The No Nuke Obama

[Whiplash]

Why not simply "The One".

 

[GreyICE]

Why not simply "The One".

I dunno. Someone might get outraged over that.

 

[INRM]

In order to find and collect every single nuke in the world, wouldn't that require an orwellian system of surveillance?

INRM

 

[GreyICE]

In order to find and collect every single nuke in the world, wouldn't that require an orwellian system of surveillance?

INRM

The NWO already has that in place. It's unfortunate since there's no fnord distinguishing characteristics of nuclear bomb creation that would tell us when one was being manufactured, but it's sadly necessary. If you fnord hear a beeping at night, it's the RFID tag implanted in your cranium (it's been there since birth, they're just that good).

 

[arimaic1]

the second coming of Jimmy Carter?

 

[GreyICE]

And... that's that. No discussion on the idea that to insist that other countries not develop nuclear weapons while sitting on a stockpile of 3,000 we refuse to reduce is hypocritical. No discussion of his plan to radically reduce the threat of nuclear anhillation. No intelligent discussion of the issue at all. Just mocking suggestions of names to call our new President.

I think we could probably have a smarter discussion of this issue in a forum for Christian Science. Have to give props for Ziggurat for trying to discuss the issue, at least. Even if he missed why we engaged in the arms race in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

And... that's that. No discussion on the idea that to insist that other countries not develop nuclear weapons while sitting on a stockpile of 3,000 we refuse to reduce is hypocritical.

Is a demand for other countries to not develop nukes while we have them hypocritical? Yes, I suppose in some sense it is. But that's not the question I really care about: I care far more about whether or not the demand is effective. Will eliminating our own nukes make the demand any more effective? No, it will not. I think it will make the demand less effective.

But even on the question of hypocrisy front, it isn't really cut and dry. What we're demanding is that non-nuclear powers which signed the NPT stay non-nuclear, as they promised. We make no demands that existing nuclear powers disarm, even powers which we're not too fond of (the USSR formerly and now Russia). And while this bit isn't part of the official US position on the issue, I don't really have a problem with democracies becoming nuclear powers, but I do mind it when dictatorships get nukes. Does anyone think that Ireland getting nukes is equivalent to Iran getting nukes? I certainly don't.

No discussion of his plan to radically reduce the threat of nuclear anhillation.

I'm not worried about nuclear annihilation. I think small-scale nuclear war or nuclear terrorism are far more likely, and so far more dangerous a threat, than full-scale nuclear annihilation. And on that score, the number of nukes is a pretty irrelevant question next to who has them.

 

[theprestige]

I'd count naivety as reading the words and thinking Obama was speaking 100% literally.

If we're going to interpret Obama's words figuratively, to mean whatever it is each of us thinks best fits our idea of what he really means, don't we fall into the same trap as those who adopt religion?

Or is that your point?