Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAn important and inspiring new group, Global Zero, launched in Paris this week with a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in 20 to 25 years.
More than 100 prominent military, political, faith, and business leaders met in Paris and delegations then visited both Washington and Moscow to push Global Zero's program. The group sees this as a watershed moment -- with President-elect Barack Obama declaring his support for a nuclear-free world and polling in 21 countries indicating 76% favorability for a timetable leading to the elimination of nukes. Through diplomacy and a global public education campaign, Global Zero will work toward a binding verifiable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons. The US and Russia still possess 96% of the world's nukes so the organization sees reductions there as a key first step towards achieving its goal and bringing other nations on board.
There are many prominent figures involved with the group. Some of the signatories include: Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lawrence Bender, Sandy Berger, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joe Cirincione, Michael Douglas, Lawrence Eagleburger, Chuck Hagel, Lee Hamilton, Frank Von Hippel, Anthony Lake, Robert McNamara, David Owen, Thomas Pickering, Mary Robinson, Jonathan Schell (see below), Nation contributor Martin Sherwin, Desmond Tutu, Muhammad Yunnus, Anthony Zinni, Ehsan Ul-Haq, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Pakistan, and Brajesh Mishra, former Indian National Security Advisor.
It has been remarkable to witness how an idea once considered radical -- nuclear abolition -- has now entered the mainstream. Eleven years ago, The Nation's peace and disarmament correspondent, Jonathan Schell, wrote for and edited our special issue calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. At that moment such a position was considered unrealistic and was marginalized and derided by the mainstream media. Now we see the elimination of nukes being called for by the likes of former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn. We're proud that The Nation -- then and now -- asks questions when others won't, and expands the debate where others seek to limit it. We refuse to accept the downsized politics of excluded alternatives and now many of those alternatives are at the new political center.
The nuclear abolition movement is gaining momentum. You can get involved right now by signing on with Global Zero.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Is it even remotely sane to believe that, even if every country signed on, there wouldn't be secret programs in every country, because,"Everyone else is probably doing it too, so we need to."
I believe the silliness of the whole concept, may even cause hell to freeze over, by making Happy and I and, I'd bet, even Mask and LL, agree on something.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/13/2008 @ 11:31am
Our ability for self delusion and our desire to appear virtuous are here neck and neck, harnessed together in a team sure to go nowhere. Even the inane KVH knows it. But she can't resist the pose, jumping up and down as an enthusiastic cheerleader on behalf of "the good."
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/13/2008 @ 12:18pm
Pains me to say this, but -- depending on one's view of human nature -- the only thing worse than a world with nuclear weapons might be a world without them. One could make the argument that a world in which even the smallest nation had an arsenal of nuclear weapons would be more peaceful than one in which they would not.
It's not so much the MAD argument as it is how nuclear weapons complicate the calculation to go to war. If, for example, U.S. intelligence and our leaders were convinced that Iraq had a nuclear arsenal in 2003, it is doubtful the decision to go to war would have been taken.
Particularly with major powers, the deterrence value of a small nation's nuclear potential would more likely trump a desire to wage war against them. After all, big countries have more to lose than small ones.
Posted by S Thornton at 12/13/2008 @ 1:05pm
I have to admit that it is never possible to put the genie back in the bottle once released. Once the human race reached the point in technological sophistication to "Split the Atom", there was no going back.
I think that is the key turning point among any civilization alien or terrestrial and I suspect most never make it very long after that. It is like the the ultimate cosmic litmus test.
I think the odds for survival to anyone who bets would be quite low. Especially for a violent warlike race such as ours.
But it seems a little silly not to at least try. Who knows maybe someone is watching us to see if we do make an earnest if not impractical effort.
Im an atheist and I still believe in miracles. How about you?
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 2:18pm
The threat of nuclear weapons will never go away. Human's goal now is to make something bigger and better. This is high-minded and hopeful but I think anyone who looks at like with any realism will see that this will never happen. Do destroy all nukes wouldn't take an agreeance from every nation it will take one nation enforcing it militarily by having something that can vaporize everyone. It's sad that nukes were every created because now we are stuck with them. I will sign it but I think anyone who can step back and look at things realistically will agree that there is no way everyone will lay down their arms now. North Korea certainly won't, Israel won't, Pakistan won't, India won't, the US won't. There are some countries who will but there are enough that won't to make everyone else nervous.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/13/2008 @ 4:14pm
Another way to look at it is that the Human Race is so foul and debased that it doesn't deserve to survive. The problem is when we take ourselves out we also take out all that is good and pure about this planet. That would be unfortunate. Maybe the one "good" thing we could do for this emerald jewel would be to commit mass suicide without taking the rest of planet with us.
Now that would be the noble thing to do.
Just trying on another point of view and being the devils advocate..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 5:05pm
Right on! I'm sorry, but this is pipe dream stuff. China, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and others are not going to agree.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/13/2008 @ 12:55pm
nor the united states of cluster bombs.......
"SOUTH AFRICA HAS THE UNIQUE STATUS OF A NATION WHICH DEVELOPED NUCLEAR WEAPONS BUT HAS SINCE DISASSEMBLED ITS ARSENAL BEFORE JOINING THE NPT."
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:19pm
Right on! I'm sorry, but this is pipe dream stuff. China, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and others are not going to agree.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/13/2008 @ 12:55pm
AND OTHERS?!?!?!?!?
what, is this gilligan's island?
name names.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:24pm
Right on! I'm sorry, but this is pipe dream stuff. China, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and others are not going to agree.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/13/2008 @ 12:55pm
A difficulty with the Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone concept is defining suitable zone areas, such that zone neighbours are not considered nuclear threats. For example it was reported in 1996 that no African Arab state will ratify the Treaty of Pelindaba until Israel, which is just outside the zone, renounces its nuclear weapons program; however, Algeria and Libya have since ratified it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:26pm
Right on! I'm sorry, but this is pipe dream stuff. China, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and others are not going to agree.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/13/2008 @ 12:55pm
Initially, Japanese critics accused the film of exploiting the widespread devastation that the country had suffered in World War II, as well as the Daigo Fukuryū Maru incident that occurred a few months before filming began.[citation needed] However, as time went on, it gained more respect in its home country, even becoming widely regarded as an exceptionally well-made film second only to Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:28pm
Right on! I'm sorry, but this is pipe dream stuff. China, N Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and others are not going to agree.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/13/2008 @ 12:55pm
The explosion generated Alpha, Beta, Gamma and neutron rays. Alpha and Beta rays were absorbed by the air and did not reach to the ground. Gamma and neutron rays were strong enough to reach the ground; thus it was these rays that affected people. Within 1/16 mile radius from the explosion center, most people died within a few hours (even in the case where they were not directly exposed to the heat or wind). Within a half mile radius, most people died within 30 days after the explosion.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:31pm
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:31pm
not you, larry. you're just "misguided". :=]
i mean "us".
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:32pm
Is there ant way to produce a bomb that would just kill humans? And leave everything else healthy and happy? Now that would be a bomb to shoot for. Then we could just wipe each other out at will without disturbing the ecosystem.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 5:56pm
Since the entire conversation, production, deployment and use of nuclear weapons is clearly insane. We may as well think out of the box here..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 6:04pm
Alpha and Beta rays were absorbed by the air and did not reach to the ground. Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 5:31pm |
So what happened to those Alpha and Beta rays that were absorbed by the air? They like didn't drift around anywhere did they? And maybe find their way into somebodys lungs somewhere did they? Hmmm. Naw they just kinda went away. No lung cancer or anything I'll bet..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 6:17pm
Why is it alright for some countries to have nuclear weapons and others not...do they not have the same rights to protect their country? You hear that same old reason, nuclear weapons can't be held by certain countries as they are "bad".....who died and made the US, Russia and others the King's of perfection and righteousness? It would be a better world all round if NOBODY owned any at all, maybe then we could think about a more peaceful world free of all this nonsensical WAR MACHINERY!!! An ideal world I think, but in my dreams only I'm sure!!
Posted by Caj at 12/13/2008 @ 6:42pm
who died and made the US, Russia and others the King's of perfection and righteousness?Posted by Caj at 12/13/2008 @ 6:42pm
It's called World War II. Perhaps you've heard of it.
It's not the nukyular arsenals themselves that bother me, as much as the fact that the arsenal includes THOUSANDS of weapons.
Overkill much? Some sort of male phallic-obsession I suppose, but seriously...
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/13/2008 @ 6:53pm
A world without nuclear weapons would be so much less expensive! Think of what we could do with the extra money!
I believe the world ultimately will be able to afford only one nuclear bomb. We'll all have to chip in to maintain it and to guard it against terrorists, but this will be a solidarity-building activity. Then maybe, after a few centuries of co-operative, trust-building management of the world's sole nuclear stockbomb, we'll collectively decide to defuse it and replace it with a cheap replica. This will stand in a museum to commemorate humanity's turbulent preadolescence.
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/13/2008 @ 7:17pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 12/13/2008 @ 7:17pm
LOL.. preadolesence.. Yes! that's what we are. Little prepube children with matches and no adult supervision. If God does exist it is an absent parent.. And quite irresponsible at that.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 7:45pm
We should arrest God and put it on trial for child abuse. And make it pay support. Since we are little creators without guidance we should be compensated. Orphans of the Universe should not be held responsible for their excesses and actions. We are under age..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 7:53pm
i wonder if god'll let me use the car tonight.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/13/2008 @ 8:04pm
Only if you bring it back with the tank full, Beav.
Posted by chaoszen at 12/13/2008 @ 8:09pm
Here's to the idealistic utopian dreamers of the world! (I am with you.)But seriously, very few if any of the A-bomb nations would ever get rid of their nukes. As long as one nation has them, others will be fearful. Nice idea,KVH. But no chance.
Posted by philbq at 12/14/2008 @ 03:22am
Just don't ban nukes on the sun...
It'll be worse than global warming.
Posted by bleedingheart at 12/14/2008 @ 10:09am
Seriously, it would be insane to completely get rid of all nukes. Not only would some enemies secretly keep some, but we may eventually need them to fend off threatening asteroids. This is a serious threat. Not long ago we watched a comet break up and strike Jupiter several times. Still, I think we should always strive to reduce nukes to some manageable number.
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/14/2008 @ 6:06pm
Seriously, it would be insane to completely get rid of all nukes. Not only would some enemies secretly keep some, but we may eventually need them to fend off threatening asteroids. This is a serious threat. Not long ago we watched a comet break up and strike Jupiter several times. Still, I think we should always strive to reduce nukes to some manageable number.
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/14/2008 @ 6:06pm
LOL
Yes, we can fend off asteroids using nuclear warheads...
Do you realize how dumb that sounds?
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/14/2008 @ 7:52pm
I don't mean to be THAT harsh, but for humans to deflect/destroy a fatal meteor is virtually impossible. Hell, and incoming meteor would be hard enough to see coming, let alone to blow it out of the sky.
Regardless, NOT a good justification for nukes.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/14/2008 @ 7:54pm
<i>Yes, we can fend off asteroids using nuclear warheads...
Do you realize how dumb that sounds?
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/14/2008 @ 7:52pm</i>
Now that's a little unfair. Haven't you seen the movie Armageddon? :D
Posted by Thrawn at 12/14/2008 @ 9:38pm
The pessimistic assertion that Reagan was full of S*&T, by Reagan lickers here is hilarious:
Trust but VERIFY.
So Reagan was A- stupid? Thought verification was possible, or B- lying? Knew verification was not possible.
Idiotic discussion -- exasperating endtimers Larr and Happ can't stop their hostility, ever. Same fools were all over WMDs in Iraq.
Of course, both hiding and finding technologies are in a race. Of course, no one can guarantee hiding technologies won't take the lead at times, in some country for some period. AND of course, the entire current world security situation is based on reality-based understanding of the messy, imperfect, but reality-science-grounded-truth in Reagan's call to VERIFY. Remember fools, it's based in the fact that secret nukes require HUMANs. that such HUMANs who have super valuable information can't be bribed, persuaded, tricked, surveiled into revealing their secrets.
Oh yeah - - one world order endtimer Bilderberg Illuminati, aliens on top of the pyramid on the dollar bill!
By these Endtimer paranoid loser's definition, Canada, Mexico, hell, Haiti, the Vatican HAS nukes right NOW.
Posted by winyahn at 12/14/2008 @ 10:13pm
ALSO of course a meteor's course can be altered by nukes. I've personally witnessed this. See, I was in my friend's flat in Soho in 1973. Long story, but let's just say you all wouldn't be here otherwise.
Posted by winyahn at 12/14/2008 @ 10:18pm
Eliminating nuclear weapons will only happen when evil is eliminated in the hearts of all men. Nuclear weapons are simply a symptom of that evil.
Without addressing the evil, eliminating all nuclear weapons is meaningless and impossible.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/14/2008 @ 10:35pm
It's not a matter of "if" asteroids will hit the Earth. It's a matter of "when". A comet recently was torn apart by Jupiter's gravity and struck it directly numerous times. Had it instead hit Earth, we would all be dead today. Asteroids and comets have struck Earth repeatedly throughout its history. Earth bears the scars to prove it. It may sound dumb to be concerned with this threat, but it's a real threat nonetheless. The US and the world at large are steadily increasing budgets to detect and deter wayward space objects. Getting rid of nukes might someday relegate humans to the status of the dinosaurs--and we all know what happened to them. What would really be stupid is if we all go extinct because of our own irrational fears and decisions, as well as our refusal to focus on real threats, no matter how fantastic they may seem to some idealistic folks. I personally believe the threat of asteroid extinction is greater than the threat of a nuclear attack by a rogue nation. Yet we spend over $10 billion a year (last I heard) on deploying SDI anti-missile systems that until recently, and maybe still, doesn't work.
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/15/2008 @ 08:31am
Eliminating nuclear weapons will only happen when evil is eliminated in the hearts of all men. Nuclear weapons are simply a symptom of that evil.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/14/2008 @ 10:35pm
Eliminating PLAYGROUND SAND THROWING, jaywalking and damning with faint praise will only happen when evil is eliminated in the hearts of all men. Nuclear weapons are simply a symptom of that evil.
Without addressing the evil, eliminating all nuclear weapons is meaningless and impossible.
Right up there with Happ and Fearmonger Larr. Way to go Frei.
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 08:44am
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 08:44am
Little discouraged seeing you compare the evil of nuclear weapons with playground sand throwing and jaywalking as a way to express your disagreement with me.
I'm guessing you can't accept the concept of evil because you can't accept the concept of good either as being something outside of man.
I see. Okay, maybe your faith is in man, not in God. Good luck with that.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/15/2008 @ 09:46am
'Today is Dec. 7, the day that this government killed over 80,000 Japanese civilians at Hiroshima in 1941, two days before killing an additional 64,000 Japanese civilians at Nagasaki by dropping nuclear bombs on innocent people.' -- Jeremiah Wright -- 7 December, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/15/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by winyahn at 12/14/2008 @ 10:13pm
Uh, actually, something that HAPPY and LVLIB may not know (or WANT to know)...
REAGAN wanted a total disarmament with Gorbachev, but it fell through.
Posted by Mask at 12/15/2008 @ 12:06pm
ALSO of course a meteor's course can be altered by nukes. I've personally witnessed this. See, I was in my friend's flat in Soho in 1973. Long story, but let's just say you all wouldn't be here otherwise.
Posted by winyahn at 12/14/2008 @ 10:18pm
Err....okay.
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/15/2008 @ 08:31am
And you're being a presumptuous idiot bestowing information upon me that I'm already well aware of.
BUT your idea that we can target an incoming meteor with a nuclear weapon, and manage to actually hit it, is daft, and bordering on retarded. You realize how little of a window there would be to actually discover an incoming rock, let alone hit it with something? By the time anybody knew what was coming it would be all over.
As if there's anything humanity can do in this day and age to prevent such a thing. Maybe we should nuke Yellowstone Park to keep it from erupting.
I have a pretty nasty case of athlete's foot. I'll just nuke it away!
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/15/2008 @ 12:10pm
Yes, we can fend off asteroids using nuclear warheads...
Do you realize how dumb that sounds?
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/14/2008 @ 7:52pm
Almost (but not quite) as dumb as man-made global warming.
Posted by fram at 12/15/2008 @ 12:51pm
You can hope and pray all day long that we will eliminate nukes, but you will never eliminate the knowledge to make them. Therein lies the fallacy of ridding ourselves of them.
Posted by fram at 12/15/2008 @ 1:02pm
Almost (but not quite) as dumb as man-made global warming.----Posted by fram at 12/15/2008 @ 12:51pm
fram...easy questions-
Who'd you vote for for President last month?
What was HIS view on MMGW?
Does that mean they were "dumb"?
If so, why do you vote for "dumb" people?
Posted by Mask at 12/15/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by fram at 12/15/2008 @ 12:51pm
Debate to your hearts content. But, simply remember one fact:
Un-sequestering the carbon that nature sequestered over to course of millions of years... in a couple hundred years... WILL have SOME effect.
Call it global warming/cooling... whatever. There are too many variables to be sure about anything, except that nature doesn't turn that fast on it's own and there are tipping points beyond which we will be able to have any influence.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 12/15/2008 @ 6:47pm
Don't forget to set the alarm, change your oil and save for your retirement.
But, don't worry about our influence on the earth, which future generations depend.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/15/2008 @ 6:49pm
Frei, You skipped over the heart of my message. So I don't expect you or Happ/LV to answer these:
You'd prefer the alternative to the inherently messy enterprise of disarmament?
You'd prefer the alternative to the inherently messy enterprise of 'ending world hunger', 'the scourge of AIDs', 'human trafficking'?
Amazing contortions of logic to believe yourself to be right!
And why bring God into this, all your talk of nonjudgement and woe, the embedded damnation claim sure slips past your lips fast.
You need God to prove evil, and evil to prove Reagan's call to disarm was folly?
Why doesn't human's curse of sin, fallenness, evil, etc., also make efforts less severe also moot - playground bullying? Telling someone you don't know they don't believe in God, etc. It all comes from the evil heart of man.
You're pessimism regarding man, made in the image of God, is not foolish at all, just onesided. Man has other dimensions. One of which is an inability to keep a secret for long. Hence, Reagan's call has an imperfect, messy potential, e.g., 'beats the alternative'.
But again, you like LV and Happ believe that we the whole imperfect enterprise of disarmament is not the 'lesser of evils'???
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 10:28pm
You can hope and pray all day long that we will eliminate nukes, but you will never eliminate the knowledge to make them. Therein lies the fallacy of ridding ourselves of them.
Posted by fram at 12/15/2008 @ 1:02pm
Yes, of course. And the sky is blue. What's your point?
What are you FOR not against?
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 10:35pm
What are you FOR not against?
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 10:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm for everything good and against everything bad, myself...
but once you open pandora's box...
lofty goal but not gonna happen.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/15/2008 @ 11:03pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/15/2008 @ 12:10pm : "BUT your idea that we can target an incoming meteor with a nuclear weapon, and manage to actually hit it, is daft, and bordering on retarded..."
We have already demonstrated our ability to strike comets with man-made space vehicles. And the idea is to stop these threats BEFORE they become meteors.
Yes, we have miles to go before we can identify and stop all space-born threats, but the point is we need to keep working at improving our ability to do so, not stand around screaming that we are defenseless like you are doing.
Nukes may or may not some day play a part in our defense against these objects. But right now we can't assume they aren't needed for this purpose. It would be the ultimate statement of human stupidity if we later became extinct by an asteroid we could have stopped if only we hadn't banned all nukes.
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/16/2008 @ 08:44am
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/16/2008 @ 08:44am | ignore this person | warn this person
a seemingly "far out" possibility we really should prepare for. and a great use for nukes...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 09:46am
Posted by S Thornton at 12/13/2008 @ 1:05pm
Hardly. We know what a world looks like with everyone's finger on the trigger. It's the Wild West, and sooner or later, it will leave people living in a post-apocalyptic world waiting out the radioactive isotopes and undergoing accelerated evolutionary adaptation.
Posted by Malcontent at 12/15/2008 @ 6:47pm
What, me worry? Besides, once the super-volcano in Yellowstone (or elsewhere)blows, we will all become the gas for future generations.
You cannot mitigate all threats to human survival without decentralizing the population by creating sustainable populations on this and other planets.
Posted by srjenkins at 12/16/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by winyahn at 12/15/2008 @ 10:28pm
Great, thoughtful post winyahn. I apologize for my presumption of knowing your beliefs regarding God, good and evil. Thank you for calling me out on that because it is not who I want to be.
But as I assumed your beliefs, you assumed I stated that efforts to disarm are fruitless. I said nothing of the sort. I said, "Without addressing the evil, eliminating all nuclear weapons is meaningless and impossible."
I stand by that statement.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/16/2008 @ 11:37am
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/16/2008 @ 08:44am
NO, we have exhibited our ability to strike an extraterrestrial object after planning for it for months, and knowing the trajectory and exact destination of said comet before firing. The surface of the Earth has been getting pounded by giant balls of space rack for millions and millions of years. I'm not standing anywhere, nor am I "screaming" that we're defenseless, but at this point in time, what you're talking about is sheer fantasy.
Oh, and by the way, complete extinction of the human race due to a meteor is pretty unlikely, although not due in any part to our stockpile (or lack thereof) of nuclear warheads.
"You cannot mitigate all threats to human survival without decentralizing the population by creating sustainable populations on this and other planets."
Posted by srjenkins at 12/16/2008 @ 11:30am
Bingo.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/16/2008 @ 4:07pm
Still waiting on LVLIB or HAPPY to explain why RONALD REAGAN was a "naive fool" for proposing a total nuclear disarmament to Gorbachev at Reykjavik?
http://www.boston.com /bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/11/23/ no_nukes/?page=2
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 4:27pm
I don't know if anyone watched Charlie Rose's interview with British foreign secretary George Millenband last night, but this hypocrite self-righteously condemned Iran for daring to want to obtain a nuclear stockpile, while not uttering a word of condemnation against Israel, a non-signatory of the IAEA whose illegal nuclear arsenal is what is provoking Iran and all other Arab states to follow suit in the first place. What a joke! Israel is allowed to have the bomb but no one else? Pullease!! Get a life.
Posted by mystic at 12/16/2008 @ 5:36pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/16/2008 @ 11:37am
Very classy of you! And please forgive my hostility. I'd be inclined the agree with the statement on evil. All this would turn of course on what you mean by addressing evil... Any pragmatic examples say with respect to some rogue regime, North Korean or Iranian?
Hardly a Christmas topic.
Posted by winyahn at 12/16/2008 @ 11:17pm
Texas, despite your objections, scientists think we will someday be able to fend off asteroids and other objects. We can't do it today, but that doesn't mean we can't do it tomorrow. If we get rid of all nukes, then we may (or maybe not) be getting rid of our one tool we have of saving ourselves from these future threats. And yes, the idea of eliminating a threat necessitates our ability to identify and act on them at an early point. No one here except you is talking about deflecting or destroying "meteors".
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/17/2008 @ 08:26am
Posted by winyahn at 12/16/2008 @ 11:17pm
During a season when one continually hears about peace on earth, what better time is there to talk about nuclear disarmament, peace and the role of evil that makes them seem such a remote possibility?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2008 @ 09:59am
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/17/2008 @ 08:26am
Actually, Lomi, the projections I've seen on avert asteroid collisions, indicates that massed nuclear attack would be either useless or simply result in slightly less, but still monumental environmental destruction.
By that, I mean, an asteroid that even COULD be destroyed by nuclear bombardment, would merely break-up into several smaller chunks, that would still survive re-entry and spread the destruction across a larger swath of the Earth. A disasterous climate change would be avoided, but millions would still die under the firestorms and likely destruction of urban areas. Plus, the debries would likely be tainted with radioactivity.
And all that is presuming that nuclear bombardment would WORK. Larger asteroids would "blunt" the attacks (they typically have iron/nickel composition and are tough as steel...almost literally) and the impacts would just "dent the surface".
Actually, the most USEFUL way to deflect an asteroid is by LANDING ON IT weeks or months in advance, and setting up an ion or VASIMIR rocket on it and gradually nudging it into a different trajectory.
So...want to spend the "nuke" money on something useful...put it in NASA and new telescopes.
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 10:07am
Posted by winyahn at 12/16/2008 @ 11:17pm
Winyahn, my comments on evil certainly weren't relative to our enemies or specific rogue states. It was a call for ALL of us to look inward, not outward to find the roots of why nuclear weapons even exist at all.
Maybe that's what Christmas is really all about.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/17/2008 @ 10:16am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 12:56pm
But RONALD REAGAN (with SDI intact) WAS calling for a total nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union....wasn't he?
And as an RR fan...you'd have...
supported that?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 3:59pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 12:56pm & Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 3:59pm
Perhaps you already know all this history, but just in case have a look:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/wittner.html
If I read this right, that dern LV may have a point.
Posted by winyahn at 12/17/2008 @ 9:01pm
Mask, yes I agree with most of that. However, the science on asteroid-nuking is still young, and I believe some scientists believe there are cases where nuking may be the optimal solution. For example, some small asteroids may need "help" breaking up such that they then burn up on contact with our atmosphere. Without that nuclear help they may survive the fiery descent toward Earth and cause grave damage.
Posted by Lomilialor at 12/17/2008 @ 11:17pm
Posted by winyahn at 12/17/2008 @ 9:01pm
He has a point...upto a point. The point where he "reads Reagan's mind" and determines that "Reagan knew that Gorby would refuse". What if Gorby called Reagan's bluff (if we even accept that it WAS a bluff)?
The rest is true. But again, imagine if some LIBERAL had offered to get rid of all nukes and offered to SHARE TECHNOLOGY with the Russkies?!??!?
Those who make Reagan a secular saint of the conservative ideology, might want to take a closer look sometime. Despite the stereotype of the Left AND Right of him as a "gungho warmonger" (or "stalwart who went eyeball-to-eyeball with the Commies" if they prefer)...
there was some "grey area".
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 10:17am
Dear Katrina vanden Heuvel
Check out a website called blackcoptermedia.com, It is weird have not seen that style of opinion writing in awhile America Foreclosed and Bush is a Klingon is weird. Crazy poster gallery, a collection of 85 posters.
Peace
Posted by sidthekidney at 12/18/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by sidthekidney at 12/18/2008 @ 12:06pm
Really, there's nothing more annoying that this one-timer newbies who just show up to promote their websites.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 12:12pm
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 10:17am
Good analysis as always. I think you're introducing a second or background variabl to the narrower discussion of the actual possibility of Reagan's call for disarmament: LV's slobbering luv for all things Ronnie.
In terms of the narrow point, LV appears to be correct that one can't prove Reagan believed in the science of disarmament given the evidence this was primarily some variant of a bluff.
I do agree with your assessment of LVs hypocrisy, that no matter the issue, the Larry-brain equation is Reagan good, Liberal equivalent bad.
Posted by winyahn at 12/19/2008 @ 9:44pm