Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Calls For Nuke-Free World

Posted by Soulskill on from the i'll-give-up-mine-if-you-give-up-yours dept.

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.

9 of 705 comments (clear)

  1. Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is by dameepster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless you face an enemy that actually believes mutually assured destruction is not a bad thing...

    2. Re:Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki both got 1 10 megaton warhead
      No, Fat man (detonated over nagasaki) was a 21 kiloton bomb. Little boy (detonated over hiroshima) was a 13 kiloton bomb.

      Current nukes are in the 5-50 megaton range, and do really rather more damage. That's the difference between an atom bomb and a hydrogen bomb for you.

  2. Not going to happen by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Re:Nuke Free Only Until When by canadian_right · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the USA will have any problem using conventional weapons to take out any tinpot dictators nuclear facilities - well before they have a nuke.

    After all, the USA outspends the rest of the wolrd combined on their military.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
  4. Re:No,he is very clever :) by theIsovist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Nuke Free Only Until When by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Roosevelt was 6 feet when the big bombs were dropped. As in 6 feet underground. It was Truman who took the decision.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Read between the lines ... by krou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's political posturing, with more important objectives.

    1. If you RTFA, you'll notice he's talking primarily about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, which is what just about every US president has called for over the last several decades. The prime focus seems to be non-state actors (read: al-Qaeda), and states without nuclear weapons (read: Iran).
    2. He states quite clearly that the US will keep a nuclear deterrent as long as a nuclear threat exists.
    3. He wants to reduce the US arsenal in conjunction with a reduction of the Russian arsenal. Working to reduce one's nuclear arsenal is not the same as working towards a nuke-free world.
    4. Obama is manoeuvring the US into a position whereby it forces other countries to appear as aggressors and stumbling blocks to world peace. Currently, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not ratified by the US and China, and both India and Pakistan have not signed it either. He is making these statements in the knowledge that it is likely that China will not agree, and India and Pakistan will not join, thus giving an "out" in future i.e. the nuclear threat is there.
    5. Besides which, this is also no doubt designed to try and bring the Russians on board in supporting the missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
    6. This seems to be an attempt to try and isolate Iran as well. He says in his speech, "We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the Treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation." It again seems clear that he is manoeuvring the US into a position of peace-maker, and compromiser.

    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
  7. Re:Invasion guarantee by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.