that might help defuse tensions between Russia and the West without actually in any way reducing the effectiveness of American strategic deterrent (certainly, not below that what is necessary).

Secondly, it sends a symbolic signall to other nuclear states that disarmament or arms reduction is back on the agenda, and if the superpowers and declared nuclear states are doing it, it is harder for regimes such as, say, Iran, to convincingly argue that they are merely defying great power double-standards.

In other words, what is probably more important right now is not a world actually without nuclear weapons, but a world in which states are happy to commit to fewer nuclear weapons.