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/
QuoteObama 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.
What a goddam' populist good for nothing arsehole this black dude is turning out to be.
We can sell the Poles out faster now now.
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 :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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:
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Mikael Hakim on April 05, 2009, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1416andcounting.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fsuperman4.jpg&hash=e491c9dd9df85fc5bf80dec88622260ca7e77d68)
It made for a great movie.
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:42:26 AM
Quote from: Mikael Hakim on April 05, 2009, 09:21:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
I don't even remember who you are.
QuoteHe 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."
;)
Quote from: Warspite on April 05, 2009, 10:09:38 AM
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.
:thumbsdown:
Quote from: Warspite on April 05, 2009, 10:09:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Warspite on April 05, 2009, 10:20:07 AM
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.
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.
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.
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).
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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?
Quote from: Siege on April 05, 2009, 10:23:38 PM
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?
"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.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on April 06, 2009, 03:29:38 AM
"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.
Gorbachev, too, was a big fan of the idea of a world without nuclear arms. Mostly, because throughout the whole Cold War the Soviets were mortally afraid of a U.S. first strike.
Quote from: Siege on April 05, 2009, 10:23:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 10:11:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 05, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2009, 09:06:35 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2009, 09:04:54 AM
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?
Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2009, 04:52:26 AM
Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.
Well I was re-reading Guns of August the other day, and it mentioned that book from the period, which was pretty popular and argued that booming international trade and the interdependency it had caused meant the end of the era of big state vs. state wars. It was published in, say, 1912? :lol:
Of course I know we live in very different times, but it should serve as a reminder that nothing is sure expect death.
Are there other issues apart from Taiwan where the Chinese government can be considered revisionist?
FWIW, my own assessment of the general Chinese attitude on Taiwan is that, while most consider it part of China and believe it will one day rejoin the mainland, they also approach the issue with extreme pragmatism... which means they tend to take a long term view on it and don't seriously contemplate military action on the matter. Thus I find it hard to imagine a war scenario that begins with it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2009, 04:52:26 AM
Dude, you are always thinking that the future will resemble the past.
Free up your mind and drop your prejudices.
Yeah I mean the only one who actually remembers hearing those arguments was Grumbler.
But those arguments actually had some validity. Much of the suffering by Germany, Russia, Austria and Turkey was because of the lack of international trade. Britain and France suffered as well but had the naval power to keep their trade lanes open. I'm sure the Chinese noted this as well. So international trade didn't prevent the war but the lack of it certainly helped end it.
Yeah but if you would actually understand history, not just read it, you would know that starting a war was seldom a cool-headed and wise decision. And, even more importantly, one of the reasons why your current rivals do not pursue military ambitions is that it is hopeless and highly unprofitable compared to peace, as you guys point it out. But going lenient on your own power can change that equtation, at least in their heads.
Quote from: Jos Theelen on April 06, 2009, 03:29:38 AM
"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.
I've always thought that Obama was the intellectual equal of a former actor whose brain had started to disintegrate.
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2009, 06:21:13 AM
Yeah but if you would actually understand history, not just read it, you would know that starting a war was seldom a cool-headed and wise decision. And, even more importantly, one of the reasons why your current rivals do not pursue military ambitions is that it is hopeless and highly unprofitable compared to peace, as you guys point it out. But going lenient on your own power can change that equtation, at least in their heads.
Agreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause. It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.
So, while it is possible for nuclear weapons to serve the interests of peace (by making the enemy's worst-case scenario worse) they also can be destabilizing, if the enemy thinks vital interests make it worth risking the worst-case.
What is worse, nuclear weapons are in the hands of governments. If the start of WW1 tells us anything, it is that governments are not very good at following the anti-war instincts of the country leader. If Russia had just possessed a plan to mobilize against Austria only, the Great War may well have been averted (at least in that crisis). I am sure you have read the "Willy-Nicky" letters. The government had never really considered what they wanted their army to be able to do, though, and so there was no such plan.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2009, 06:50:39 AMAgreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause. It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.
Another example are WP's plans for war against NATO. Those plans were certainly result of cool (if morbid) calculation: WP expects to steamroll NATO. Therefore NATO is forced to use tactical nukes against the offensive at some point. If the use of tactical nukes is inevitable, anyways, WP will deploy them in the initial attack.
And that is why you need enough nukes to guarantee the total anihilation of your enemy even if they manage to kill a good number of your nukes in their magazines. :P
Of course, this could work for the cold war era because it was simple with two opponents. Who knows what will happen when there will be multiple countries with big nuke stockpiles, and thus they can start hoping in victory through an alliance or something.
But if you are THE nuke powerhouse of the planet, the answer is not to seek disarmament of your stockpiles, but to prevent others from gaining nukes. If Russia could actually think forward, they would cooperate with the US on this.
Quote from: Neil on April 06, 2009, 06:27:41 AM
I've always thought that Obama was the intellectual equal of a former actor whose brain had started to disintegrate.
Les extremes se touche
Quote from: Tamas on April 06, 2009, 05:43:58 AM
Of course I know we live in very different times, but it should serve as a reminder that nothing is sure expect death.
:o Are you threatening me?
Quote from: Syt on April 06, 2009, 07:09:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2009, 06:50:39 AMAgreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause. It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.
Another example are WP's plans for war against NATO. Those plans were certainly result of cool (if morbid) calculation: WP expects to steamroll NATO. Therefore NATO is forced to use tactical nukes against the offensive at some point. If the use of tactical nukes is inevitable, anyways, WP will deploy them in the initial attack.
where can I read more about WP and NATOS "first strike" plans?
And did the French really said that if WP advanced into France they would deploy there one's nukes? Or was this a "suspicion?"
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on April 06, 2009, 12:39:24 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 06, 2009, 07:09:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2009, 06:50:39 AMAgreed, but I don't think that the possession of nuclear weapons will necessarily make an enemy pause. It may, in fact, cause the enemy to escalate the initial attack (to include nukes of his own) because the best defense against nuclear weapons is to destroy them in their magazines, and nuclear weapons are the best way to do that.
Another example are WP's plans for war against NATO. Those plans were certainly result of cool (if morbid) calculation: WP expects to steamroll NATO. Therefore NATO is forced to use tactical nukes against the offensive at some point. If the use of tactical nukes is inevitable, anyways, WP will deploy them in the initial attack.
where can I read more about WP and NATOS "first strike" plans?
And did the French really said that if WP advanced into France they would deploy there one's nukes? Or was this a "suspicion?"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB154/index.htm
http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/
Also:
Warsaw Pact saved the world from nuclear world war (http://newsfromrussia.com/world/europe/15-05-2007/91511-warsaw_pact-0)
QuoteMany tend to demonize the Warsaw Pact nowadays claiming that it cast evil shadow over "the free world." However, the Pact became the only possible response against the aggressive actions of the then US administration when its efforts resulted in Western Germany's incorporation in NATO. The union, chaired by the USSR, allowed to keep the fragile balance in the world.
On May 14, 1955 governmental delegations of eight countries (the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania) signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. The treaty, which lasted for 35 years, became known in history as the Warsaw Pact.
One may have different approaches to that event. The geopolitical situation in the world has experienced enormous changes since that time. Many specialists say nowadays that the Soviet Union created the block which cast the evil shadow over the free world threatening the whole humanity. Generally, many bear a negative image of the Warsaw Pact, which in fact maintained the balance of forces in Europe for many years. The Pact became a response to aggressive foreign policies which the United States ran during the post-war years.
The collapse of Nazi Germany and the reorganization of Europe led to the opposition between the two world leaders – the USA and the USSR. The USA had nuclear weapons at its disposal, whereas the USSR could boast of the world's most powerful army which liberated Europe from fascism and set up its bases on the borders of the Western world. Each of the two countries could try to use their advantages against each other.
The trigger was pulled after Winston Churchill delivered his landmark "Iron Curtain" speech to an audience at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. Churchill frankly said during the speech that the USA could dictate its conditions to the world owing to its possession of nuclear weapons. The British diplomacy had only one prime goal: to set the leading superpowers against each other and gain the maximum profit from it. Churchill succeeded perfectly at that.
The idea of the global supremacy based on the possession of nuclear weapons became the key subject of Washington's international policies. The USA developed dozens of plans in the 1940s to use A-bombs against the USSR. The plans basically differed for the amount of A-bombs and targets. In 1946 the USA planned to drop 20-30 bombs on the Soviet Union and level 20 cities. In 1949 the United States outlined 3,261 targets.
Washington acted so according to the doctrine of massive retaliation, which is based on the unrestricted use of nuclear arms in case of a military conflict. However, as US Defense Secretary Brown said in 1977, the USA could use the tactics of preventive strike too. In addition to A-bombs Washington needed European armies to conduct ground operations against the socialist camp. On April 4, 1949, twelve countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty to defend themselves against the threat of communist aggression. In other words, they legally set up a political and military block against the USSR.
It is worthy of note that Moscow's response to the establishment of NATO was quite original. The Soviet government offered the USA, England and France, as well as its former allies, to consider an opportunity of USSR's participation in NATO. Washington found itself at a loss for it implied that NATO was absolutely useless.
In return, the USA initiated the NATO membership process for the Federative Republic of Germany, which automatically aggravated the political situation in the post-war Europe. Western Germany obtained a possibility to form a multi-million strong army outfitted with modern-day arms and equipment. The Cold War became a reality.
The remilitarization of Germany and the powerful armed alliance demanded quick measures in response. The Treaty on the establishment of United Armed Forces and United Command was signed in Warsaw on May 14, 1955. Two super-powerful groups stood up against each other.
There were no objective reasons for the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. Most likely, it became history because of dogmatism and lack of foresight of the Soviet administration that could not understand internal processes taking place in Eastern Europe. In addition, the Soviet government contributed to critical processes in the socialist camp, which eventually destroyed the system of collective security of the Eastern block.
;)
What if the SU joined NATO? What you think could happen?
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on April 06, 2009, 12:39:24 PM
And did the French really said that if WP advanced into France they would deploy there one's nukes? Or was this a "suspicion?"
The French never said they wouldn't use nukes first. I believe they did at some level brief that if one Soviet troop crossed the Rhine then the French would launch everything they had.
:lol:
Russians.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on April 06, 2009, 12:59:40 PM
What if the SU joined NATO? What you think could happen?
The same thing that happened in the regular world. The only difference would be that NATO would be either an adjunct of the UN or defunct, and the alliance of civilized countries would have a different name.
What if Israel joined the Arab League?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 06, 2009, 02:27:11 PM
What if Israel joined the Arab League?
What if the Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk joined the EU.
Never gonna happen. The EU is a vertebrates-only club.
I predict this conference goes badly for the US.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 06, 2009, 02:41:28 PM
Never gonna happen. The EU is a vertebrates-only club.
Lots of spinelessness for a vertbrates only club.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 06, 2009, 02:43:38 PM
I predict this conference goes badly for the US.
Which conference? What's your definition of good?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2009, 04:19:01 PM
Which conference? What's your definition of good?
The conference Obama has suggested to discuss nuclear disarmament. My definition of good is something that advances our interests.
I think it will go poorly because either it will start the ball rolling on true disarmament, which is a mixed blessing for the US, or it will cede the moral high ground to the proliferators.
I think the outlines for the Russian-US deal is already there. As I say the Russians think it can be and want it to be signed when Obama goes to Moscow on a state deal. In the UK the press have already started describing the outline of a treaty. I have a suspicion it's a bit like Israel-Palestine; everyone roughly knows what the deal will look like already.
What's your impression of what the US interests are in this conference? Do you have any idea of sort of 'red lines' he shouldn't cross (to use the phrase we have every EU summit)?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
I think the outlines for the Russian-US deal is already there. As I say the Russians think it can be and want it to be signed when Obama goes to Moscow on a state deal. In the UK the press have already started describing the outline of a treaty. I have a suspicion it's a bit like Israel-Palestine; everyone roughly knows what the deal will look like already.
What's your impression of what the US interests are in this conference? Do you have any idea of sort of 'red lines' he shouldn't cross (to use the phrase we have every EU summit)?
I'm not referring to the US/Russia deal. I'm in favor of that. What's not to like?
I think the red line has already been crossed by proposing the conference. By doing so the issue gets altered from a geopolitical one of what do we do about countries aquiring nukes that we think might be used against us to the moral one of if the US has the "right" to posess nukes why don't Iran and NK have that right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 06, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
I think the outlines for the Russian-US deal is already there. As I say the Russians think it can be and want it to be signed when Obama goes to Moscow on a state deal. In the UK the press have already started describing the outline of a treaty. I have a suspicion it's a bit like Israel-Palestine; everyone roughly knows what the deal will look like already.
What's your impression of what the US interests are in this conference? Do you have any idea of sort of 'red lines' he shouldn't cross (to use the phrase we have every EU summit)?
A nuclear weapons deal? Or an overall deal?
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 06, 2009, 02:27:11 PM
What if Israel joined the Arab League?
What a marvelous idea.
Commentary magazine has a good article on this:
QuoteMissile defense is the only hope for neutralizing the threats of other nuclear powers. Whether it is an infallible system already or not, it is our best hope for the future. Not only does it have the potential to stop an oncoming nuclear armed missile, but it has the deterrent effect of reducing an enemy nation's confidence in obtaining an advantage by striking first. With the exponential advances in technology in the digital age, it strikes me as strange that leftists consistently argue that these systems could never work and, that, if they don't work already, they are not worth pursuing. Nuclear disarmament is nice in theory, but it is far from feasible or practical. In fact, continued nuclear proliferation seems logically to be the much more likely scenario, as coutries like N. Korea and Iran set the example that nuclear arms are useful for protecting criminal regimes from any and all punishment. Since that precedent is currently being set by the weakness of the international community, we can expect more of this behavior in the future. Meanwhile, multilateral nuclear disarmament will be a long, arduous, and uncertain process (to the point of utter impracticality). We would be forced to trust regimes that have never proven themselves to be reliable, and would end up putting ourselves, voluntarily, on an equal plane of vulnerability with our potential enemies. We would prostrate ourselves before the international community in seeking its approval, while sacrificing a defensive advantage and not ensuring any extra security.
If the left cares at all about national security, it would seem logical for them to approve of defensive weaponry, if they cannot approve of nuclear arms, as the safest and most moral means to ensure the safety of our homeland and the soverignty of our allies. But since they consider preparing for self-defense to be a provocative act, we might as well just sit back and hope that no one figures out how defenseless to a first-strike we really are. Frankly, since we might feel required to respond to an aggressive act in-kind, having a missile defense system in place might allow us to take the moral high ground, since our ability to stop a nuclear attack would make it easier to justify a non-nuclear retaliation, should such an attack occur. We could, thereby, prevent a nuclear holocaust on the homeland and retaliate using our precision guided weaponry that would allow us to eliminate the regime with as few innocent casualties as possible. But should a nuclear attack succeed on US soil, it is unlikely that cooler heads would prevail in preventing the demand for an immediate nuclear retaliation. In this scenario, we not only suffer nuclear devastation, but we lose the moral high ground that the left regards as the primary goal of foreign policy. So it makes no sense from both the rational and moral perspectives to not promote missile defense and to not provide it all the funding necessary to make the technology viable as soon as possible.
The left has never understood that weakness is provocative. The Russians make a big fuss about missile defense because it would damage their ability to leverage their nuclear arsenal against their neighbors. A viable missile defense system would make them less, not more, likely to attack the US or its allies. They may not like us as much as a result, but it's only because we would have effectively prevented them from running roughshod over Europe. Our government's number one priority is to assure the safety of its citizens. In geopolitical terms, one of our key strategic interests is to prevent the rise of aggressive regional hegemons. Nuclear arms, especially with successful proliferation in Iran, could only ensure that minor aggressions against our allies will go unpunished, and major aggressions against the US would result in a variant of mutually assured destruction for all parties. Missile defense, however, would eliminate the certainty of an aspiring regional hegemon that they could avoid punishment or use their arsenal to gain a strategic advantage against us.
Such an irrational approach to foreign policy as the one Obama has begun to pursue can only originate from a willfully blind ideology. We are seeking to sacrifice our advantages and rights as an individual nation in order to gain the acceptance of and inclusion in the international community. However, if we continue to deteriorate our capacity to fully defend ourselves and continue to denigrate the values that helped us achieve that capacity, we will find ourselves just one of many nations, no stronger or weaker. At that point, we will quickly learn that the international community has no guarantors of freedom, no natural peaceful order. We had long been freedom's de facto guarantor. Just because we want to give up that role doesn't mean we won't still be the main target of freedom's enemies.