Obama promotes nuclear-free world

[Pavlos]

Clicky

 

Barack Obama has said that the US will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear missiles.

 

In a speech in Prague, he said the US would begin to reduce its nuclear arsenal and work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

 

Thoughts?

[jrrtoken]

Sounds nice, in theory, but it seems like a complete pipe dream, really. Both the U.S. and Russia have said this countless times, to the point where it's a complete cliche.

 

There will always be nuclear weapons, no matter how much a nations encourages another country to dismantle their arsenal. The U.S. has always been hypocritical; warning and even threatening developing nations bent on developing nuclear weapons, whilst the U.S. clearly has enough warheads left from the Cold War to start a nuclear holocaust.

[Litofsky]

It's a nice idea, but I don't think that we, in our lifetimes, will see a world without nuclear weapons (that is, of course, unless something even more destructive is developed). Nuclear weapons seem almost as much a deterrent as a weapon; why have a world war if there is the threat of being nuked back to the stone age?

 

Dismantling the inane amounts of nuclear weapons that we stored up during the Cold War is a good idea, but always seems to be much harder in practice.

[CommanderQ]

The idea of a Nuclear free world is indeed nice, but as PastramiX said, it's been said often, so much so to become a cliche.

 

How do we know that other countries will follow suite? How do we know that they won't take advantage of our weakness? In this case, I think that we should keep our missiles, if only in defense. Dismantling all of them would put us in an....awkward position. As nice as it would be without nukes, we'll need them until everyone agrees to dismantle. Last thing we need is to get rid of all our missiles right in time for a Terrorist group to acquire one....that would be unfortunate.

[Sabretooth]

Laughable. A nuclear-free world spells disaster plain and simple. Nuclear weapons are what are keeping us sane today, they're what's stopping world powers from turning on each other like wild dogs. Nuclear Weapons aren't so much a weapon as a shield.

 

Take away nuclear weapons and suddenly, nothing's stopping another World War from happening. It's almost ironic, but nuclear weapons ended the Second World War and they're what are keeping the Third one from happening. A world without nuclear weapons is a world where pre-Hiroshima warfare runs rampant: nations invading others, populations massacred and all-out wars.

 

Secondly, disarming nuclear weapons is another laughable concept. Imagine three cowboys in a Mexican stand-off and one of them suggests they all throw down their guns. No sane nation looking for personal security is going to disarm their nuclear arsenal. Period.

[CommanderQ]

Laughable. A nuclear-free world spells disaster plain and simple. Nuclear weapons are what are keeping us sane today, they're what's stopping world powers from turning on each other like wild dogs. Nuclear Weapons aren't so much a weapon as a shield.

 

Take away nuclear weapons and suddenly, nothing's stopping another World War from happening. It's almost ironic, but nuclear weapons ended the Second World War and they're what are keeping the Third one from happening. A world without nuclear weapons is a world where pre-Hiroshima warfare runs rampant: nations invading others, populations massacred and all-out wars.

 

Secondly, disarming nuclear weapons is another laughable concept. Imagine three cowboys in a Mexican stand-off and one of them suggests they all throw down their guns. No sane nation looking for personal security is going to disarm their nuclear arsenal. Period.

 

 

I agree, very strong point you represented there, Sabre.

[Tyrion]

A world without nuclear missiles? Does Obama want to destroy the world?

[Sabretooth]

A world without nuclear missiles? Does Obama want to destroy the world?

Kind of my angle as well. I'm surprised Obama could come up with something like that. Actually, I'm growing more and more sceptical of Obama since he's in office.

[EnderWiggin]

Kind of my angle as well. I'm surprised Obama could come up with something like that. Actually, I'm growing more and more sceptical of Obama since he's in office.

 

Reducing our nuke count isn't necessarily a bad thing, Sabre... it's more a symbolic olive branch than anything.

 

Obama's not a fool. He's not going to eliminate our nukes while everyone else still is holding on to theirs.

 

_EW_

[Rake]

The more people who have fingers on a nuclear submarine or a nuclear weapon, the higher the chance of nuclear holocaust. Imo, is world war 3 better, or is completely destroying the world?

[Litofsky]

The more people who have fingers on a nuclear submarine or a nuclear weapon, the higher the chance of nuclear holocaust. Imo, is world war 3 better, or is completely destroying the world?

 

As previously mentioned by several posts, nuclear weapons aren't so much as a weapon of war as a shield, a deterrent by which no sane nation would go to war against. In a sense, World War III is being prevented by nuclear weapons.

[Web Rider]

As Obama also mentioned in the same talk, he would expand and enhance development of anti-missile weaponry. Sure, that stuff is just as pie-in-the-sky as having no nuclear weapons, but be sure, the first person to be able to secure their country from nuclear missile attacks, we damn well better hope they're not going to go to war with nukes.

 

It would be a very short, very one-sided war.

[Rake]

As previously mentioned by several posts, nuclear weapons aren't so much as a weapon of war as a shield, a deterrent by which no sane nation would go to war against. In a sense, World War III is being prevented by nuclear weapons.

 

Well sane is the key word there. How long until we get an insane guy with his finger on the button? The more nukes out there the more the chance that one guy is going to press it.

 

Edit: Or not even that. In the cold war a NATO exercise made the Russians think nukes were headed there way, luckily, the guy in charge of their nuclear arsenal didn't launch them even though it was his job to. What if something like this were to occur again?

[mur'phon]

Clever speech from Obama, talking in Prague was always going to be interesting with Russia as paranoid as it is. So nice job there with the nuke comments, if nothing else, those should make Russia happy for once.

 

Reducing our nuke count isn't necessarily a bad thing, Sabre... it's more a symbolic olive branch than anything.

 

I'd say it's more about exploiting the fact that Russia badly wants to reduce its arsenal (too expensive), but is too proud to do so without the US doing the same. By offering to reduce arsenals, he might well get some help in other areas such as Iran.

[Tommycat]

Um... even Bush said he would reduce nukes. He left them in place, but DID get some old boomers(SSBM) converted to guided missile boats(SSGM) under his watch.

[EnderWiggin]

By offering to reduce arsenals' date=' he might well get some help in other areas such as Iran.[/quote']

 

So what you're saying is that it's a peace offering in order to repair a relationship? That sounds familiar, it's what I said

 

_EW_

[mur'phon]

meh, your "olive branch" sounded too wishy-washy for me:xp:

[CommanderQ]

 

Edit: Or not even that. In the cold war a NATO exercise made the Russians think nukes were headed there way, luckily, the guy in charge of their nuclear arsenal didn't launch them even though it was his job to. What if something like this were to occur again?

 

Heh, I just want to say, during the Cold War everyone thought nukes were coming their way often, both Russians and Americans:D But, if this happened again, it wouldn't be very good for a nuke-less America...things would become....one-sided, so to say:D

[Lord of Hunger]

Rather than asking nations to disarm, Obama should really be focusing on building a missile shield where it matters...in the USA. With North Korea's government having lost any sense of sanity, it's important that America become untouchable by missile attack. And no, I'm not talking about "Star Wars". I'm talking about a serious, well-maintained anti-missile ring around our two coasts.

[Rake]

Heh, I just want to say, during the Cold War everyone thought nukes were coming their way often, both Russians and Americans:D But, if this happened again, it wouldn't be very good for a nuke-less America...things would become....one-sided, so to say:D

 

I don't think anyone is saying a completely nuke-less America. I think Obama just wants to reduce nukes so we don't have so many as to blow this world to hell 10 times over.

[EnderWiggin]

Rather than asking nations to disarm, Obama should really be focusing on building a missile shield where it matters...in the USA. With North Korea's government having lost any sense of sanity, it's important that America become untouchable by missile attack. And no, I'm not talking about "Star Wars". I'm talking about a serious, well-maintained anti-missile ring around our two coasts.

 

What the hell are you on about?

 

First of all, we've already got plans in place to build a missile shield in Europe, to protect from nukes there. Barring that, we are pretty much only vulnerable in AK and HI.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/us/10greely.html <-- that's from '06.

 

Now, if you're referring to an actual defense against nuclear warheads, then it's a whole different arguement....

 

Because Obama SAID THAT. Perhaps you should read the transcript? He said he was working to protect the US fully from nuclear war - and if that's the case, then who cares? We're invincible.

 

Also, like to point out that Obama even said "this may not happen in my lifetime" - it's more of a long term goal to have a safer world. For now, it's just a bit of mutual disarmament.

 

_EW_

[Lord of Hunger]

I am aware of the missile shield in Europe under construction and I think it's not entirely a good idea. Building it sends a bad message Russia and I was sure that this was the sort of thing that Obama would be quick to drop. Any shield there should be built alongside Russia (not necessarily for efficiency or their resources but because the cooperation can end all these unnecessary cold war tensions). My point is that a shield would better be built in the USA unless Europe makes a significant contribution.

 

My feeling, as someone else said is that nukes actually help keep peace rather than risk it. But it can only work when you don't have insane morons like the North Korean government possessing them. I wish we could have done something to prevent NK from getting that technology, let alone continuing to be separate from SK. This whole thing's gone nuts.

[Web Rider]

I am aware of the missile shield in Europe under construction and I think it's not entirely a good idea. Building it sends a bad message Russia and I was sure that this was the sort of thing that Obama would be quick to drop.

Russia isn't exactly making moves towards being more cooperative with the US and Europe either. I think they're last missile shield "compromise" involved them building the missile shield in some god-forsaken ex-soviet satellite nation and the US building nothing at all.

 

I wish we could have done something to prevent NK from getting that technology, let alone continuing to be separate from SK. This whole thing's gone nuts.

Because forcing Vietnam to be one nation when they clearly didn't want to be worked out REAL well.

[EnderWiggin]

Because forcing Vietnam to be one nation when they clearly didn't want to be worked out REAL well.

 

_EW_

[Q]

I agree with Sabre: if it weren't for nukes, I have little doubt that the Cold War between the US and the USSR would have turned into a hot one sooner or later. As far as who would have won, well, that's anyone's guess, but a lot of people would have died.

 

I believe that possessing nukes has actually helped to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan as well, but I must admit that my knowledge on that subject is quite limited. Sabre?