Obama Promises "No More Nukes"

[dgridley]

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama warned Wednesday about the danger of "fighting the last war" as he pledged to focus on emerging nuclear, biological and cyber threats if elected president.
Two goals of his administration would be to secure all loose nuclear material during his first term and to rid the world of nuclear weapons, Obama told an audience before a roundtable discussion at Purdue University.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91V3A3O0&show_article=1

It would certainly help telling other countries "no-no" to nukes if we also didn't have them. At this point tho, i think a nuke free world is a dream.. don't think it'll happen.

 

[RogueWriter]

Nuke free world would be a bad dream, IMO, if it implied the U.S. would divest itself completely of Nukes. Having a few powerful, yet stable countries scattered around the world with Nuclear capabilities balances out the top dogs, but also gives us a huge leverage over erratic rogue nations that want to misbehave.

Securing loose nuclear material has been an ongoing and progressing goal for the last several administrations. I believe Lee Hamilton or Richard Luger played a critical role in securing Russian nuclear material from vulnerable locations.

 

[Bill]

Another bright idea by Obama. :blink:

 

[dgridley]

You can only get rid of nukes if no one else has them.. then what comes? Death Rays? Or maybe...

I read somewhere recently that "they're" floating the idea of geostationary satellites armed with giant rods that would be targeted and simply drop from the sky. Big enough rod from that height could do considerable damage with little to no collateral effect.

 

[whitebark]

You can only get rid of nukes if no one else has them.. then what comes? Death Rays? Or maybe...

I read somewhere recently that "they're" floating the idea of geostationary satellites armed with giant rods that would be targeted and simply drop from the sky. Big enough rod from that height could do considerable damage with little to no collateral effect.

The weaponization of space is a bad bad bad idea. It will lead to a whole new arms race. There is already another going on anyways. One of the first things the Bush Co did was pull out of long standing nuclear proliferation treaties so that they could push ahead with missile defence. What did Russia do? Well they immediately set out to create a whole new breed of nuclear missiles that can evade any missile defence scheme. Cause and effect...

Getting rid of all nukes is the only way to ensure that no country ever has to deal with one going off in their territory. It can be achieved if the current nuclear powers all agree to it. We were on the right track up to 2000 in that regard. Now we have Israel telling the world to get lost and not allowing any inspections of their arsenal, Iran could very well be building their own (though they are being inspected and nothing untoward has yet been found), North Korea built and tested one, Pakistan and India continue to enlarge their arsenals and Brazil of all places could very well be on the cusp of being a nuclear power as well.

The only good thing about nuclear armed states is that they don't go to war against one another for obvious reasons. So instead they engage themselves in proxy wars. Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan X 2, Korea, all over South America and the Middle East were wars where one or more nuclear powers supported one side or the other.

 

[RogueWriter]

Getting rid of all nukes is the only way to ensure that no country ever has to deal with one going off in their territory.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that one. I can't think of any country in the history of the world that managed to retain a powerful influence by allowing itself to become vulnerable, by voluntarily weakening and divesting itself of it's military advatnages.

This would be similar to the Ancient Greeks saying, "Hey, you know what, we're not going to use the Phalanx anymore, it's too intimidating."

There is a point where we could certainly reduce Nukes too, certainly. I seem to recall afterall that we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, and certainly we should reduce that, with similar reductions from others, just to be pragmatic about it.

And, we should not allow other nations to develop nuclear weapons, first because it reduces our influence within that particular region and second because there will be an incremental increase in the possibility of a nuclear tragedy.

 

[GILSAN]

I guess we have to agree to disagree on that one. I can't think of any country in the history of the world that managed to retain a powerful influence by allowing itself to become vulnerable, by voluntarily weakening and divesting itself of it's military advatnages.

This would be similar to the Ancient Greeks saying, "Hey, you know what, we're not going to use the Phalanx anymore, it's too intimidating."

There is a point where we could certainly reduce Nukes too, certainly. I seem to recall afterall that we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, and certainly we should reduce that, with similar reductions from others, just to be pragmatic about it.

And, we should not allow other nations to develop nuclear weapons, first because it reduces our influence within that particular region and second because there will be an incremental increase in the possibility of a nuclear tragedy.

Could'nt agree with you more. Problem is how to stop other nations from developing nuclear weapons without going into conflict with an entire region as is the case of Iran. South Africa has 2 Nuclear power stations but no one is worried about them getting nukes.

Iran is a diferent story, because of what Ahmadinejad has been saying about Israel. They are a threat to be taken seriously. Diplomacy, sanctions, whats the best aproach?

BTW its interesting to note that France produces 80% of its electricity by nuclear power.

 

[CrazyTech]

Well all of the wars that break out don't seem to remind folks enough that there will always be governments and people that cannot be trusted. I think while we always say that politicians have a disconnect from the real world, the exact opposite is true as well in some regards. I don't think some folks understand the saying that absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

I think dgridley hit the nail on the head - so what, you accomplish getting rid of nukes? You still have biological weapons, EMPs, and all sorts of other methods of war that are almost as dangerous and as powerful. It jumps from one thing to another. Weapons of war have been a part of man's existence back to the times when a rock was first picked up and thrown or a limb sharpened.

You know, I've really tried to like Obama, but he's promising anything and everything with things like this. He continues to make promises about the world given that he'll just be the President of the US. I love the Bush-bashing for his obvious reach - but then his opponent running against his third term turns around and says something just like this. I'm not a fan of Bush, personally, but I really don't see the difference. Both parties want to tell the world what to do. We want to run for President in America, but then tell the world what to do with nukes.

Everyone's all excited about North Korea, but folks again forget that we went through this under Clinton only to find out a few years later that - guess what - North Korea lied. Imagine that - a leader/country not telling the truth in their own national interests!

 

[RogueWriter]

It is amazing, really, given the multiple avenues that countries have for destruction that we have not annihilated the world yet. Here is a quote from a page I came across at wikipedia, while responding to one of dgridley's other posts. This is about weaponized smallpox:

An outbreak of weaponized smallpox may have occurred during its testing in the 1970s. General Prof. Peter Burgasov, former Chief Sanitary Physician of the Soviet Army, and a senior researcher within the Soviet program of biological weapons described the incident:

“On Vozrozhdeniya Island in the Aral Sea, the strongest recipes of smallpox were tested. Suddenly I was informed that there were mysterious cases of mortalities in Aralsk. A research ship of the Aral fleet came 15 km away from the island (it was forbidden to come any closer than 40 km). The lab technician of this ship took samples of plankton twice a day from the top deck. The smallpox formulation—400 gr. of which was exploded on the island—”got her” and she became infected. After returning home to Aralsk, she infected several people including children. All of them died. I suspected the reason for this and called the Chief of General Staff of Ministry of Defense and requested to forbid the stop of the Alma-Ata—Moscow train in Aralsk. As a result, the epidemic around the country was prevented. I called Andropov, who at that time was Chief of KGB, and informed him of the exclusive recipe of smallpox obtained on Vozrazhdenie Island.”[48][49]

 

[CrazyTech]

There are all sorts of things like that out there and you have to believe, conspiracy theorist or not, that some of them are true. Biological warfare is nothing new as we have seen. It's well known that even the US has some degree of a stockpile. Why do you think the CDC holds on to smallpox?

From there - things diverge. Remember the report about two years ago about the "gay bomb" idea that was scrapped. That alone tells you how creative they can get with warfare. It sounds like something out of a bad sci-fi novel.

Heck, I've even heard rumors on multiple occasions that the Israelis have developed the bio weapon of the future - something akin to a flesh-eating biological weapon. EMPs are another fascinating area though I believe that they do require nukes to be setoff (could be wrong on that). Then you have MOABs - what about those? Tesla rays?

We can now, rather commonly, put men and women into space. Goodness knows someone, somewhere can develop another WMD. The chance for power is too great.

 

[dgridley]

I think Obama is being reckless in promising something he may not be able to deliver.. but it seems the Administration is trying to slow him down on the issues by 1) thinking about taking some troops out of Iraq prior to the elections and 2) sending an envoy to Iran to listen, not negotiate, to the Iranians..

 

[GILSAN]

I think Obama is being reckless in promising something he may not be able to deliver.. but it seems the Administration is trying to slow him down on the issues by 1) thinking about taking some troops out of Iraq prior to the elections and 2) sending an envoy to Iran to listen, not negotiate, to the Iranians..

Typical of politicians. They promise you heaven on earth before the elections, but once they get to the White house.......

 

[dgridley]

In all fairness, even if you have the best of intentions, there are going to be people that will attempt to block those intentions for whatever reason. He still has Congress, Republicans, special interests, and even factions within his own Party, etc to contend with..

You also don't have the Big Picture until you get to sit in the Big Boy chair.. then his views may necessarily change.

Typical of politicians. They promise you heaven on earth before the elections, but once they get to the White house.......

 

[RogueWriter]

You also don't have the Big Picture until you get to sit in the Big Boy chair.. then his views may necessarily change.

All this nation is waiting for is a politician who speaks his honest opinion, then sticks to it after the election. He beat Hillary by promising all sorts of things, and I think he figures a new set of promises is required to beat McCain, given that McCain can talk of his actions.

Actions vs. Promises, it will be interesting to see which wins out. If Obama wins and delivers everything he has promised, he will go down as a great President. Failing that, though, he will leave a gaping vulnerability for the next election.

 

[GILSAN]

In all fairness, even if you have the best of intentions, there are going to be people that will attempt to block those intentions for whatever reason. He still has Congress, Republicans, special interests, and even factions within his own Party, etc to contend with..

You also don't have the Big Picture until you get to sit in the Big Boy chair.. then his views may necessarily change.

You and I know this, and so do politicians know it, in fact they know even more than we do. They know very well that many of their promises cannot be fulfilled. A lot of people are just gullible and believe blindly in these promises.

It's almost impossible for any politician to put into practice all his good intentions for the reasons you mentioned. So to me, having Barack or Hillary is about the same.

In 3, 4 or 5 years time, some situation will arrise somewhere in the world where Barack (assuming he's President) will be forced to send American troops once again. There are enough conflits around the world to keep the US Military busy for the next hundreds of years. It's a never ending story!

Actually I think that Barack will be good for foreign policy, especially in the Middle East where just the fact that he has a Muslim name is enough to make him popular there (in the beginning at least.).

Also because he is African American, it may help in US foreign policy towards Africa. Perhaps the African dictators may listen more to a black president than to a white one.

 

[RogueWriter]

I think foriegn policy wise, Barack will be perceived as weak, because he is speaking too frankly about pulling out of the middle east, which will encourage more attacks against us on foriegn soil. JMO.

 

[dgridley]

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

I think dialog is a good thing..

We don't talk to Iran because we feel they support terrorism? I think Iran has the same view of us, yet they're willing to talk.

I think foriegn policy wise, Barack will be perceived as weak, because he is speaking too frankly about pulling out of the middle east, which will encourage more attacks against us on foriegn soil. JMO.

 

[RogueWriter]

England tried talking to Hitler on numerous ocasions, as he advanced his armies across Europe. There is no need to talk to Iran in a diplomatic manner, no good will come of it, unless we are trying to bribe them off, which would simply result in us giving them billions to be more discreet about how they kill us.

 

[dgridley]

History needn't repeat itself and talking directly makes things clear.. it doesn't necessarily mean conceding on the issues. It involves making the issues clear without the chance of a middleman mucking things up.

England tried talking to Hitler on numerous ocasions, as he advanced his armies across Europe. There is no need to talk to Iran in a diplomatic manner, no good will come of it, unless we are trying to bribe them off, which would simply result in us giving them billions to be more discreet about how they kill us.

 

[RogueWriter]

What's unclear?

U.S.: We're made at you.

IRAN: So what.

U.S.: We're made at you.

IRAN: So what.

U.S.: We're made at you.

IRAN: So what.

U.S.: - BOPS IRAN ON THE HEAD WITH A STICK -

IRAN: Ouch! What do you want?

The U.S. is too easily lulled into 'Vietnam Diplomacy' where, just because we talk, we think someone is actually listening - or caring. Meanwhile, good men die.