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.
Could this guy be any stupider?
I thought sheep were mostly white.
If he really thinks this would work, he is stupider than I thought.
As a side note, Obama claims to be Christian doesn't he? Evidently he hasn't read his own book of Revelations. Pretty much any christian who actually reads what they are supposed to believe should know better than to hope for world peace. If they do, its just hypocrisy.
I just, can't say enough... goes and lets North Korea shoot a rocket... oh, he'll get a warning letter out of the UN, is going to sit and watch the world gather up nukes... and he wants to disarm the USA? Even worse, he's basically going to eliminate nuclear power to do it?
Obama is an idiot. Why doesn't he go out and buy a unicorn for Sasha and Meliah and sing happy love the earth songs...
This is my sig.
No capability for critical thought, or nuance.
"Dear USA,
Please keep your "help" to yourself.
Sincerly,
Signed: The Rest of the World"
P.S. If something bad happens, can you save our sorry asses again for the Nth time?
That wasn't an ICBM, more like an intra-continental missile. Doesn't have the range to hit anything past Hawaii.
Korea just wants to join the game. If they did succeed in nuking Japan or somebody, in an hour's time the Norks would become a clicking-hot pile of rubble.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
There are so many things wrong with that post I hardly know where to begin, but here goes.
1. You are implying that correlation implies causation in the most ludicrous way imaginable. Are you seriously suggesting that "Star Wars" was responsible for the Soviet Union's collapse? The USSR did not break up because it felt it had lost the ability to emerge victorious in a war with the United States (if it ever had it), but because of the enormous dissent within its member states. While there may, may, be some argument that the Reagan presidency caused or accelerated the USSR's collapse, it certainly wasn't because of his plans vis-a-vis nuclear weapons, and more than likely it would've happened no matter who was president of the USA. Gorbachav, not Reagan, was responsible for the breakup of the USSR. This point is all moot though, because:
Star Wars absolutely increased the speed of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reagan pushed Gorbachev into a corner, and forced the Soviet Union to spend themselves into bankruptcy, which caused all that dissent in the member states. At the time, both our progress and spending on the system were greatly exaggerated, in order to bluff the Soviets in trying to keep up. Take a look at some of the pictures of Gorbachev and Reagan, as time goes on you can see it in Gorbachev's face, he ages quickly and looks quite frustrated.
2. Reagan's plan was never finished in the first place. This one's pretty simple. Do we have a functioning missile defense system, capable of protecting us from ICBMs? Answer: no. Since Reagan didn't actually accomplish anything in this regard, how can you attribute any lasting effects, political or otherwise, to it?
It was a bluff, designed to break the back of the Soviet economy. In addition to that, we've made quite a bit of progress toward an actual missile shield since then, although I doubt we'd ever hear about it being done, kind of like how the stealth bomber existed for 7 years before it was revealed.
3. You are badly misinterpreting Obama's plans for missile defense. Obama is on record as saying that he is not opposed to missile defense systems if they can be shown to work. And if they can't, we shouldn't be spending on them anyway.
The patriot missiles aren't perfect, but they are pretty effective, they've come a long way since 1991 when they were first deployed. In 2003, they shot down all of the Scuds that the Iraqi's launched.
4. You are making up attributes to his disarmament plan out of whole cloth. His statements were the typical grandiose words that politicians have been making at summits since time immaterial. If you look through his words carefully, this plan is very open-ended and could be implemented any one of several ways (if it is at all).
This doesn't surprise me, Obama tries to keep everything as vague as possible so the results, or lack thereof, can't be quantified. Sort of like how he stopped talking about creating jobs with stimulus packages, but saving or creating jobs. As long as somebody has a job, it's because Obama saved it.
5. You are implying that "lacking nuclear weapons = defenseless". Even if we got rid of all our nuclear weapons, we would still have the most technologically advanced, well-financed military on Earth, easily strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent to so-called "rogue states".
The problem with people like you is that you're incredibly naive. Not everyone out there is farting rainbows, and a single nuclear weapon could kill tens of millions of American's.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill