Slashdot Mirror
Obama Calls For Nuke-Free World
jamie points out news that President Obama has put out a call for a world free of nuclear weapons at a speech in Prague today. He acknowledged that it was a long-term goal, perhaps not something that can be accomplished in his lifetime, but promised to encourage the US Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. According to the BBC, he also stated his desire to "negotiate a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons," and to hold a global summit within the next year to work out agreements for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Obama said, "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it." His speech came less than a day after North Korea's launch of a long-range rocket.
Free of nukes only works until some other 4 foot 9 dictator decides to raise his status the only way he can to impress the world.
What then? Does he become emporer of the world or just harasser of the world as Hannibal did to Rome?
The United States has 5,914 strategic nuclear warheads, followed closely by Russia with 4,237 deployable warheads. (Source: Arms Control ). The rest of the members of the nuclear club -- UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel -- have less than 1,000 combined nuclear weapons. Clearly, if Obama wants the world to take him seriously, he needs to restart the START-II treaty and disassemble his own stockpile before he can expect others to do the same.
Nobody is going to disarm if another country still has nukes, that would be suicide. Furthermore, countries that possess nukes would still have the knowhow to produce them after the destruction of all of the nuclear weapons. That alone would create an unbalance in the worldpower, some countries can still make nukes if the situation warrants it and they can be produced in a year or 4(probably less) so any war with these powers would mean a re-arming of the nation involved and as a reaction a re-arming of all other nuke-capable nations.
Furthermore, some countries still rely on nukes as a deterrent like Israel. I just don't see them disarming, and my believe is affirmed since Israel categorically refuses to say anything about its nuclear capabilities which leads to the last objection to these plans. You can hide your nukes and feign compliance with disarming programs.
In short, it won't work and Obama is not believing his own words if he has any intelligence.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
The "gun" method will get you a low yield weapon. And everyone knows the hard part is enrichment of the uranium, and building the reactor etc... As long as existing stockpiles of weapons grade material are kept safe it takes a nation quite a while to go from zero to nuke and it's hard to hide. The whole world knows about N. Koreas secrect nuke program.
Anarchists never rule
Outdated indeed. The new tactics of war are about guerrilla battles, and small nimble forces that can wear down the enemy overtime. Using a nuke on them is like trying to swat a fly with a grenade.
He is just naive. No one will give up their trump card. And even if they did, it may not be for the best. I submit that a world without nukes would be one with much larger standing armies. Look at europe during the "old" cold war. NATO relied on the nuke card to justify much smaller forces.
Conservative, mod down for violating
So we get rid of our nukes and so does other 'law abiding' countries. What about the 100's that really don't give a damn?
Then again, he thinks banning personal guns will work too.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its how you get the populace to give up their rights 'for their protection'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
End result of Reagan's plan: Collapse of the USSR, and reduction of the probability of nuclear armageddon.
Obama's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Curtail or eliminate defenses against nuclear weapons, sign on to a treaty that would have no effect upon those that would actually use nuclear weapons, and ensure that nuclear deterrence would eventually fail, as there would be increasing uncertainty whether the nuclear weapons of the nations that had signed the Test Ban Treaty had functioning nuclear weapons or not, especially if you're going to then go and end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
End result of Obama's plan: Defenseless US et al against those whose moral duty to act includes nuking us.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
The only reason nuclear weapons are outdated is because they still exist. They remove the incentive to go WWII on somebodies ass. Because of nuclear weapons, if you wanna cause trouble you now have to find other ways that don't lead to your country or people turning into a glass parking lot.
In other words, warfare has evolved to deal with nuclear weapons much like bacteria have evolved to deal with antibiotics. New kinds of bacteria have been created that are immune to bacteria--but that doesn't mean the old kinds of bacteria aren't still lying around in some latent form. If you stopped using antibiotics, those old "extinct" forms of bacteria would come back. Same with warfare--if we could somehow get rid of every single nuclear weapon on earth--all the old tactics of war would suddenly become relevant and useful again.
Basically, the existence of nuclear weapons make the old tactics obsolete. Remove the nuclear weapons and the old ways are no longer obsolete.
He isn't naive. Nobody is gonna get rid of their nukes, especially the USA, and he knows it. It puts international pressure on countries who really have no business with them. It is just good politics.
It would also be a hell of a lot less safe too. People know this too. We might say "down with nuclear weapons" in public, but if you put it to a vote, I promise you a large majority would vote to keep every nuke we own.
It's political posturing, with more important objectives.
In short, the "nuke-free world" is window-dressing for more real, practical objectives.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
the "old tactics of war" are still quite useful and are actually quite old. Go read Sun Tsu or Clausewitz sometime and you'll find the ideas of "insurgency" which you call "modern" is quite ancient. These "old tactics" are still taught in the Military Academies around the world so they must be still pertinent and useful. The tactics (for the most part) have NOT changed at the level that is GI Joe's concern it's just the weapons used in execution of such tactics are much more powerful and deadly and don't always require close contact with the enemy. Even as late as the Iraq War "old tactics" such as masssive bombing raids, uses of infantry and armor for house-to-house combat, snipers, etc. were still used to great effect just as in WWII FYI ,In military terms nukes are a strategic weapon not a tactical weapon. And even so, strategy involving nukes is now close to 60 yrs old (young by military standards) and is NOT going away.
Thinking nations will give up nukes just because Obama says so and promises the USA will is a very foolish notion. The only way to accomplish that is for every nuclear nation to verify in person on site that every weapon is destroyed worldwide. Even the US and Russians had a hard time with this in the SALT talks. Just relying on someone's word or satellite/spy plane photos is not enough.
Exactly. Iran is a prime example of a country which is constantly threatened by regional powers (and the US) and has built up it's defence in response.
Before you mod me down, note that I'm not saying I sympathise with Iran, just that it's a matter of public record that a major reason Israel/US hasn't invaded Iran in the last few years is due to their retaliatory capacity. This, of course is only encouraging proliferation.
Hopefully Obama can make a break from the previous administration in this regard, but I doubt it.
Fair enough. Let me try on a better word.
"The old strategies of war". You can't just go invade half a continent anymore. The Commies aren't gonna fly 3,000 bombers across the arctic and bomb America. Hitler ain't gonna be able to just invade half of Europe. Those days are over. The Cold War marked the end of that kind of stuff.
These days, if you wanna go evil, you gotta take a couple guys and put them in a shipping container strapped with $WEAPON. Your strategy isn't to take over the country... just fuck with them and weaken them. Once you get their nation to fall, you aren't planning on moving in to their homes, you just wanted them gone from the planet.
So yeah, nuclear weapons might not render the tactics of war obsolete. But nuclear weapons have certainly rendered the strategies of war obsolete.
Does that work?
Seeing as how the US essentially IS NATO, no matter what, we'd be stuck supplying most of the troops and most of the money.
And before people start foaming at the mouth about how I'm want war, I think the current war is idiotic and that the only justified war that the US has fought in a century is fighting against Japan during WWII. Outside of that, the US has never fought anyone who harmed them / posed a threat. That's why I laugh when I hear people talk of soldiers in Iraq / Afghanistan "defending our freedom" -- our freedom was never threatened by them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
She was the only person "skilled" enough to bring out the base of die-hard republicans. Without her, McCain wouldn't have been able to count on the vote of the republican base. To the die-hard republican, she *was* the person they were voting for! The problem was, by bringing in Palin, McCain wasn't able to get the vote of so-called left-leaning republicans and "Regan democrats" (aka "The Undecideds").
Basically, McCain was trying to win the vote of two completely different bases that didn't like eachother's policies. By wining one base, he'd lose the other. But that is to be expected when you've got such a polarizing figure leading your party for eight years.
But now we've drifted so I'm done with this!
Outdated indeed. The new tactics of war are about guerrilla battles, and small nimble forces that can wear down the enemy overtime. Using a nuke on them is like trying to swat a fly with a grenade.
No. Destroy an entire people and there is no-one to draw these "small nimble forces" from.
The reason nukes aren't being used in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is a moral, and not a military one. They would be very, very effective militarily.
Azural - instrumentals
The reason nukes aren't being used in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is a moral, and not a military one. They would be very, very effective militarily.
Maybe in the very short term, and assuming you don't want those assets that you are blowing into smithereens, or you don't mind not being able to get to the oil resources because they are in or near a "hot" zone.
I think you're also forgetting that the fallout would blow over US allies, and those US allies aren't going to like that. It's hard to maintain a hegemony if your hedge bolts.
Also, those people that you nuke, most often have relatives outside of the nuked zone, and they're going to be upset. The problem with the war on terror is that the1 "collateral damage" euphemism is covering up the fact that some of the families that are accidentally killed are going to be pushed to extremism. So for every bad guy you kill with an innocent bystander killed, you add another family that gets pushed into extremism, creating at least one more "bad guy". This is the danger of the "long war", it becomes never ending because you create your own endless cycle of enemies.
I don't understand why cory's comment was modded troll. He's right.
Nuclear weapons push things to standoffs and force armies backing down. The consequences are just too great if nukes come out. The Cuban missile crisis is an example of that. And obviously, had things gone differently, the whole world could have become a radioactive smoking cinder.
But nuclear weapons have prevented WWII style wars. Wars now are at least confined to one country's borders instead of spreading.
Why do people think that China hasn't invaded and taken Taiwan back? They have weapons lined up ready to strike but haven't. They are trying to push the USA financially, but ultimately, until they can be assured that we won't defend Taiwan militarily, they won't attack.
But if the USA disarms and China holds onto its nukes, does anyone really think China will continue to hold off enforcing its claim that Taiwan is really a part of China?
Not a chance. They will do as they please and if the USA interferes, all they need to do is threaten our forces with being nuked. End of story. Taiwan becomes part of China and the USA backs down with its tail between its legs.
The reality is that nukes are here and other countries have them. They are all different explosive sizes and they can and will be used by other countries if the USA disarms ours.
I guarantee to you that very few other countries feel the same "moral obligation" to disarm or to not use nuclear weapons in battle.
Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes, saw his soul and saw a friend. Bush was a fool. Russia and China are rebuilding their militaries, with China building faster than anyone knew until recently. Throwing away our only deterrent against these countries is simply giving them the green light to do as they please and use the Cheney salute ("Go F Yourself") to tell us what they think about any intervention.
As they say, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
For a certain version of "works". You cannot murder people into loving you, for example. You can bomb people into true submission, but that requires blazing a path of epic destruction through their homes like Hitler through Poland, only more thorough. To consider yourself one of "the good guys" when you're openly advocating that sort of thing requires the sort of masturbatory self-delusion endemic to cokeheads and Americans.
Like Hilzoy said, "Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to."
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca