How Can the U.S. Strengthen Global Efforts To Stop the Spread of Nuclear Weapons?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
April 6, 2010
IAEA Board of Governors Meeting in Vienna

U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev are expected to sign a new START Treaty this month. This treaty will represent the most comprehensive arms control treaty in nearly two decades. By signing this agreement, the two largest nuclear powers in the world may send a clear signal to bolster global arms control efforts. President Obama will host the Nuclear Security Summit April 12-13, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference begins at the United Nations Headquarters in May.

How can the U.S. strengthen global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons?

Comments

Comments

Harold J.
|
Texas, USA
April 6, 2010

Harold H. in Texas writes:

The need to showing strength and NOT weakness. I am very concerned that this administration is traveling down a path that further exposes the inability manage international affairs.

My recommendation would be NOT to stand-down, but instead stand-up and show real leadership; bullies do not back down if there is no one to stand up against them.

I'm glad you asked

Best,
Harold

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 6, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

When it is no longer possible for the profiteers of Armeggeddon to make a buck, then we can say we live in a safer world.

Until that time, I suggest we name names and make them infamous so they have no place to hide or seek shelter from the bright spotlight put on their activities.

Those governments who have failed to properly address these activities within their borders bear responsibility for the end results.

Only through public awareness can a government hope to solicit public support and their assistance in putting a halt to it.

And if governments think they don't need all the help they can get, they're begging for an education.

In the course of human awareness, we become the solution.

H.2.O T.
|
United Kingdom
April 6, 2010

Dave in the United Kingdom writes:

On the record - "love your enemy."

Who is the enemy?

The enemy is so-called big corporations; who manipulate global finance to engineer fear and distrust to increase weapon sales; then rebuild destroyed economies.

For all non-Jesuits with a true desire to end this merry-go-round; we should begin ASAP a project which shows to all United Nations countries that one thing unites use all... clean drinking water.

yes, it's my contribution, which would in a fire, be the first substance to be used.

Clean drinking Water placed on every street globally. multicoloredwhitehouse.com/new-global-project.php

kindly R&D then pilot then globally - 21 years of my silence, now ready.

Of course the old school will not be able to see beyind their 33% of education.

W.A.R. war - We Are Right

War makes blood and requires some FRB money (IMF bankruptcy managers)

Most of U know this solution will work.
Open-handed.

Dave
London

William H.
|
Tennessee, USA
April 6, 2010

William H. in Tennessee writes:

Honestly people, with the amount of money, intelligence, and rare materials it takes to design, test, and assemble nuclear weapons why are we worried about stopping proliferation? If these countries develop nuclear weapons they will wind up in our shoes, unable to fight even a conventional war against their neighbors. Then Iran can get it's pants ... See moretied up in a 9 year asymmetrical war over ground no Iranian could care less about.

I'm waiting for some nice Franklin D. Roosevelt style newer deal. He was in office for a week and created 300,000 jobs, how about opening up a nuclear weapons proliferation factory? We could employ Americans building nukes for the world...

TANVEER B.
|
Oregon, USA
April 6, 2010

Tanveer B. in Oregon writes:

President Obama has initiated the first step by arrangng the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS), which will focus on a series of actions leading to securing the nuclear future of the World –

The whole issue is very complex because parts of the nuclear control regime are so intertwined:
• The expansion of nuclear power [need to decrease carbon emissions],
• The future of nuclear weapons disarmament, and
• The future of the NPT

There are two areas which have been defined by experts as a pre-requisite for safe use of Nuclear Energy:-
First, for nuclear energy programs to be developed and managed safely and securely, it is important that states have the following good governance characteristics:
• Process for corruption control – Independent judiciary;
• High degrees of political stability, defined as likelihood that the government will not be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, like Military coup;
• High governmental effectiveness scores [based upon World Bank data], high quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures;
• High quality policy formulation and implementation, and a
• Strong degree of regulatory competence.
Second, all Non Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) under the NPT must accept IAEA safeguards inspections on their nuclear power facilities in order to reduce the danger that governments might cheat on their commitments not to use the technology to acquire nuclear weapons

As we monitor the progress of the NSS, the following questions if answered one way or the other will reflect the outcome of the Summit:
Q1. Will there be agreement at developing new international or regional mechanisms to control the front-end (the production of nuclear reactor fuel) and the back-end (the management of spent fuel containing plutonium) of the nuclear fuel cycle?
Q2. What political agreements and disagreements are likely to emerge between the nuclear-weapons states (NWS) and the non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) as an outcome of the NSS and beyond?
Q3. What role, will crucial actors among the NNWS–Japan, Iran, Brazil, and Egypt, for example–play in determining the global nuclear future?
Q4. Will the nonproliferation regime be supported and strengthened or will it be questioned and weakened?

There is no guarantee that NSS will usher in a new era – Leading to the development of a framework that supports present arrangements, and which will be adequate to manage the World’s nuclear future effectively. The foremost goal for US and global security should be to minimize the proliferation risks associated with the expansion of [civilian] nuclear power (NP) – The nuclear future will depend on the successful management of this aspect of NP.

Then there is the Disarmament-Nonproliferation Connection – Bone of Contention: Article VI of the NPT calls for the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and all other states to make good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. But in essence obligations to Article VI has led to acrimonious exchanges between NWS and NNWS – The NNWS feel the Article VI was the core bargains of the NPT and the weapons states are not abiding to their end of the bargain.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 6, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Quote of the Day:

"If Iran is interested in strengthening the nonproliferation regime, it can start by looking in the mirror."

--U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, on Iranian plans to hold an international meeting on global nuclear disarmament.

Source: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/

To PJ Crowley,

Sir, you have visions dancing in my head of the Grand Ayatollah mumbling to himself, "Mirror, mirror, on the wall...Who's the fairest of them all?"

Beware the bad apples.

EJ

Diane M.
|
Canada
April 6, 2010

Diane M. in Canada writes:

The question: How Can the U.S. Strengthen Global Efforts To Stop the Spread of Nuclear Weapons?

Discourage nuclear energy use.

Encourage development of renewables.

Commit to swift elimination of 'depleted' uranium weapons-use. Admit they were a mistake. Provide clean-up and compensation to areas of the world now polluted by such weapons. Many babies in Iraq are now being born horrifically deformed.

Education: Encourage (concretely) the dissemination of knowledge - facts, figures, statistics, definition of mutually-assured destruction as well as the history - regarding how terrible nuclear weapons and nuclear waste is.

Continued mutually-agreed upon, as well as encouraged reductions in, the global stockpile;

Education, particularly of women - in developing countries education delivers a powerful change - it lowers the birthrate while it raises the bar on family quality of life; this in turn lowers want, deprivation and political instability.

Massively cut back on foreign adventures, the military budget, and the ridiculous number of military bases in the world.

Guard vigilantly against foreign espionage attempts to steal business, technological or state secrets.

Recommit to investing in the domestic economy, and make it much harder for corporations to take the best of America and then abandon her for slave labor abroad.

Encourage social uplift at home and abroad. 'Bread not bullets'.

Punish our domestic war criminals. Cut out the rank hypocrisy. Enforce the law, and demonstrate that no one is above the law.

Lead by example.

Quit interfering in the foreign affairs of other states. Quit deposing some while protecting despotic others to the detriment of the oppressed.

AIPAC must be registered as a foreign agent, as its predecessor rightly was.

The Israeli-Palestinian file must be taken on with a will for justice and peace. The facts on the ground created by Israel are such that, in truth, Israel is an Apartheid state.

Either Israel becomes one bi-national state with equal rights for both Jews and Palestinians or a true two-state according to pre-1967 borders - or cut Israel off of the annual billions in financial aid and military hardware.

Outlaw private financial donations to the State of Israel just as private financial donations are prevented from reaching the victims - the Palestinians.

In short, cut out the double-standards and the hypocrisy; make concrete efforts to reduce the stockpile; education and social uplift; renewables; collaboration; and solving the Israel-Palestine issue.

(No doubt I am forgetting to include other pertinent proposals.) I believe the above would help bring greater calm in international relations and make the world a better, safer place for all.

OysterCracker
|
United States
April 6, 2010

Oyster C. in U.S.A. writes:

I think there should be joint Israeli-Palestinian business ventures that get young people working and busy and thinking about their future life. Making Gaza into a dynamic, interdependent financial zone would reduce tension and get both sides working together. Israel should try hard to create viable markets with its neighbors. They can start with large scale wind farms and solar projects. Then funnel the money into a medical, aerospace industry. Get people busy making money and dreaming about their lives then the nuclear issue will seem like a distant dinosaur from the past.

OysterCracker
|
United States
April 7, 2010

Oyster C. in U.S.A. writes:

Flood the Iranian market with USA goods that have Iranian appeal like Ipods with mosaic covers, Iranian style muscle cars, fashion,resorts etc. Quietly modernise Iran by selling to its young population. Forget the parents, work on the kids who are crazy for a Western style life. American/Iranian soaps that appeal to younger /hip Iranians. Increase Iranian high school exchanges on a massive scale. Let the American way of life become second nature to nearly every Iranian student. Do it subtly but do it on a massive scale. Flood Iranian markets with quality programs, lifestyles that speaks to the young Iranian mindset. Start getting Iranians to talk and share the suffering their country has endured in a popular, pretty chador clad Oprah Winfrey.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 7, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Tanaveer,

If I understood Mr. Gibbs correctly in his Whitehouse briefing today, nuclear energy and waste issues are not likely to play a major role in the discussion surrounding nuclear security and non proliferation at the summit being held.

Which tells me that this is going to be a very focused topic everyone is getting together to discuss, and thus the question posed here on the "how" of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

And though that involves technological aspects to programs like PSI, and a host of other measures to secure fissile nuclear materials, I believe the true thrust of the discussion will be on the methodology of discoraging proliferation of technology and weapons grade fissile material and/or the aquisition, transfer, and use by non-state entities.

I think there is a realization that has drawn nations together in this format, and that is that either we as member states of the NPT set an example, or a rather terrible example will eventually be set for us.

Thus this meeting is about having a choice about the world in which our kids and their kids will be growing up in for generations to come.

There is sort of an elegant choreography of elements fundemental to creating the space for such an understanding to be reached among 40+ nations attending in that the NPR, NEW START, NPT review conference and pending UN security council discussion on Iran provide not just a backdrop of context, but incentive to reach clarity in understanding the mechanisms and tools available to find the political will to not only produce more than a "lowest common denominator" methodology, but to actually put a plan in action that will produce the desired results among proliferators and nations opposing the will of the international community in this regard.

There's a fair debate as to whether sanctions will be effective methodology or not, or are stronger measures needed?

For as much as these issues have come front and center in the press, I think this government understands that to engage the political will, the public support must be there to sustain that effort, and the decisions made towards a more secure world.

At some point I agree that the civil side of the equasion will enter into discussions, simply because there's an interrelated component in both production, recycling and waste storage that overlap in the security parameters and environment.

Personally I can't think of a more assured way to keep terrorists from getting the material to make a crude gun-type A-bomb than to dispose of it off planet, and getting rid of waste the same way is strait forward logic.

President Obama apparently loves a challenge, and to suggest such a solution would make putting a man on the moon pale in comparison with the investment made, or the robust manned space program that it would of neccesity create.

But Yucca Mountain is off the table, NASA's "Orion" project to return to the moon has been cancelled, and if the President has it mind to pose an alternative to both I think this is probably the ticket to securing a cooperative venture among nations to address a common threat to everyone.

It may sound far fetched, science fiction even, but there's something to be said about being able to think it, and do it.

It's how we got into this fine mess in the first place, and it will take creative ideas to resolve it.

I'm anticipating miracles again I guess, but then maybe I've got a rational reason to.

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
April 7, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

The only reason why countries want Nuclear Weapons is to become a "Superpower" and for some like in North Korea or Iran Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands can be deadly.

Nuclear Power has been around for over 65 Years and growing. I understand as an American Veteran why the President of United States in 1945 used the weapons against Japan. I'm sure at the time if we didn't use it, Japan would of used it on our Nation during World War 2. The question is does it make it right? I don't think so...wars should be kept to conventional weapons NOT Nuclear Weapons. I had given alot thought for the people of Japan during that time. We as Americans were attacked on our homeland, December 7th 1941. We won the war but I'm sure at that time we lost alot credability with the world using Nuclear Weapons.

Situation in Pakistan - Pouring billions of dollars into that Nation still has violence, terrorists and it proves one valuable point...money will not solve the situation. If you feed a devil what happens?...

In reference to Afghanistan - I don't believe the Leader of that country can be trusted. If he continues making statements against the United States, then the bottom line is our Country should packup and move on out. Why should our soldiers defend his Freedom if he is going to make statements against our country in public? How is this any different from what happened in Colombia, with the Drug Lords?

Our Marines, Army Soldiers and Sailors have put their lives on the line to help those people. This is the thanks our troops get from the Leader of Afghanistan? While they continue to grow opium and sell for weapons. This is all about drugs and weapons... The Middle East has become a drug business.

Iran - Meetings with the Leader of Afghanistan, underminding the sanctions which the United Nations is trying to put on the country. The devil inside of Iran is trying to open the neighborhood doors so he can continue selling goods, buying goods, and open a means to move weapons even while under sanctions. It's the same thing Saddam Hussain did after the first Gulf war. He was moving goods and selling oil to Jordan, while he had restrictions put on his country.

I think Iran already has Nuclear Weapons--it would be foolish to think after all the time has been gone by, that with his relationship with Russia, selling oil for weapons. I'm also taking a guess from an intelligence standpoint, all of his Nuclear Power plants may not be visual from the sky. Meaning, he most likely has Nuclear Power plants hidden undeground. I believe they also found a Nuclear Power plant undeground in Iraq.

palgye
|
South Korea
April 7, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

Will not know well about the nuclear. Uses the nuclear by energy and that controls the nuclear, thinks the thing which will cause repelling which is many. Specially, with China thinks that the possibility where becomes the new core issue is big. Thinks that there is a possibility where circumference also the different countries will participate.

From past until today and probably, until tomorrow problem the core thinks North Korea and Iran.

Access method is different but, point of sameness the material which is direct access method (the method which is direct probably, two countries will be able to use the use of the nuclear weapon knows, thinks about North Korea and Iran that the possibility which will do is big the act of terrorism which is bypassing. The themselves is on a back and - the warfare is started in the method which when supports a dissatisfied influence the collapse possibility of political power is big thinks. that knows the thing too well,)

North Korea thinks, China and Korea - the thing tall order provides the support which leads and when the method which comes to decide in if refuses, thinks using the method which cuts off a support method. The support of minimum of course and NGO fields must be continued and but. When democracy unreasonably exacts a capitalistic setup, for some reason the appear impression to be using the method of end holds. Thinks.(the terror of the special force which is trained the nuclear weapon well more threatening)

North Korea thinks had the nuclear weapon with selection of end. Reconstructs an economy and thinks that must control the speed of opening slowly. (To being excessive of influence opposes about North Korea of China. Thinks a result. that there is not a method which will bear responsibility)

Iran with restraint means, probably, thinks Republic of Iraq that with restraint must use the method of cooperation. The denomination is different but is having the recognition which is a brotherly nation which is Islam completely the enemy, thinks the thing which will not think. Thinks respects an economy and a political independence from selected the nuclear. By the way, the religious man will be intervened and will be blind believing and thinks that there is a possibility which there will be a people whom uses. Specially, by disruption of the United States sells the petroleum of the themselves thinks in dirt-cheap price that the damage ceremony is latent. When directness intervenes, rather the counter result occurring, will not know. Even in State of Israel/

With democracies and the women takes care the class which is estranged religiously and thinks that the method which conveys a democracy is.

To direct intervention opposes until today. Thinks the result which leans in sentiment that the capital which will occur is. Thinks that the method which has the surplus time of certain period is. Their aim thinks so far the United States and the circumferential pro-American nation.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 7, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Donald,

Right or wrong there's no question that ending the war with Japan was neccessary.

The cost of doing so without having dropped the A-bombs that finally produced surrender would by all reasonable extrapolation of the data available at the time would have meant that war would have continued for another 2.5 years into 1948 to the tune of 6 or 7 million additional lives lost, including a million Americans with the invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Whether Japan would be the thriving democracy today, culturally and socially independant and a partner in peace with us I think is something that would have never happened otherwise.

By the time we had ended the war, Japan would have been a moonscape from conventional bombing from one end to the other, with nothing left standing.

So many Japanese would have died that their culture would not have survived it. You have to take a look at what their military leaders had in mind to really understand this, and even after the bombs were dropped, Hirohito faced a military coup to prevent him from making his first ever radio broadcast to publicly surrender and end the war. Hirohito knew if the war continued, Japan would cease to exist as a viable nation. His military wanted only to fight to the death and include every citizen in that effort.

It's pure speculation whether Japan would have ever under those conditions be able to succesfully produce a working nuke to use, but the intent and their program is factual.
We just didn't know about it at the time.

So the question of right and wrong is a matter of viewpoint, but generally history is a pretty good judge.

The fact that Japan and the US enjoy friendship, mutual prosperity, good trade relations, and collaborate together in the iunmternational fora to address common threats and challenges in today's world is more a reflection of the compassion and goodwill we show toward those we've been forced to defeat is a lasting testiment to the correctness of US policy in times of war and peace.

Karzai's major worry is not just his credibility with his own people, it's about not wanting his country to become the battlefield for regional powers, including between the US/ISAF and Iran.

He's not stupid, just under a lot of stress to perform, with the entire world looking on.

Personally I think he's using a little reverse psycology on his own people in posing the thought of becoming Taliban himself. Afghan's in general hate the Taliban more than they do any foreign forces in there to deal with them and al-quaida. Karzai knows this.

So I think he's trying to motivate his own people to stand up for themselves, to make the choices they need to make to secure their future as an independant country that's taken control of their future.

Fact is, he can't solve corruption all by himself and so when he told tribal elders in Kandahar that the tribes needed to deal with "their own thieves" I think he's giving them a choice in the timing of military action so they have a little time to kick the taliban out on their own, as well as deal with the corruption that supports the taliban.

It's interesting that he accused the UN and others of trying to set up a "puppet gov.", it wasn't made clear whether he was going to lead it or someone else was. But he's often been called a "western puppet" by the taliban and he's trying to win the support of his people in some pretty trying circumstance.

I can't say it's not going to backfire on him, but if we demonstrate some "legendary patience" and give him some time to put his agenda to work, it's just possible he'll motivate his people to do what they need to do to secure their own future.

If one was to compare body language Karzai exibited with Amanidijad compared with Gates, McCrystal or Obama, one can sense the stiffness in his bering with the Iranian leader as compared to a generally relaxed association with those he has a working relationship with. Even when disagreements happen, he thanks the American people for their support.

So I don't doubt he knows who his friends are.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 7, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Palgye,

I found your thoughts most interesting.

However, I find that the translation from Korean to English makes it hard to understand everything you said in detail.

No fault with you Palgye, you write better English than I do Korean (chuckle).

"..the circumferential pro-American nation."

Now there's a concept only achieved if the whole world supports us in putting a stop to insanity, but I like it.

EJ

Joe
|
Tennessee, USA
April 7, 2010

Joe in Tennessee writes:

It’s a deterrent, a limitation factor which is Realistic. The finial boundary if you may. What is missing from the NAA is the delivery vehicles not being limited: another words, you can reduce the number of WMDs, but if the delivery mechanisms are not also reduced, what difference does it make? That would be: Subs, Aircraft, Navel platforms and missiles. The major powers have enough to put the world away ten times over…so how much reduction are we talking about? Is it simply political appeasement ?

You can find our posture at: www.cdi.org/pdfs/AmericaStrategicPosture09.pdf

As the world enters a more intertwined relationship from country to county and the laws become more unison, the need for deterrents will become less needed; but, the ability to limit corrupt and extreme regimes from having access to WMDs will have to be of addressed Internationally and quickly. There can be no exceptions to this and this fact alone is all that can be done or you will see major problems from use by a power as Iran or a more then justified invasion by Israel in defense of this.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 7, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Joe in Tenn.

What diffence does reducing the active number of warheads make?

Well, there's the realistic prospect that all the ones in storage will never get the chance to be used by anyone after 700 nukes are used up.

Folks are not going to be coming back for seconds if you grasp my meaning.

But the difference in cutting the active numbers by a third is that folks in the Southern hemisphere might just stand a chance of survival in a US/Russian all out nuclear exchange. Which isn't a very realistic prospect since neither nation is suicidal.

But there are limitation on the deterrence nuclear weapons afford a nation and that is especially true in North Korea's case if I understood Robert Gates as he outlined the parameters of "..all options are available in dealing with them." (*) in the Nuclear Posture review press conference.

(*)-Regarding nations in violation of the NPT.

Really the only thing that has made everyone more secure is the brilliant idea of targeting the oceans. Making it almost impossible to incinerate a city through human error, technical malfunction, or terrorists accessing and launching a missile.

The person responsible for coming up with this idea should be nominated for next year's Nobel Peace prize, although there might be some objection from the marine mammals of the world not having a vote in the matter.

Better to have a fish fry than to become a crispy critter any day of the week in my humble opinion.

Gives everyone time to let cooler heads prevail and determine intent via trajectory.

Good link, thanks for posting it.

Overall it looks like those recomendations were seriously considered and incorperated.

I think the sherpas finally reached "base camp".

I don't know if it's "political appeasement" or simply public appeasement.

Because both Americans and Russians know that the whole buisness is insane to begin with and folks have been looking for their governments to excercise a little sanity on their behalf for some time now.

I suppose someone will take a poll eventually on this to confirm that.

Some will say it doesn't go far enough to reduce the threat, some will argue otherwise that it makes us less secure to reduce the stockpile. The same debate will happen among the Russian people as well.

As such, it's aptly named "NEW START" because it's only a start.

Not a bad one at that.

Inigo
|
Montana, USA
April 9, 2010

Inigo in Montana writes:

In regards to nuclear weapons, changing political reality creates a paradigm that facilitates a decentralized nexus point of unambiguous randomness. To verify the existential reality present in academic modeling, human assets must be present in culturally significant yet completely unobtrusive points of strategic relevance. The actions of significant leadership within these strictures will serve to corroborate contravening points of view held by both the intellectual elites and the general public. Others, who have endorsed concepts that are held to be non-relevant by media gatekeepers both inside and outside of the mainstream, can be inculcated most effectively through traditional motivational therapies and experimental post judicial operative procedures. In time, all parties will significantly elevate their productivity quotient, likely applicable to high serotonin levels and less strenuous pharmacological tempering.

Joe
|
Tennessee, USA
April 9, 2010

Joe in Tennessee writes:

ERIC: "I don't know if it's "political appeasement" or simply public appeasement."

It is both, but a start. Recognition of a problem is always viable.

Other then prohibiting platforms for use, we have a realistic threat from other sources, including the old UNKNOWN number of nuclear weather stations dropped during the cold war by Russia, which Jack Idema showed long ago in a Senate hearing on how they could be utilized. (You have my picture.)

THIS is the type of realistic threat to humanity which can be used by irrational leaders and much more easily obtained because they are small and available on the marketplace.

If the use of ICBMs, etc is ever made on a large scale, who wants to be a survivor?

Ron
|
New York, USA
April 10, 2010

Ron in New York writes:

IAEA: Intrnational Atomic Energy Anachronism..

Whenever I see the photo of an IAEA session,vI recall the Vienna IAEA HQ with its 1950's archives on "Atomic Energy" and the impossible warrens of corridors (a true puzzle-palace). Why do we continue the anachronistic approach of IAEA? Is it now the last stop on the way to sanctions and intervention? The process of de-nuking should be done daily and the fora decentralized. Discussions should be linked to economic incentives/disincentives to nuclear weaponization. Isn't this all about geo-economic-human-security?

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 10, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Joe,

The reason I don't know if there's "political appeasment " involved is because I simply don't have enough data to support such a conclusion, if it exists.

On the other hand, folks consistantly talk about doing this for the kids and grandkids, and this is pretty self evident truth that leaders of today have a fair bit of concern about how they'll be regarded by future generations, not just those on the planet today.

So I think "public appeasment" is more the opperative incentive, and in this case "appeasement" is not a negative terminology, but a matter of taking responsibility.

Joe, I have to be honest here with you.

You've posted a few things that are just flat inaccurate over the time I've been witness to your participationm here on this blog.

I'm not going to dwell on the past, but I'd like to point out to you that when you once said the Russians had delivered S-300 AA systems to Iran, you were wrong, just flat wrong and they still haven't and won't deliver them period.

In your original post you say "What is missing from the NAA is the delivery vehicles not being limited: another words, you can reduce the number of WMDs, but if the delivery mechanisms are not also reduced, what difference does it make?"

New START cuts platforms by "half" according to what the President said just after he signed the treaty yesterday on live TV.

Are you happy yet?

Now I'm sitting here looking at Jack Idema's blog, and I'm posting something in his own words you should really take into consideration if you consider him to be a credible source for your personal understanding of these matters.

I'm not going to give him a plug by posting the URL but you can do a google search as well as I can to verify he wrote this himself.

---

"What they say about me.....

Jonathan Keith "Jack" Idema is an American citizen convicted in September 2004 for running a private prison in Afghanistan and torturing Afghan citizens. At the time of his arrest and conviction, Idema had been portraying himself as a U.S. government-sponsored special forces operative on a mission to apprehend terrorists. However, the U.S. government has repeatedly denied such claims. Idema was granted a pardon by Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai in April 2007, departing Afghanistan in early June, having served three years of a ten-year sentence.

Yeah, Yeah, YEAH! Enough already you critics, wimps, Commie Journalists, and Special Forces Wanna-Bes! JACK IS BACK in the United States of America and living large on millions of hard earned gold gained by honest labor in the People's Republic of Karzai Afghanistan! Also, a well deserved (expleted deleted)! to the fascist stormtroopers of the FBI who are out to arrest this SUPER PATRIOT! Eat your hearts out, fascist (expleted deleted)! This SP has gone to ground somewhere in the good ole U.S. of A. and changed his appearance so much even his own mommy wouldn't recognize old Jackie!

What am I doing back stateside? Well old Jackie has teamed up with Ronbo and other super patriots to overthrow the (expleted deleted) federal government. You heard me right, buckos! You see Ronbo and me go back...way back...back to 1994 when we met at FCI Butner, North Carolina. I was doing federal time on a fraud frame up by the (expleted deleted) FBI and had just been checked into this here Butner prison by the U.S. Marshals. It was a dark and stormy night in October and the wind was blowing buckets of rain just like a hurricane in Florida."

---

Cont....add nauseum. I took the liberty of (expleted deleted) editing out the unpublishable adjectives so the Dipnote staff could publish this for your enlightenment.

Now fiction or not, whether he means it or not in stating his intention of "overthrowing the federal government", I would suggest that his attitude alone make any statement or testimony he may have ever uttered unworthy of consideration as anything resembling "credible".

Here in New Mexico we have sort of a unique lexicon to describe this kind of idiot.

"A taco shy of a combination plate."

Now I like intelligent debate just as much as you do, so I'm going to ask a favor of you.

Can you please try to be more accurate and use credible sources on a consistant basis?

And if you're worried about this, examine with logic your own statements.

Ask yourself why would Russia "drop" them? Because that's the only way to put them in an inaccessable location like a polar ice cap.

And then ask yourself how many of these things would the terrorist have to not only find, but collect the minute ammount of nuclear material that powers them to construct a "dirty bomb" or even a crude nuclear device?

So here I am having wasted a total of about an hour of my time trying to reassure your mind and release it from the grip of an idiot's ravings.

You can thank me later, but you owe me a favor now.

EJ

Joe
|
Tennessee, USA
April 11, 2010

Joe in Tennessee writes:

@ Eric..

LOL, thats Jack or Victoria or the folks at Pope AFB or Lejeune or who knows which of the five little operations there? Jacks ego matchs his craft.

Nice try at discrediting:
Eric, for someone who seems to know so much, why do you know so little:
1. Why would the Senate use Jack as a Professional in many NSA Committee meetings from the eighties onward?
2. He was the youngest Green Beret ever made, as there were no GBs back in the 50s. The last surviving original, before the namesake, was from fifties and resides in Castilian Springs, TN.
3. Why is Jack active and you on your butt?
4. Why was Jack "Stopped" from obtaining his mark in Afghanistan? He was there officially. Sorry, but unless your into comic books, you don’t drop into a war zone uninvited...LOL!
ITS: the politics of the times...Jack has much more credibility on and off the field then ninety percent of whoever you can dig up...but then when were you in the LOOP?
The various US Intelligence Services uses a multitude of people of all talents and backgrounds...

Unfortunately, things are not always what it appears.

Our problem is in the various strontium based energy sources that Russia developed and spewed all over, not just light houses. Who knows, maybe China did the same…Yeah, they actually came up with a long life battery before us…LOL! Nuclear war was a reality to them. They spent all their money on both Military, building underground installations, stocking and support mechanisms. The weather stations were dropped randomly.

ITS ALWAYS POLITICAL ... but its a start. What Data? Are you or were you ever an analyst?

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
April 11, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

Identify all Nations that use Nuclear Power

Identify all the key Scientist that have sold this technolgy to other Nations.

Identify all the colleges, Universities, and courses taught at Labs. Identify all students that have attended these courses over the years.

We all know that just because you might not have Nuclear Power you still may have purchased Nuclear Weapons through a black market process. Identification process of detecting those countries that have the weapon or biological agents, finding the source of who is selling these weapons or agents. The United Nations should impose the highest penalities for countries acquiring Nuclear Weapons or Biological agents. Testing these weapons should fall under the same category. No Nation on earth should be making, buying or selling Nuclear Power or Nuclear weapons.

In the world God has blessed Nations with OIL, Gas, Coal, Fossil Fuel, Wind Power, Hydro Electric Power, Ethonol made from Corn or Coconut oil, Solar Power, Natural Gas and much others...yet we continue down the road using Nuclear Power. After the accidents of 3-MILE Island, and Russias Chernobl Disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

The real disaster will happen when Earthquakes effect the Nuclear Power Plants and then the spread of Nuclear Particals, Radiological Particals will be a factor of mass devistation. "This will be weapons of mass destruction when it happens."

How does ONE explain to God that they have destroyed hundreds of thousands of people because they wanted Nuclear Power? When Judgement Day happens, to stand before the Highest Court and when questioned by God to provide answers, how does ONE defend themselves, the reason why they went down this road in life?

You can spend twenty years in Law School and I seriously doubt you could find an excuse as to why so many people have perished because of your actions and decisions. The Nuclear Arms Race is increasing over the years. Nations want to acquire Nuclear Weapons so they can become a "Superpower" theres another old saying, "A Nation on earth can be a Super Power without Nuclear Weapons."

Any country on earth that blackmails or promises threats by the use of Nuclear Weapons will find themselves in a pickle with God. "This is Nuclear Bullying Power.""The United States has all the means to shoot down Nuclear Missiles or destroy the incoming threats against our Nation without the use of Nuclear devices."

The storage, handling or process of these deadly weapons should be out of the existance of mankind.

Finding the labs that continue to produce these type of weapons. Just because you might have made agreements with our Nation that you have turned over all the Chemical, Biological Agents, Nuclear Weapons, there still needs to be an inspection to ensure everything has been gone.

The United States of America should get out of the Nuclear Power business. We have some of the brightest Minds in the world to come up with new forms of power that will help our Nation's energy.

Mike A.
April 11, 2010

Mike A. writes:

IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank --

What is Secretary Clinton is going to do about the headline above.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 11, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Donald,

I think the key here is in how nations define the nature of being a "super power".

One of those definitions is in how much food aid America provides to the undernorished peoples of the world.

Now if the definition were to have that as the criteria for all nations, ( ie the capability of saving lives rather than taking them), then I think the world will be a little less dysfunctional and better fed.

Logical, no?

Besides, we make a lot of friends that way.

Add a little development, a little democracy, and the help of their friends, everyone can become a "super power" and earn respect.

It's all about priorities in the doing and motivating people to think a little differently about them.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 11, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Mike A. -- I'll entertain your hypothetical headline and suggest she may wish to remind them that it is not in their interests to become what they most hate in turning it into something that resembles the Warsaw Ghetto.

And that goes for Gaza as well in current circumstance.

What else are friends good for eh?

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
April 11, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico

I think we can finally agree on something...How a super power is defined. Your right in the idea that if our Nation can help our Nations survive with food, or the ability to make their own crops, maybe there would be a less of need for Nations to want a Nuclear War on their heads. Maybe North Korea should take the hint...

Syrian P.
|
Syria
April 12, 2010

SNP in Syria writes:

You do that by educating and empowering people, helping them fight for rights and establishing of institutions that can gives them hope and future, a sense of responsibility with the given freedom and obligation to play by the fair rules of Democracy. I guess you can call it Nation Building. It is the only way out of this mess. The U.N. Failed miserably. Who should be in charge, North Korea, Ahmadinejad or Kiribati? Supposedly, the U.N. was founded to end Colonialism and advance human rights and institutions. What happen, whose minding the store (earth). How do you expect impoverished, undereducated and oppressed, weaken people to be able to the job, it is not possible. If we have people who will chop a kid into organs for sale, if we others can traffic persons, kids for slave labor and women for sex slaves, what moral hindereth left that will restrict others of trafficking in nukes for millions in cash. Why this latter should be more urgent to control than others. Policy makers need to face reality, the ships are sinking, get better ships (institutions) and competent captains to lead the way or we all gonna ends up sinking, that could be someone in control master plan, Jesus coming is a big hoax, someone else, a real person or a descent country must take the lead, which country or nation would have the moral high ground to stands up and lead, once you solve this, you fear of nuke will be resolved.

Chul-hong
|
South Korea
April 12, 2010

Chul-hong in South Korea writes:

The intent of outliers like Iran or North Korea is to become a regional power or to have greater influence in order to make political or economic deals with advanced nations.

International communities are worrying whether those outliers are self-possessed and they might hurt regional stability or balance of power, which could stimulate competitions for pursuing nuclear weapons among adjacent nations of outliers.

Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have converted their well-established technology not into contriving nuclear weapons, but into practicing peaceful purposes. U.S. nuclear umbrella has leaded them to noticeably economic development and democratic evolution.

Therefore, from the facts mentioned above, the so-called outliers should remind that diverting from their counter-productive nuclear ambitions to productive areas will bring a considerable prosperity on their people and nation.

Also, Iran and North Korea should definitely know their limit to defy the U.S., since the U.S. is a far superior to them in not only nuclear technology but also numbers of nuclear warheads.

Thus, international communities need to continue pressuring Iran and North Korea steadily and effectively with isolation policy until they return from aberration.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 12, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Puts a new spin on a "multi-polar" world Donald.

We may have different paths to the same conclusion, and different criteria for assessing the workings and nature of the world and universe we live in, but I don't think this is the only thing we agree on, or the last time we'll find a little common ground.

While I don't expect divine intervention to be factoring in to all of this anytime soon, the optimist in me is constantly anticipating miracles, and wonders never cease to be on the human level.

Prometheus unbound, idiots abound. It's a three ring circus.

"Welcome my friend...to the show that never ends..."

And here folks are trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Shakespere would have written a play about it.

Ghandi would be walking the talk, MLK would be reaching for "the top of the mountain", Tom Pain would be making a little "common sense" while the Dali Lama wonders if his 14th incarnation will have a habitable world to step into.

We live in uncertain times my friend, and it is only for good folks to do nothing for judgement to be rendered upon them by their peers.

What we have had is a failure to communicate, and that's cause folks haven't invented the lexicon yet completely enough to look well beyond humanity's end.

It may be that developing the means to achieve extinction has been a process of Darwinian evolution premised as the "survival of the fittest", in getting rid of the ways and means.

Maybe that's not just nuclear disarmament, but a process of evolving out of 200,000 + years of a tendancy towards violence.

And Churchill in all his wisdom would simply say, "We're all dysfunctional, get over it."

Attitude is everything.

Inigo
|
Montana, USA
April 12, 2010

Inigo in Montana writes:

Regarding nuclear weapons, to manipulate the marketplace, it is sometimes useful to include cultural references that are intellectually non-relevant yet create significant empathic echoes in the subject audience. In this way, consumers of media will gain significant “good feelings” toward the message presented, even if no message is presented at all. Indeed, the objective of a responsible marketer is to create resonance without meaning, thereby achieving results without substance, which is the goal of every post-modern organization. Such individuals or organizations that achieve said results should be rewarded with the same in return. Those that do not will find that reward does not follow incompetence, no matter successful the campaign as directed has been successful in manipulating the marketer itself.

Pages

.

Latest Stories

September 19, 2014

Water, Food, and Extreme Poverty

At USAID’s second Frontiers in Development Forum , we’re focusing on the role of innovation, science, and technology in eradicating… more

Pages