Obama wants a World Free of Nuclear Weapons

[WarEagle73]

Wile this sounds like a laudable enough goal, it demonstrates a striking naivety about the real world. Does he seriously think that we will ever convince everyone in the world to give up their nukes if we lead the way
by disarming ourselves?

Maybe he can call for a summit for all the world leaders to come together for a really big group hug. That sounds like good solid foreign policy.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/16/obama-meets-with-potential-vp-picks/

[Zappa]

I'm a liberal,but we need to keep our nukes.And practice with some of them.Hezbollah,Al-Quaida strongholds in Pakistan,Clemson,watch your ass.

[JerryBeeds]

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

[Cianne]

Yes you can. They just get radiation poisoning.

[ColonelKurtz]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Maybe one of Obama's whiz kids has a way-back machine...lol! You can't put that genie back into a bottle, at least not until some superior technological breakthrough delivers some even more terrifying weapon to replace them.

If this Nation elects him, it deserves the consequences.

[WarEagle73]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Maybe one of Obama's whiz kids has a way-back machine...lol! You can't put that genie back into a bottle, at least not until some superior technological breakthrough delivers some even more terrifying weapon to replace them.

If this Nation elects him, it deserves the consequences.



Those were the exact words that came to my mind when I first saw his absurd plan.

[Wynnco.com]

Wile this sounds like a laudable enough goal, it demonstrates a striking naivety about the real world. Does he seriously think that we will ever convince everyone in the world to give up their nukes if we lead the way
by disarming ourselves?

Maybe he can call for a summit for all the world leaders to come together for a really big group hug. That sounds like good solid foreign policy.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/16/obama-meets-with-potential-vp-picks/

Can anyone say "Jimmy Carter pt. 2"?

[volimhtown]

Wile this sounds like a laudable enough goal, it demonstrates a striking naivety about the real world. Does he seriously think that we will ever convince everyone in the world to give up their nukes if we lead the way
by disarming ourselves?

Maybe he can call for a summit for all the world leaders to come together for a really big group hug. That sounds like good solid foreign policy.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/16/obama-meets-with-potential-vp-picks/

I know we've discussed this before, but I've got to ask it again.... why is this such a bad goal?? :sad: I mean, do people who are taking him to task with this idea really feel like the World's a better place with these weapons? Seeing as WE pose the biggest risk to the human race by having OUR finger on the button, where else should the talk start and have that talk make sense?

Now, before responding, PLEASE can we keep things in perspective? All the guy has EVER said is that we should start the process of discussing the idea and if one day all nations agree, we would begin the process by making the first move. Obviously this isn't happening tomorrow, next week, next month, or even this decade. But at some point, some decision's going to HAVE to be made with regards to what to do with all of these weapons. Seems to me that most of the civilized world and governments learned a painful lesson on August 6, 1945 and that that's likely why another nuclear weapon has never been used. Aren't the vast majority of nuclear weapons that exist currently in the hands of decent, peace loving governments? Seems to me that the longer these weapons "lay around", the more likely they are to wind up in the hands of someone stupid enough to use them. Furthermore, how would it "weaken" us as some have claimed? Are we really to believe that we are risking an attack or decreasing our strength by disarming our nuclear weapons? I think we've more than proven that we are a very capable, willing, and able force with the simple use of our "traditional" weapons.

[WarEagle73]

I know we've discussed this before, but I've got to ask it again.... why is this such a bad goal?? :sad: I mean, do people who are taking him to task with this idea really feel like the World's a better place with these weapons? Seeing as WE pose the biggest risk to the human race by having OUR finger on the button, where else should the talk start and have that talk make sense?

Now, before responding, PLEASE can we keep things in perspective? All the guy has EVER said is that we should start the process of discussing the idea and if one day all nations agree, we would begin the process by making the first move. Obviously this isn't happening tomorrow, next week, next month, or even this decade. But at some point, some decision's going to HAVE to be made with regards to what to do with all of these weapons. Seems to me that most of the civilized world and governments learned a painful lesson on August 6, 1945 and that that's likely why another nuclear weapon has never been used. Aren't the vast majority of nuclear weapons that exist currently in the hands of decent, peace loving governments? Seems to me that the longer these weapons "lay around", the more likely they are to wind up in the hands of someone stupid enough to use them. Furthermore, how would it "weaken" us as some have claimed? Are we really to believe that we are risking an attack or decreasing our strength by disarming our nuclear weapons? I think we've more than proven that we are a very capable, willing, and able force with the simple use of our "traditional" weapons.


Yes, that does sound good. But here is the problem. It won't work. I'll give you an example that is easy to understand:

Washington D.C. passed a hand gun ban back in the 1970's (?). The crime rate was getting high so they decided that by making guns illegal the problem would be solved. Well, it backfired. All the actual law abiding citizens did get rid of their guns but the criminals and gangsters did not and even had a flourishing black market in their trade. Instead of the crime rate going down, it went off the charts. Criminals now knew they could operate with impunity in home invasions, muggings and such, safe in the knowledge that they faced a completely disarmed citizenry.

Now, instead of thinking guns and citizens, replace them with nukes and countries. Countries such as us, France, Great Britain, would be disarmed. I can promise you that countries such as China, Pakistan, India, and Russia might sign such a treaty, but would never actually adhere to it's dictates. Furthermore, you cannot move the clock back to when nuclear weapons knowledge was out of humanities grasp. If we took every nuke in the world and destroyed them tomorrow, then countries such as Iran or North Korea would no hold the trump card of nuclear annihilation over us and the rest of the world. Would you want to live in that world? :unsure:

[zartan]

Wile this sounds like a laudable enough goal, it demonstrates a striking naivety about the real world. Does he seriously think that we will ever convince everyone in the world to give up their nukes if we lead the way
by disarming ourselves?

Maybe he can call for a summit for all the world leaders to come together for a really big group hug. That sounds like good solid foreign policy.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/16/obama-meets-with-potential-vp-picks/
yet the Right thinks stem cell research is Satanist witchcraft and that nobody will partake in it if we disavow it...

[JessJess6713]

This is taken directly from the Obama website. This is his actual nuclear plan. I warned you guys about Fox News already. I'm not making this stuff up. They really are a spin group, NOT a news organization. I underlined a key passage, but it's all pretty relevant stuff.

Nuclear Weapons

A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:

*He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.

*He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

*And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.

Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.

[WarEagle73]

This is taken directly from the Obama website. This is his actual nuclear plan. I warned you guys about Fox News already. I'm not making this stuff up. They really are a spin group, NOT a news organization. I underlined a key passage, but it's all pretty relevant stuff.

Nuclear Weapons
A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:

*He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.

*He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

*And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it's to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.

Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.

Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.

Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.


Did you miss this part on Obama's website?

But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.

Also, I'm not sure if you noticed it or not but the Fox news story actually included the part you underlined from Obama's website. So how is this spin again? :whistle:

[volimhtown]

Yes, that does sound good. But here is the problem. It won't work. I'll give you an example that is easy to understand:

Washington D.C. passed a hand gun ban back in the 1970's (?). The crime rate was getting high so they decided that by making guns illegal the problem would be solved. Well, it backfired. All the actual law abiding citizens did get rid of their guns but the criminals and gangsters did not and even had a flourishing black market in their trade. Instead of the crime rate going down, it went off the charts. Criminals now knew they could operate with impunity in home invasions, muggings and such, safe in the knowledge that they faced a completely disarmed citizenry.

Now, instead of thinking guns and citizens, replace them with nukes and countries. Countries such as us, France, Great Britain, would be disarmed. I can promise you that countries such as China, Pakistan, India, and Russia might sign such a treaty, but would never actually adhere to it's dictates. Furthermore, you cannot move the clock back to when nuclear weapons knowledge was out of humanities grasp. If we took every nuke in the world and destroyed them tomorrow, then countries such as Iran or North Korea would no hold the trump card of nuclear annihilation over us and the rest of the world. Would you want to live in that world? :unsure:

I get what you are saying, I just don't buy the analogy. I mean, the MAJOR difference is that hand guns are/were being used by both citizens and criminals. Nobody's using Nukes thus you're not really taking away anything significant from the current state of affairs. I mean, in essence you are suggesting that without these weapons we will somehow be at the mercy of the idiots....I just don't buy it. The idiots basically have access or possess these weapons now but aren't stupid enough to use them.... and it's not because they are afraid of a nuclear counter attack. We could obliterate any nation pretty much with the snap of our finger... and without using a single nuclear weapon.

Whether your opinion leads you to believe some would or would not comply is immaterial. The idea is to rid the world of the threat at the hands of a lunatic. If all of the "good" countries complied, you would still eliminate the VAST MAJORITY of nuclear weapons that exist. The act of possessing such weapons could then be construed as an act of war and the appropriate actions could then be taken against said nation, goverment, or group. The bottom line is that the longer these weapons exist, the greater the threat to the human race. Even if the goal is never met and even if it takes several generations to see a world with few or no nuclear weapons, it HAS to start somewhere!

[JessJess6713]

Did you miss this part on Obama's website?

But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.

Also, I'm not sure if you noticed it or not but the Fox news story actually included the part you underlined from Obama's website. So how is this spin again? :whistle:


Yeah, I didn't read it before I posted. History of Fox News and all. This is actually one of the better Fox News articles I've ever read. They are a focused spin group though. I'll quote myself from another post.

Roger Ailes, the former media consultant for Regan, Nixon, and Bush, is the president of Fox News. It was created under his control in conjunction with the Republican party to create political spin.

He was working at NBC at the time of its creation. He left to create Fox when NBC was acquired by Microsoft, becoming MSNBC. He took 89 of the most conservative member's of NBC with him. This move left a vacuum of conservative thought at MSNBC and created the singled-minded and far leftist views now governing the the station (MSNBC).

Apart from supporting false stories a couple of times already, Fox is just ridiculous to watch. When you turn on MSNBC it's all leftist talk. One is fake and the other is damaged.

Real news comes from political journals, and can typically be found across several medians. References that you can check on are the best. Avoid watching TV news, it will warp your perspective. Much like politicians, media outlets often make money by supporting a cause (regardless of its affiliation).


I assumed that there was no mention the way everyone was posting about how others will have them and we won't. It's always better to go straight to the source if you can, so I posted it here. I guess I'm in the minority in thinking it's a good plan.

[WarEagle73]

I get what you are saying, I just don't buy the analogy. I mean, the MAJOR difference is that hand guns are/were being used by both citizens and criminals. Nobody's using Nukes thus you're not really taking away anything significant from the current state of affairs. I mean, in essence you are suggesting that without these weapons we will somehow be at the mercy of the idiots....I just don't buy it. The idiots basically have access or possess these weapons now but aren't stupid enough to use them.... and it's not because they are afraid of a nuclear counter attack. We could obliterate any nation pretty much with the snap of our finger... and without using a single nuclear weapon.

Whether your opinion leads you to believe some would or would not comply is immaterial. The idea is to rid the world of the threat at the hands of a lunatic. If all of the "good" countries complied, you would still eliminate the VAST MAJORITY of nuclear weapons that exist. The act of possessing such weapons could then be construed as an act of war and the appropriate actions could then be taken against said nation, goverment, or group. The bottom line is that the longer these weapons exist, the greater the threat to the human race. Even if the goal is never met and even if it takes several generations to see a world with few or no nuclear weapons, it HAS to start somewhere!


I understand, but you cannot uninvent something that has been around for 60 plus years. Nor can you take away the knowledge of how to build more.

[volimhtown]

I understand, but you cannot uninvent something that has been around for 60 plus years. Nor can you take away the knowledge of how to build more.

Absolutely...I completely agree! There likely will NEVER be a world completely free of nuclear weapons, but limiting the number and/or availability of them should be a reasonable goal and first step. Even with the knowledge of how to build them, it takes incredible resources and finances to be able to do it. I'd rather live in a world where actually having those resources were required as opposed to stealing or buying an existing one. :)

[sheluvsbama]

Unfortunately once the technology to create these world killing weapons fell into the hands of everyone, it became only a wistful dream, at best, that we would ever again free ourselves of the threat. It is like trying to eradicate evil in the world. We can work to do this forevermore, but it will always be there. The thing we can try to do is keep the peace. That is our only available defense against it now.

[Tennessee Ted]

The key to Obama's plan is common sense. Something that his detractors think he is totally devoid of. It is his goal to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but he is smart enough not to unnecessarily imperil our country by stripping our arsenal, so we can bear our throat to the wolves. These criticisms are mere techniques to deflect attention from what is really important to Americans. The economy is what is important right now to America. I have full confidence that if Obama wins he will continue to keep American security a priority.