Obama seeks to rid the world of nuclear weapons

[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.

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

Russia barely, Which leaves China who doesn't show much interest in destroying the global order that they profit so mightily from.

[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.

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.

Russia barely, Which leaves China who doesn't show much interest in destroying the global order that they profit so mightily from.

China is nevertheless a revisionist power, no matter how pragmatic it has been over the past few decades.

[Razgovory]

I don't even remember who you are.

[FunkMonk]

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."

[Sheilbh]

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.

I think these two points are especially apt.  Also I think showing there's like in multilateral nuclear non-proliferation treaties could get India and Pakistan in.  I think it should have been a condition of any US-India deal that they join the non-proliferation treaty.

Also what I found interesting, seeing about this on Newsnight was that START II in the nineties envisaged the Russians having about 2700 nukes and the Americans around 2400-2500.  Now without that framework the Russians have actually gone down to 2500 and the Americans to 2200. 

So I think this is an easy win in that none of the big powers really want to increase their nuclear stock and have, in fact, been letting it decline since the 80s.  Doing it in a concerted, open way that declares this is policy not just accident is good.  The Russians apparently say they think a deal can be made by the time of Obama's state visit later this year (the figures talked about are 1700 for the Russians 1400 for the Americans).

Obama was, in the Senate, one of the Senators most interested in nuclear non-proliferation (with Lugar, he replaced Nunn on the Democrat side), so hopefully we'll also see new inspections and disposal of old nukes.

[The Brain]

[grumbler]

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.

Bingo.  The idea here is to make it harder for borderline-nuclear-state governments to justify to their people the cost of creating their own nuclear arsenals.

[grumbler]

China is nevertheless a revisionist power, no matter how pragmatic it has been over the past few decades.

China has exhibited no interest in a violent change to the status quo.  Yes, they want the status quo revised, but they have little to gain if the revision wrecks the very states with whom they wish to trade.

[Norgy]

Even though the speech was held in Prague, I got the feeling it was directed at Iran and North Korea.

I am unwilling to dismiss the idea as without merit, as the bipolar international system is long gone, and nuclear deterrent is more and more becoming a nuclear threat with various states with very unstable regimes having nuclear capability and, possibly, the ability to launch long-range attacks.

Yes, it goes into the Big Book Of Messianic Obamisms, but I am fairly certain he didn't just pull this out of his ass.

[grumbler]

Oh, and Obama's announcement merely confirms what has been US policy since it signed the NPT, which requires good-faith negotiations to achieve complete nuclear disarmament.

[Josquius]

I don't see a problem here.
As said reduction in nuclear arms is a good thing (tm).
The US outright deciding on its own just to get rid of some of its arsenal of course would be stupid but thats not the suggestion and no one would ever suggest such a thing (damn Foot).

[Siege]

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.

Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.

[Siege]

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.

Russia barely, Which leaves China who doesn't show much interest in destroying the global order that they profit so mightily from.

I have heard the economic argument before.
When was that? 1914?

[Valmy]

I have heard the economic argument before.
When was that? 1914?

And what better evidence could be found for all the benefits of ignoring your best interests?

[Jos Theelen]

"We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth."

Said by Ronald Reagan at his second inaugural address. So nothing new here.