Share This Post
Recent Posts
Syria: “The Violence Is Not Equal”Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth in North Africa
Photo of the Week: Innovation and Global Development
Bridging Technology and Sustainable Development: A Closer Look at the Rio+2.0 Conference
A Note on Recent Events in Syria
Related Entries
Inequality and the Lost Generation
U.S. Supports Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation
Keeping Promises on Food Security
Partnering With Business To Eliminate Pediatric AIDS by 2015
National Freedom Day and the Fight Against Modern Slavery
Op-Ed: ‘Why the Global Economy Needs Businesses To Invest in Women’
Conversations With America: The Role of Religion in Foreign Policy
Secretary Clinton Chairs First Meeting of the International Council on Women’s Business Leadership
Changing Society: The Power of Inclusive Thinking
A Call to the “Innovation Generation”
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Follow Entry's Comments Via RSS
Do you want to know when a comment is added to this entry? Stay up-to-date:
Comments
Laural P. in California writes:
Dear Ellen Tauscher,
Thank you for your explanation of the work being done toward the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as observed on The News Hour last night on television. You clearly spelled out how the participating countries are working toward this shared goal. Your pronouncination of nuclear is incorrect however, and stands out like an improper tense used in a sentence. You are pronouncing it "nuk-u-lur" but should be pronounced "new-clear". Unfortunately George Bush perpetuated this mispronunciation so it's just one more thing we have to clean up after him. Thank you and keep up the great work.
Sincerely,
Laural P.
Posted on Wed Apr 14, 2010
Dear Ellen Tauscher,
Thank you for your explanation of the work being done toward the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as observed on The News Hour last night on television. You clearly spelled out how the participating countries are working toward this shared goal. Your pronouncination of nuclear is incorrect however, and stands out like an improper tense used in a sentence. You are pronouncing it "nuk-u-lur" but should be pronounced "new-clear". Unfortunately George Bush perpetuated this mispronunciation so it's just one more thing we have to clean up after him. Thank you and keep up the great work.
Sincerely,
Laural P.
Posted on Wed Apr 14, 2010
Bobbie P. in Georgia writes:
Thank you for this important update. The scientific advancements are impressive. Using technology to inform and detect instead of to destroy! I think this hefty investment in advanced technology monitoring systems will greatly enhance our efforts for precaution and diplomacy and will produce a sizable yield of peace.
Posted on Thu Mar 04, 2010
Thank you for this important update. The scientific advancements are impressive. Using technology to inform and detect instead of to destroy! I think this hefty investment in advanced technology monitoring systems will greatly enhance our efforts for precaution and diplomacy and will produce a sizable yield of peace.
Posted on Thu Mar 04, 2010
D.L. writes:
I have mixed feelings about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization. It is evident to the world that it is needed, but it seems as if the IAEA could play this role, rather than creating a whole new organization. Though when you look at the big picture I suppose that $30 million is not a whole lot money when it comes down to national and really global security. The creation of this organization and the passage of this treaty is essential to help make the world a safer place, because it is basic knowledge that when nuclear bombs are detonated it causes a series of problems not only for people, but for the environment as well.
This has become a hot topic ever since the testing performed by North Korea over the past couple years and it seems that with Iran developing the materials of a nuclear warhead that testing will only increase over the next couple of years. It is instrumental that this treaty be ratified for it to be effective. Without the United States endorsement of this treaty it will be a lot more difficult for the global effort to cease nuclear testing globally. One reason we have not ratified is the question of how will it be enforced? I mean let us face it the sanctions placed on Iran by the United Nations has done very little to stop them from proliferating nuclear material. So what use is it to create another organization to try and create oversight over an issue when it has no enforcement?
Though in this instance something must be done countries, such as North Korea and Iran, cannot go unchecked in their procurement and testing of nuclear bombs. Some steps need to be taken to prevent fear, human lose, and environmental degradation.
Posted on Thu Mar 04, 2010
I have mixed feelings about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization. It is evident to the world that it is needed, but it seems as if the IAEA could play this role, rather than creating a whole new organization. Though when you look at the big picture I suppose that $30 million is not a whole lot money when it comes down to national and really global security. The creation of this organization and the passage of this treaty is essential to help make the world a safer place, because it is basic knowledge that when nuclear bombs are detonated it causes a series of problems not only for people, but for the environment as well.
This has become a hot topic ever since the testing performed by North Korea over the past couple years and it seems that with Iran developing the materials of a nuclear warhead that testing will only increase over the next couple of years. It is instrumental that this treaty be ratified for it to be effective. Without the United States endorsement of this treaty it will be a lot more difficult for the global effort to cease nuclear testing globally. One reason we have not ratified is the question of how will it be enforced? I mean let us face it the sanctions placed on Iran by the United Nations has done very little to stop them from proliferating nuclear material. So what use is it to create another organization to try and create oversight over an issue when it has no enforcement?
Though in this instance something must be done countries, such as North Korea and Iran, cannot go unchecked in their procurement and testing of nuclear bombs. Some steps need to be taken to prevent fear, human lose, and environmental degradation.
Posted on Thu Mar 04, 2010
Eric in New Mexico writes:
"March madness" nuclear diplomacy in the wild, wild West)
Fellow draws a line in the sand and says to his adversary, "Don't cross this line or I'll shoot."
So the other promptly obliges him by stepping over it.
The fellow takes a few steps back, draws another line in the sand and repeats himself.
To which his adversary marches roboticly across it.
The good and patient fellow does this time after time until backed up to oblivion's cliff, stating once again,
"Don't cross this line or I'll shoot."
Marching blindly forward with all the confidence of repetition, the other goes over the edge as the fellow steps aside to let him make his final mistake.
Pulls his pistol out, shouts " Que vida loca! Vamos Fiesta!" and fires off a few rounds in celebration.
---
Well, this CTBT isn't exactly like a proposed script for the next "Cheech and Chong" movie, but I fail to see how nations will effectively enforce it if folks keep the official line of reasoning, "...the ball is in North Korea's court."...or Iran's or Syria..or any single nation's.
It is one thing to state correctly "we await an official response to our offer." or to negotiation.
But where does the nuclear ball really bounce, eh?
Is it not in the court of world public opinion as codified and condenced into the UN Security Council?
IAEA determining foul lines and making calls?
Let's be completely accurate about this shall we?
It's no game one dribbles in lay-up
"He shoots, he scores!"
What political point are we keeping score on?
Or saying such is simply "off the glove" rather than "off the cuff"? Mixing political and sports metaphor.
The problem with determining the peaceful use of anything is akin to determining state sponsors of terrorism, actions speak louder than their denials.
So let's face the core of the issue.
It's not about equipment, capability, or technology, tested or not.
But methodology of determination should have everything to do with national agenda and intent of those who seek these things.
If those two are not peaceful in nature, then nothing else can be seen to be. Nor can the rights of soveregnity be respected if solutions are to be enforced.
So it is those who would push buttons political and otherwise who pose the risk of implementing the golden rule in reverse.
Mutually assured destruction ain't the way.
Call me an optimist, but if the people of these nations get our full support, then just maybe they'll have enough to eat, speak freely on the street, but only after they solve their problems and the international community's, in a process of regime replacement therapy.
Then we can go to the party and celebrate.
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010
"March madness" nuclear diplomacy in the wild, wild West)
Fellow draws a line in the sand and says to his adversary, "Don't cross this line or I'll shoot."
So the other promptly obliges him by stepping over it.
The fellow takes a few steps back, draws another line in the sand and repeats himself.
To which his adversary marches roboticly across it.
The good and patient fellow does this time after time until backed up to oblivion's cliff, stating once again,
"Don't cross this line or I'll shoot."
Marching blindly forward with all the confidence of repetition, the other goes over the edge as the fellow steps aside to let him make his final mistake.
Pulls his pistol out, shouts " Que vida loca! Vamos Fiesta!" and fires off a few rounds in celebration.
---
Well, this CTBT isn't exactly like a proposed script for the next "Cheech and Chong" movie, but I fail to see how nations will effectively enforce it if folks keep the official line of reasoning, "...the ball is in North Korea's court."...or Iran's or Syria..or any single nation's.
It is one thing to state correctly "we await an official response to our offer." or to negotiation.
But where does the nuclear ball really bounce, eh?
Is it not in the court of world public opinion as codified and condenced into the UN Security Council?
IAEA determining foul lines and making calls?
Let's be completely accurate about this shall we?
It's no game one dribbles in lay-up
"He shoots, he scores!"
What political point are we keeping score on?
Or saying such is simply "off the glove" rather than "off the cuff"? Mixing political and sports metaphor.
The problem with determining the peaceful use of anything is akin to determining state sponsors of terrorism, actions speak louder than their denials.
So let's face the core of the issue.
It's not about equipment, capability, or technology, tested or not.
But methodology of determination should have everything to do with national agenda and intent of those who seek these things.
If those two are not peaceful in nature, then nothing else can be seen to be. Nor can the rights of soveregnity be respected if solutions are to be enforced.
So it is those who would push buttons political and otherwise who pose the risk of implementing the golden rule in reverse.
Mutually assured destruction ain't the way.
Call me an optimist, but if the people of these nations get our full support, then just maybe they'll have enough to eat, speak freely on the street, but only after they solve their problems and the international community's, in a process of regime replacement therapy.
Then we can go to the party and celebrate.
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010
Palgye in South Korea writes:
Want to Succeeds.
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010
Want to Succeeds.
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010
Steve writes:
They should have ban the nuclear test forever. It is not going to benefits the mankind.
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010
They should have ban the nuclear test forever. It is not going to benefits the mankind.
Posted on Wed Mar 03, 2010
Donald M. in Virginia writes:
@ Ellen Tauscher
BRAVO ZULU!!!
I read your article and agree 100 percent a world without Nuclear Power or Weapons, or even the Nuclear Waste will be a Godsend. I totally agree and look foward to day when even God can smile at the world when all the Nuclear devices on earth are vanished. The world would be a safer place for all our kids, GrandKids and safe for all Nations. One can almost ponder in 1945, what the pilot who flew the flight over Japan carrying the Nuclear Weapons. I understand that had it not happened the reverse would of happened. The bottom line is what did the pilot say to God when hundreds of thousand of people were destroyed by a Nuclear bomb? I would not have wanted to be there for that Judgement.
Godbless and keep up the good work!!!
Posted on Tue Mar 02, 2010
@ Ellen Tauscher
BRAVO ZULU!!!
I read your article and agree 100 percent a world without Nuclear Power or Weapons, or even the Nuclear Waste will be a Godsend. I totally agree and look foward to day when even God can smile at the world when all the Nuclear devices on earth are vanished. The world would be a safer place for all our kids, GrandKids and safe for all Nations. One can almost ponder in 1945, what the pilot who flew the flight over Japan carrying the Nuclear Weapons. I understand that had it not happened the reverse would of happened. The bottom line is what did the pilot say to God when hundreds of thousand of people were destroyed by a Nuclear bomb? I would not have wanted to be there for that Judgement.
Godbless and keep up the good work!!!
Posted on Tue Mar 02, 2010
Page 1 of 1 pages