• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama to seek No Nuke World

Nice goal, but I doubt it will be achieved. Some countries won't be willing to give them up.
Reagan spoke frequently of his dream of eliminating nuclear weapons. He advanced the idea at a 1986 summit with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and the two leaders agreed to pursue that goal. But before their meeting ended, the idea died when Gorbachev insisted on limits on Reagan's "Star Wars" program, known formally as the Strategic Defense Initiative, intended to develop a defense against nuclear attack.
Click to expand...
 
parky76 said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_nuclear_future_analysis

This Communist actually wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons??

Code: 
What is wrong with this guy?
The more nukes we have, the brighter we can make the USSR and Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Empire glow in the dark.

We need MORE nukes..not less!!

This is what happens when Muslims run the USA.

:D
Click to expand...

He wants peace, but don't worry, it'll blow over.
 
I am for a no nuke world and this is good. But can we really trust this lying fool?

I get the feeling that the united states will welch on their deal last minute and keep their nukes once N. Korea Russia, india Etc. Get rid of theirs. THere may be a sinister motive or just rhetoric.
 
I'm sure Israel will get to keep theirs at the end of the day.

Maybe the answer is everybody should have nukes. Therefore making it obsolete?

An armed society is a polite society?
 
I hope he plans a peacefull reduction of the stockpiles.
 
I will believe Obama once Middle Eastern countries seriously discuss his proposal ... rather than laughing about it.
 
Last edited:
No nukes is silly. Nukes are a simple matter of 60 year old technology combined with well-understood physics. Any major power (like Germany of Japan) can probably develop and build nukes from scratch, in a timespan of a year or so. It's impossible to eradicate something which is so easy to recreate.

But reducing nuclear stockpiles does make sense. It saves a little money, but more importantly, it eases the burden on security. Much easier to keep track of 100 nukes than 1000 of them. Which should be an important consideration for everyone who's worried about a nuke falling into terrorist hands.
(Also keep in mind that even if you're not worried about US weapon security, the only way to get Russia to decrease its stockpile is with a corresponding decrease of the US's. And a stolen Russian warhead is more likely to be used against a US target than against a Russian one.)

There's little advantage to be gained by having the ability to destroy an enemy country ten times over, instead of just twice. And the threat of a debilitating strike can be mostly negated by relying on SLBMs instead of ICBMs and nuclear bombers.

Tactical nukes should be discarded entirely, because their use is likely to result in direct or indirect escallation. That makes them almost as dangerous to the owner as to the target.
 
Nice , but don't hold your breath.
The real problem is every country with nukes will be afraid the other countries with Nukes will be hiding a few away somewhere, far away from the eyes of inspectors, and will there fore squirell a few away themselves.
Hopefully this is just a sop that look good, and Obama will not waste a lot of time and effort on this utopian stuff.
Reducing the number of nukes might be possible in a deal with the Russians but eliminating them..don't hold your breath.
 
Last edited:
Isn't the only way for a country to completely collect every single nuke (in order to eradicate it) on the world, even from countries unwilling to give it up, to adopt an orwellian level of surveillance?
 
Obama's goal is not only naive but dangerous. Had we not discovered nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 (and used two to show their devastating effects), in all likelihood at some point a large conventional war would already have broken out between the Soviets and the west, and before that war could have concluded, both sides would have finished developing, building and using nuclear weapons against each other. And likely would have continued doing using them until one side simply couldn't do it any more ... laying waste to most of the world. We should be thankful that nuclear weapons came along when they did and that they have kept us from major armed conflicts between major power armed forces for half a century. Why fix something that really isn't broken? The genie is out of the bottle. Eliminating the nuclear arsenals of the major powers will eventually only lead to conventional ... and then nuclear ... war between them. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom