Eliminating the threat of nuclear arms

Feb 04, 2009

President Barack Obama has made his intention of eliminating all nuclear weapons a tenet of his administration's foreign policy. Professor Sidney Drell, a US theoretical physicist and arms-control expert, explains in February's Physics World what Obama needs to do to make that honourable intention a reality.

Professor Drell, a professor emeritus at the SLAC National Accelerator Center, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and an adviser on technical national security and arms-control for the US Government, has recently co-authored a report called Nuclear Weapons in 21st Century US National Security, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In his article for Physics World, he explains how and why there is need now, more than ever, to introduce globally ratified systems to control the spread of nuclear arms.

Professor Drell explains: "The world is teetering on the edge of a new and more perilous nuclear era, facing a growing danger that nuclear weapons - the most devastating instrument of annihilation ever invented - may fall into the hands of 'rogue states' or terrorist organizations that do not shrink from mass murder on an unprecedented scale.

His article makes two recommendations to Obama and his team. The first is to 'revisit Reykjavik' - Reykjavik hosted a summit in 1986 where former US President Ronald Reagan and then Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reducing the size of their respected countries' nuclear arsenals. As the US and Russia still possess more than 90 per cent of the world's nuclear warheads, it is imperative that they take the lead, Drell says.

Drell's second recommendation is that the new Obama administration should adopt a process for bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into effect. "The new administration should initiate a timely bipartisan, congressional review of the value of the CTBT for US security," he says.

Drell concludes: "With these two steps outlined above, President Obama has a historic opportunity to start down a practical path towards achieving his stated goal of 'eliminating all nuclear weapons.'"

Source: Institute of Physics

Explore further: A two-stage trap for single protons leads to measurement of their magnetic properties

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Los Alamos to get new supercomputer

Jul 10, 2014

Los Alamos National Laboratory is getting a next-generation supercomputer to help maintain the safety and effectiveness of the nation's nuclear weapons.

Engineering nuclear nonproliferation

Jul 08, 2014

University of Virginia engineering professor Houston Wood's career is a testament to the essential role that engineers can play, not only in preserving a free and open society, but also in making the world a safer place.

Designing exascale computers

Jul 23, 2014

"Imagine a heart surgeon operating to repair a blocked coronary artery. Someday soon, the surgeon might run a detailed computer simulation of blood flowing through the patient's arteries, showing how millions ...

Creating optical cables out of thin air

Jul 22, 2014

Imagine being able to instantaneously run an optical cable or fiber to any point on earth, or even into space. That's what Howard Milchberg, professor of physics and electrical and computer engineering at ...

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

Jul 31, 2014

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

User comments : 31

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LuckyBrandon
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2009
yea elimination of our best and strongest weapon...not a good idea whatsoever. We'll destroy all or most of ours, along with Russia, and whoever else, then whoever has the most left will start bombing because we have no defense left or viable/equal countermeasure.
Horrible idea...we made hte bombs for a reason, to put fear into the hearts and minds of the enemy, and they are still doing that job very well.
We need to at least wait until the father of all bombs can blow as big as a large hydrogen bomb...
Soylent
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2009
Russia and the US not having nuclear weapons doesn't prevent other states from getting them. Western countries not using nuclear power doesn't prevent other states from acquiring either reactors or weapons.

It makes some sense to not have enough nuclear weapons to be capable of destroying human civilisation globally and totally, but eliminating nuclear weapons altoghether is a terrible idea.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2009
Obama is a liberal dolt. The only possible cause for such arrogance, is nieveta.
By 'talking' to Iran and then now by having the US lead by example in 'eliminating nukes', is to place countries like Iran on a equal footing. What about Israel Obama?, should they comply before you and the useless UN stops Irans efforts?

It's like the liberal gun control moron efforts; the ony ones who comply are law abiding by definition, so you only end up disarming the ones you trust . Maybe his 'talk' with Iran will get the to scrap their program?! What a clueless fool.
Sirussinder
5 / 5 (6) Feb 04, 2009
Iran just put a satellite into orbit for their space program. Most people think Iran is into space. Not a chance. This is a disguise to achieve intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.

Unfortunately getting rid of nuclear arms in the States is not going to get rid of the threat of a nuclear war.

In fact it may hasten it as the fear factor for nuclear retaliation is eliminated. This is not only for the States. For example, China may use a nuclear missile on Thailand. China knowing that the States is eliminating or eliminated their nuclear arsenal to the point where they no longer fear a nuclear retaliation should they use theirs.
Sophos
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2009
You all beat me to it. What a clueless idiot.
NeilFarbstein
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2009
Reducing them is a realistic goal but cutting them out completely will leave us vulnerable to smaller nuclear powers. Also with the mutual assured destruction scenario eliminated- major wars that seemed unthinkable might become common.
theophys
4 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2009
I don't see why we don't just come up with a nonviolent method of preventing nuclear strike. We have plenty of scientists sitting around and doing nothing better than inventing ciggarette holders that reduce the risk of cancer. Put 'em to use working on a way to deter incoming warheads.It could be like Reagan's Star Wars program, except with the remotest possibility of actualy working.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2009
Alternatively, the US could break a treaty and all owners of H-Bombs can convert their H-Bombs into Neutron Bombs. That way humans can still kill humans and wipe out entire cities of human and animal life while not destroying the superstructures thereof and making the rest of the planet uninhabitable. Or, better yet, still have the power of deterrance to some degree remain.

Obama is a fool nonetheless. Those working toward nuclear technology will not care that we remove our weapons and will likely take more of an opportunity to strike should we do so. He is manifesting his foreign policy ignorance and appears to want to give the terrorists better and easier ways to attack us.

It is no wonder. Some of his best friends are terrorists and/or "former" terrorists. Has anyone else ever wondered why Hamas officially endorsed Obama's Candidacy? :)
COCO
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
it is just talk - it is becoming apparent - Mr. B is no whiz kid - he remains a puppet of the neocons - and surounds himself with bush-like clowns bent on war like Hillary - NO CHANGE UNCLE TOM for sure
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2009
The lead sentence of this article is news to me. "President Barack Obama has made his intention of eliminating all nuclear weapons a tenet of his administration's foreign policy." Any references for that?

Ah, found it. News item in NY Times just yesterday.

"In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become %u201Cincreasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.%u201D"

"Under a 2002 treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to limit the number of operational nuclear weapons in their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012, though that agreement did not address weapons in reserve stockpiles."

Sounds quite rational, really. Not like he's proposing to unilaterally disarm, or "rip the weapons out of you yokels cold dead hands".
theophys
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
Some of his best friends are terrorists and/or "former" terrorists. Has anyone else ever wondered why Hamas officially endorsed Obama's Candidacy?

I thought we all got over this half a year ago. Obama has never "palled around" with terrorists. There is a definite distinction between working on a board with somebody and plotting to kill thousands with somebody.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2009
Lengould,... obviously what you quoted is very far removed from what the above comments are responding to, that Obama wants to 'eliminate all nuclear weapons'. That Obama signs onto an existing and rational plan is not proof that the above quote is factually wrong,... although it was news to me and would be surprising if Obama was that foolish.
denijane
2 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2009
Hmmm, the enemy... You all realise that many countries have nukes, right? Or that they can always obtain one or two if they really want to. Counties as well as organisations.
I wonder why we don't see nuclear explosions every now and then. It doesn't even happen in non-US countries (and happily for all of us that it doesn't happen anywhere).

The point of nuclear weapon is the balance-as long as everyone has one, there is a good chance that nobody would use it, because then everyone else would and nobody would survive. But there's no much point having a huge arsenal of nukes. No country will ever remove all of its nuclear arsenal, so they sill will have something to chill the blood of their enemies with. But they can decrease the quantity to a reasonable level.

And as for Iran, they launched a space satellite! And what kind of country Iran is? Because apart from the absurd Islamisation, it's just as normal as any other country. How it differs from Saudi Arabia for example? Except that Iran isn't Arab country, of course.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2009
How it differs from Saudi Arabia for example? Except that Iran isn't Arab country, of course.


Uhhhh because their leader has made threats to wipe countries off the map? That would be one difference...

If you listen to an evil man closely he'll tell you what he's going to do.

Hitler was pretty unambiguous in Mein Kampf...but too many people were either apathetic, or just didn't take him seriously.

Oh and yes, it would be sheer LUNACY to give up our nuclear deterrent. This goes far beyond the "no brainer" category...
denijane
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
Not countries but a country. The same country doesn't shy away from telling what it thinks about Iran. And also it has a nuclear weapon. And probably would LOVE to use it on Iran. The same way it happily uses its weapons on other countries. That wants to say - the "love" between Iran and that country is mutual. Interestingly enough, the words of the one are evil, but the actions of the other are ok.

Anyway, the situation in Iran is much more complicated than just considering it the "enemy". And I think that if 8 years of non-talks did nothing to fix that situation, then it's time to try to talk for a change.

And before calling me names, sorry dear friends, but I'm not politically correct and never will be. Iran was the craddle of our civilization, they are one of us, it's simply not fair to transform ANY country into what Iran is now out of economical interest. Because that was the reason behind all and it's actually american analysers that said it. I think that globalism should have made easier talks and mutual understandment, not the isolation and torture.

And for those of you who haven't studied communist propaganda, one of the rules was "Always have an enemy". Having an enemy makes the society much easier to manipulate.

P.S. I'm not saying Iran isn't a danger to us currently. But again, if punishment doesn't help, what's left but trying in another way. This cannot go on forever. For example, Europe needs desperately Iranian gas. The situation must change one way or another.
denijane
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
And as for Hitler, what he did wasn't done only by him. It was a delusion of a whole nation. There would be much to say, if some idiots in Europe didn't forbid it! If you ask me, that collective madness should have been studied very very thoroughly, because this is one of the biggest dangers to humanity. If anyone can convince so many people to do something so hideous and disgusting, then everyone can. And this must be prevented in any cost.
But then, it's easier to ban the discussion and try to forget. Until the next Hitler decides that all black, white, ugly, pretty, non-Chinese or non-believers must be eradicated.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2009
it is just talk - it is becoming apparent - Mr. B is no whiz kid - he remains a puppet of the neocons - and surounds himself with bush-like clowns bent on war like Hillary - NO CHANGE UNCLE TOM for sure


Bush? Obama surrounded himself with Clinton cronies. Bush and the Clintons are worlds apart on the political spectrum...
dachpyarvile
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
Some of his best friends are terrorists and/or "former" terrorists. Has anyone else ever wondered why Hamas officially endorsed Obama's Candidacy?

I thought we all got over this half a year ago. Obama has never "palled around" with terrorists. There is a definite distinction between working on a board with somebody and plotting to kill thousands with somebody.


He did more than merely serve on a board with Ayers. He launched his political career in Ayers' living room. They were more than mere associates.

I included the word "former" in quotes because Ayers is an unrepentant "former" terrorist who felt he did not do enough. Obama certainly palled around with Ayers contrary to Obama's attempts to throw him under the bus at the last minute to distance himself from Ayers publically.

Several of his friends have been known to be involved in questionable activities, including greater and lesser degrees of terrorist activity over the years.

In addition, there is the fact that he took money from terrorists and only gave it back when caught with his pants down. Further inquiry showed that he did not return all the money he gained from terrorist groups.

People with Hamas connections donated money to him and although he claims he returned it the people who gave it to him claimed that Obama never returned it and that they are glad that he did not, expressing their hope that he would win the presidency with the help of their money. Hamas officially supported Obama's campaign and endorsed him in writing. Yet, it seems that few want to wonder why out loud. :)
NeilFarbstein
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
I don't see why we don't just come up with a nonviolent method of preventing nuclear strike. We have plenty of scientists sitting around and doing nothing better than inventing cigarette holders that reduce the risk of cancer. Put 'em to use working on a way to deter incoming warheads.It could be like Reagan's Star Wars program, except with the remotest possibility of actually working.

I don't see why we don't just come up with a nonviolent method of preventing nuclear strike. We have plenty of scientists sitting around and doing nothing better than inventing cigarette holders that reduce the risk of cancer. Put 'em to use working on a way to deter incoming warheads.It could be like Reagan's Star Wars program, except with the remotest possibility of actually working.


I spent a couple of months looking for info on a cigarette containing hemoglobin that would bind to carbon monoxide and reduce the level of CO in the smoke. Eventually I found out I reinvented that cigarette and it was invented first in Greece a little before.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2009
Anyway, the situation in Iran is much more complicated than just considering it the "enemy". And I think that if 8 years of non-talks did nothing to fix that situation, then it's time to try to talk for a change.


Thirty plus years of talking did nothing with Iran, and neither with another thirty. THEY wanted to be our enemy after the Shaw so we obliged. We didn't start the acrimony, they did when they reverted to a 14th century idiocracy. Get it straight.

We can't STAND the Saudis and they hate us too, but we're not "enemies" like we are with Iran. If Iran wanted to be friends with us they could be by next week...they just don't want to be friends, while making it seem like they'd like to be. Very basic politics here, nothing overly complicated.

And before calling me names, sorry dear friends, but I'm not politically correct and never will be.


What are you TALKING about...you're the epitome of political correctness!!??

Iran was the craddle of our civilization, they are one of us, it's simply not fair to transform ANY country into what Iran is now out of economical interest. Because that was the reason behind all and it's actually american analysers that said it. I think that globalism should have made easier talks and mutual understandment, not the isolation and torture.


Am I the only one who couldn't pull a coherent point out of that morass after reading it ten times?

Iran may have been the cradle of civilization, but they didn't ever go much further than that. They're the national equivalent of 13 year old boys with a bunch of booze (oil) and car keys (very soon nuclear weapons). They need to move out of the dark ages with the rest of the world, or they're headed for a BIG wreck...period.

And for those of you who haven't studied communist propaganda, one of the rules was "Always have an enemy". Having an enemy makes the society much easier to manipulate.


My how pithy...let's call the terrorists friends then, no matter how many of us they vaporize. At least we won't be manipulated...pffffft.

P.S. I'm not saying Iran isn't a danger to us currently.


Then you REALLY need to work on your English, because that's exactly what you've been saying.


But again, if punishment doesn't help, what's left but trying in another way.


Uh which punishment would that be? Did we bomb Natanz and I missed it?....

This cannot go on forever. For example, Europe needs desperately Iranian gas. The situation must change one way or another.


Oh well if Europe needs gas then the rest of us better just do whatever it takes to make that happen then. Gosh I didn't know it was that simple.
denijane
not rated yet Feb 05, 2009
It is that simple and sooner or later, when Nabucco gets past the dream stage, it will become obvious. And many politicians and analysers are admitting it. Europe needs Iranian gas. Period. (or it needs massive investment in renewables,but they are unlikely to happen so fast and then next Russia-Ukraina round will be next year). It's all about the money and not always US money.

And you're the one behaving like 13 years old. I mean seriously, they reverted to some rather idiotic state of existence, tant pis. But this is their right after all. As long as they don't get physically aggressive, I don't understand your problem with that. And for the moment, all they do is to talk. Yes, that could get off-hand, but the situation could be handled in more than one ways. And not all of them military.

My English isn't perfect, but it would be enough for you to understand me, if we had some common informational sources. But we don't. And I can't find the link to that very interesting book I read on Iran. Since I cannot pass it to you, there's no point of arguing. I do think Iran is dangerous only because they are quite pressed. And the more you press someone, the more likely he'll hit you. Just like with dogs. And because this type of pressing does nothing, I prefer other approach.

And am I politically correct? Well, then, there is some hope, after all.
P.S. "We can't stand Saudis"? What about the funny dance mr. Bush danced with their king? He looked quite happy in the royal company. I think you misuse the word "we". "We" as in we, the people vs. "we" as we the people who profit from oil.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2009
It is that simple and sooner or later, when Nabucco gets past the dream stage, it will become obvious. And many politicians and analysers are admitting it. Europe needs Iranian gas.


I think you totally missed my point. I could CARE LESS about Europe, or what it needs or doesn't need. If it slid into the ocean tomorrow (with the exception of the UK, Poland, and Denmark) I'd have a really hard time squeezing out a tear.

You people have spent the last six years squandering any political capital you had with about half the population of this country. A good portion of us don't even consider you allies anymore.

Did you think it was a one sided game where you could trash talk us into the ground and not have some hard feelings reciprocated? Think again bud...

And you're the one behaving like 13 years old. I mean seriously, they reverted to some rather idiotic state of existence, tant pis. But this is their right after all.


Their right? Who's right? The religious maniacs who have their boots on the necks of the populace? If you've read a book about Iran you'd know its government is not very popular with its people...especially the young ones. No sorry I don't buy that "multiculturalism" B.S. there's a right way and a wrong way to treat people no matter what dark corner of the world we're talking about.


As long as they don't get physically aggressive, I don't understand your problem with that.


Do you have a problem with human rights abuses in Africa? If you do I don't know why you would as long as they're not getting "physically aggressive" with their neighboring countries according to the idiotic logic you just spouted...

And for the moment, all they do is to talk. Yes, that could get off-hand, but the situation could be handled in more than one ways. And not all of them military.


Ever heard of Neville Chamberlain? Winston Churchill? I think history will decide whether or not it was wise to let Iran get the bomb (because with the current administration in place I've little doubt they will).

I do think Iran is dangerous only because they are quite pressed. And the more you press someone, the more likely he'll hit you. Just like with dogs. And because this type of pressing does nothing, I prefer other approach.


Too bad for them. I'd rather "press" the pwoor widdle abused psychopaths rather than let them get a bomb. It's really simple, if they don't want pressed, they need to give up their nuclear aspirations.

But it doesn't matter now anyway, their days of being pressed in any meaningful way are over, Neville fans all over the world can take a big sigh of relief...the crazy people who want to wipe the "eeeevvvvvilll Jews" off the map will get the means to do it post haste. Where Hitler failed they might well succeed, after all no one seems to be taking them at their word JUST LIKE THEY DIDN'T LAST TIME.

"We can't stand Saudis"? What about the funny dance mr. Bush danced with their king? He looked quite happy in the royal company. I think you misuse the word "we". "We" as in we, the people vs. "we" as we the people who profit from oil.


It's called an alliance of convenience. Politics is all it is. It's no accident that 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis, and it's a fact not lost on the American people or government. We need their oil however, and they need us not to take it from them like we EASILY could. Much easier to dance with them than send troops, but if one won't work the other will. The difference is the Saudis are willing to dance the Iranian government isn't. Simple as that. Unfortunately we'd be just as cutesy with the current fascists in charge of Iran too if they weren't hell bent on getting nukes.
denijane
not rated yet Feb 06, 2009
"I could CARE LESS about Europe, or what it needs or doesn't need. If it slid into the ocean tomorrow (with the exception of the UK, Poland, and Denmark) I'd have a really hard time squeezing out a tear."

Precisely because of people like you, Europe stopped liking USA. Because this attitude is absolutely unacceptable. No matter how much I disapprove some things in USA, I never would enjoy watching it "slid into the ocean". Because I respect life and choice-individual and national.

And if you feel so strong about attacking other nations, I suggest you join the army instead of poisoning the image of your country online with your absurd anger.

P.S. The "eeeevvvvvilll Jews" are not so defenceless this time and they have the means to protect themselves, as well as the friends to support them should such need arise. Israel just as any other country must learn to live in balance with the world. Because the world doesn't spin around it and we all have problems to solve.

P.S. P.S. "The difference is the Saudis are willing to dance the Iranian government isn't." Precisely. The question is should Iranian or any other government on this Universe be punished because it doesn't want to "dance" with USA. I believe not.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2009
People in the US may not have much of a choice in the near future but to join the Army or do some other form of manditory national service in the event of health issues preventing military service.

It seems that Democratic party candidates have held to some sort of idea of making that happen. Two Democrats keep trying to push such legislation through congress. Kerry had such ideas on his campaign website until public outcry caused him to take it down.

Although he lost the election anyway, he still had the idea to push Americans from an entirely volunteer military to a manditory military. Obama was not far away from doing the same although initially he wanted to restrict such manditory service to those with government education loans and so forth.

This might be even more necessary if Obama makes good on something he said during the debates concerning thinking of invading Pakistan if they do not cooperate more in rooting out bin Laden and his fanatic followers from within their own borders.

As to the attitude of Americans toward certain nations of Europe, this attitude did not start until certain nations began American-bashing rather than acting like our allies. There is a storm coming in Europe (particularly in France) and it is very likely that when Europe needs American aid in that coming day it may not necessarily be forthcoming. Europeans should never have bitten the hand of those who feed.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2009
Precisely because of people like you, Europe stopped liking USA. Because this attitude is absolutely unacceptable.

I had no problem with Europe until EUROPE'S attitude changed and every other word out of your mouth was an epithet towards my country and my countrymen. You abandoned us, we NEVER abandoned you. You can bet on being left to your own devices in the future though, in fact you can COUNT ON IT. The way public opinion is in this country now I don't think any President could get away with defending Europe the next time a bloodthirsty dictator tries to take it over again.

I don't think a lot of you realize just how hated your governments are by a large portion of our populace. The media loves to talk about European public opinion, but they're terrified to take a poll of American public opinion when it comes to Europe right now.

And if you feel so strong about attacking other nations, I suggest you join the army instead of poisoning the image of your country online with your absurd anger.


I'm in the IRR buddy, I did my time and I'd be happy to go anywhere they'd like me to go if they'll have these old bones again, nice try though.

And I'm not poisoning the image of my country, I'm defending it from people like you who incessantly vilify it and it's policies. That you can't see the difference is pitiful.

Besides how do you think YOU look too me right now? You think this is a one way street? Do you think you're improving the image of Bulgaria by coming across as a "peace at all costs" appeaser and apologetic of oppressive governments? Government's BTW that would like nothing better than for all Americans to have their heads chopped off.

Which side of WW II was Bulgaria on until the cowards in the country at the time saw which way the wind was blowing and switched sides? The more things change the more they stay the same apparently. Don't even PRETEND to talk to me about the failings of my country. No country is perfect, but if you verbally attack a country or a person long enough eventually they're going to respond. Imagine that....

The "eeeevvvvvilll Jews" are not so defenceless this time and they have the means to protect themselves,


Indeed, and this is good HOW? Instead of Iran shooting ten nukes at them and that being the end of it the REAL situation is that Iran will shoot ten nukes at them and Israel will shoot a hundred back, and we may even shoot another fifty on top of their hundred for good measure. I utterly fail to see how this improves the situation.

Moreover it is not THEY (remember them, the only stable democracy in the region) who need to learn to live in balance with the barbarians that surround them, it's those mired in 14th century ignorance and intolerance who need to learn the Earth doesn't "spin" around THEM.

Another good lesson for them to learn is if you fire rockets at someone long enough...eventually they're going to shoot some your way too. My three year old nephew has more sense...

Yet another good lesson, especially for you effiete and insufferably self righteous Europeans (and some of us Americans as well) is that every time you send money to rebuild Gaza you might as well be giving an alcholoic a drink. They need to be left to their pain so they'll learn a lesson. When you send money you aren't aiding a "peace process", but perpetuating a WAR process by enabling Hamas to continue its proxy war on its own people.

P.S. P.S. "The difference is the Saudis are willing to dance the Iranian government isn't." Precisely. The question is should Iranian or any other government on this Universe be punished because it doesn't want to "dance" with USA. I believe not.


Actually the question is why should WE want to dance with THEM in the first place? Why not just treat them like the criminals that they are and be done with it? They're the religious fascists fanatics. They (the government of Iran) should be punished because they've blatantly shown by their actions and words that they can't be trusted with nuclear weapons (heck I don't even trust my OWN country with them why should I trust a man with religiously induced psychosis with them??) and yet are more determined to get them than make peace.

Doesn't matter anyway. Our current leader appears to be an appeaser as well, so you have little to worry about. An unstable regime with dreams of genocidal grandeur will get its nuclear weapons without a problem, and you'll get your gas....as long as the entire region isn't reduced to a radioactive glass parking lot that is....
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2009
Bush? Obama surrounded himself with Clinton cronies. Bush and the Clintons are worlds apart on the political spectrum...

If you think the republicans and democrats are on a different page, you're all wrong. The current republicans are more democrat than the democrats are.
Republicanism used to be about not spending money and not collecting taxes. These neo-cons are not conservative in the least. Instead of being tax and spend like the liberals they are borrow and spend.

The fact that we refuse as a nation to welcome a third party is mind boggling.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2009
Bush? Obama surrounded himself with Clinton cronies. Bush and the Clintons are worlds apart on the political spectrum...

If you think the republicans and democrats are on a different page, you're all wrong. The current republicans are more democrat than the democrats are.
Republicanism used to be about not spending money and not collecting taxes. These neo-cons are not conservative in the least. Instead of being tax and spend like the liberals they are borrow and spend.

The fact that we refuse as a nation to welcome a third party is mind boggling.


Ding ding ding!!! Someone else gets it! All hope is not lost...well actually it still probably is, but it's still encouraging....
LuckyBrandon
not rated yet Feb 09, 2009
actually making our young join the military (at the same current legal age of 18 in america) is a damned great idea. i am a former infantry soldier myself, and it literally took me from being a street dwelling trouble maker to being the man I am today..a highly successful husband and father of 4 children. other than my son with leukemia (which was referenced as a reason not to get enlisted/drafted), not only would i be proud of my children joining, but it would turn them into men, and a woman of a good quality. i actually firmly think to become a citizen of america, you should have to serve...then immigration would still be a great thing, because it will drive our fighting force up...no more lack of soldiers in any branch of the military either way....then maybe the navy can get out of those gay ass sailor uniforms :D

BUT...thats a little off topic...just read a comment about it and had to say that.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2009
actually making our young join the military (at the same current legal age of 18 in america) is a damned great idea. i am a former infantry soldier myself, and it literally took me from being a street dwelling trouble maker to being the man I am today..a highly successful husband and father of 4 children. other than my son with leukemia (which was referenced as a reason not to get enlisted/drafted), not only would i be proud of my children joining, but it would turn them into men, and a woman of a good quality. i actually firmly think to become a citizen of america, you should have to serve...then immigration would still be a great thing, because it will drive our fighting force up...no more lack of soldiers in any branch of the military either way....then maybe the navy can get out of those gay ass sailor uniforms :D

BUT...thats a little off topic...just read a comment about it and had to say that.


Not really that off topic, the country that comes to mind when someone from the westernworld says "neutrality" is Switzerland. Part of the reason why they want nothing to do with war, (and wars want nothing to do with them) is their policy of mandatory military service. If your entire adult country is military trained your taste for war most likely will be less as your entire populace knows the costs.

Conversely, no one will want to invade because the entire country would become a street to street shooting zone against a rooted, well trained military.
denijane
not rated yet Feb 10, 2009
I'd just like to point out that during WWII, Bulgaria tried very hard to stay neutral. But at the time, we didn't have much choice, because Hitler was about to stomp over us. And the situation offered a chance to unite Bulgaria once and for all. Of course, it didn't happen the way we wanted it, but at least, choosing that side allowed us to save our Jews. Which wouldn't have happened if we chose to fight against Germany (because we couldn't have won that battle).

As for Iran - I'd like to remind you, that a criminal is defined by the law in a country. So, you cannot call Iranian people (or rulers) criminals unless you are living in Iran (or committing a crime against humanity). And their life is their own business! When they are ready, they will move on, you don't have the right to live their lives for them, they have to do it.

And yeah, I believe in everything I said, I believe peace and respect both in the inside and on the outside is the most important thing in the world. You may not share my values, but let me remind you that USA never fought a battle on its own soil (apart from one, but this was a military base). You don't know what devastation the war brings. You go and fight in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam and you think that's war, while your children and wives/husbands are safe home. The war is to see your home, your family, your entire life bombed to oblivion. It's not to have a home any more. It is to see absolutely innocent people to run for their lives and to hide and not know what they will see when they get out. The war is something disgusting and should be avoided in all possible ways. Of course, you should defend your country, but the attack isn't the best defence. I'm horrified to hear that some people here think it's so cool to kill people, because they are the ENEMY. Well, it's not so cool. I've seen death. Death isn't fun, it's very sad. And I don't see a reason why we should kill each other, when we can talk to each other and find reasonable solution to our problems. Yes, it's not always possible, but when it is, this is the way I'll always defend and fight for.

And in the case, there is a way to solve the problem without blood shedding. Btw, please, don't try to involve me in an argument, I don't want to participate in it. I said what I wanted to say. And I hope that we won't see a war in the next 1000 years. The war is easy, we have to learn to live in peace if we want to progress as a specie.
Velanarris
not rated yet Feb 10, 2009
You may not share my values, but let me remind you that USA never fought a battle on its own soil (apart from one, but this was a military base).
Wrong, war of 1812, WW2, Mexican American war, and the Civil War.

Actually the USA has hosted some of the bloodiest wars so that statement is blatantly false. Our ability to repel attackers and to inflict such extreme damage is what prevents wars on our soil. In the case of Americans our ability to utterly demoralize our enemies while remaining in relative safety has prevented more war than it's caused.