http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/index/ en U.S. Department of State 2012-02-11T15:54:03+00:00
I'd been waiting to see some results of the pushing of that "reset button", and I suppose of necessity talk comes before action or agreements made...in the natural evolution of things...and indeed talk is cheap, compared to isolation of nations, containment, and regime replacement therapy.

However, every once in awhile I am duly impressed when by rhetoric therin lies evidence of realization occuring in the minds of world leaders that national security = common security, and vice versa as a reciprocal arrangement.

Thus spoke Sergei Ivanov, First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation;

"Dear colleagues, I must admit that recent years have proved specifically productive for Munich Conference activity because it has coincided with the end of inter-bloc confrontation and creation of the atmosphere of confidence and partnership. This refers also to the prospects of comprehensive and complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Accordingly, more and more disarmament initiatives, such as the Hoover Initiative and the Global Zero Initiative, are being launched. Prominent public figures and politicians around the world are joining their effort under auspices of such organisations as the Luxembourg Forum and the Evans-Kawaguchi Commission.

Symptomatic shifts are also observed in the positions of certain states possessing nuclear weapons, including the USA, where plans are being developed to deploy strategic offensive arms in non-nuclear set-up.

Russia‘s strategic thinking is also being stepped up. Our point of departure is the assumption that nuclear weapons, while remaining the core element of strategic deterrence, cannot be regarded as a cure-all for the whole range of real threats and challenges. We believe that in future under certain conditions nuclear weapons may and should be eliminated. Dmitry Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation, has on several occasions referred to that both in his written address to the Conference on Disarmament in March, 2009 and speaking at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly in September same year.

Security and stability in the context of nuclear disarmament require establishment of relationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms. One cannot seriously talk about reduction in nuclear capabilities if a nuclear state consistently develops and deploys Systems aimed at providing its invulnerability to means of deterrence possessed by other states. lt is like a theory about a sword and a shield. Both are developing and one has to keep in mind the advantages of each of them."

Source: http://www.securityconference.de

At risk of sounding medieval I have to ask, "Is there advantage to be found in having the choice between being in the fire or the frying pan?"

But he closes with this, and it provides some room for optimism.

"Despite variety of opinions and views regarding the situation in disarmament, there is practically no doubt that nowadays risks substantially differ from those of twenty years ago. This explains the need for new approaches and vigorous efforts towards resolving emerging problems.

This is my sincere hope that today‘s discussion would contribute to a profound reassessment of the situation in non-proliferation and disarmament process as weil as of the role and responsibility of each state concerned in moving towards a nuclear-free world.

Now in Munich we have an opportunity to give mankind a much awaited signal that the “global zero“ idea is not just an empty phrase. Let us meet the challenge."

Ok then, let's use the swords to create a global shield against asteroid impact. Got a big'un coming close, and we should test theory on Apophos and see if humanity can create a working program.

It would be patheticly ironic on the eve of goodwill among men to be wiped out of existance for lack of preparation.]]> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entires/global_zero_summit/ Tue Feb 09, 2010