Nuclear reduction: Obama makes good on another campaign platform

[riddler 0]

He said he wants to eliminate nuclear weapons (and he can even pronounce nuclear, which is a bonus). Today, the U.S. and Russia agreed to reduce stockpiles by as much as 1/3.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090706/ap_on_re_eu/obama

Quote

The document signed by the two leaders at a Moscow summit, Obama's first in Russia, is meant as a guide for negotiators as the nations work toward a replacement pact for the START arms control agreement that expires in December. The joint understanding also commits the countries to lower longer-range missiles for delivering nuclear bombs to between 500 and 1,100.

It makes sense. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they cost too much money to maintain, money that could be better spent on healthcare and education for our citizens.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Nuclear weapons are irrelevant...

Ah, good to know.

So it shouldn't matter if the Iranians build a couple hundred, right? Or if the Israeli's decide to use some on the Iranians? I mean, after all, they're irrelevant, right?

Quote

they cost too much money to maintain...

Just curious if you have any numbers on the relative costs of maintenance v. decommissioning. I don't have any numbers on that, but it sounds like you probably do. Can you point me at them?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It makes sense. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant, they cost too much money to maintain, money that could be better spent on healthcare and education for our citizens.

They've kept the peace for over 60 years. And Global wars are pretty expensive. You don't need 10000 of them for this benefit, but you do need them.

[rushmc 23]

Yep, he gotter done. Papers signed verification in place.

Hell man, Obama said that is not done yet.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[happythoughts 0]

Roll call - HR 7081 - Giving India nuclear materials

Quote

H.R.7081: To approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and for other purposes.

"... and for other purposes" What? What are the
purposes that are "other" than peaceful?

Of course, it was actually against the law to do so.
They had to change a law that has stood from the 50s that does not allow the sale of nuclear materials
to India.

Obama voted "aye" during his congressional days.
Apparently, this was a political deal.
Somehow, selling nuclear materials to India is
ok if there is a trade agreement.

Some people think that is ok. I do no agree.
Either you are against nuclear non-proliferation or
you are ok with it.

btw, India never did sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So, they didn't bother to agree
to the most minimal responsibility.

[billvon 3,119]

>Either you are against nuclear non-proliferation or you are ok with it.

I am against nuclear weapons proliferation but am for nuclear power proliferation, preferably using non-weapons-proliferation technologies like MOX, CANDU and thorium reactors.

[JohnRich 4]

"I believe it is peace in our time."

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

but am for nuclear power proliferation

So you disagree with the obama on nuclear power in the USA?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Nuclear weapons are irrelevant...

Ah, good to know.

So it shouldn't matter if the Iranians build a couple hundred, right? Or if the Israeli's decide to use some on the Iranians? I mean, after all, they're irrelevant, right?

Quote

they cost too much money to maintain...

Just curious if you have any numbers on the relative costs of maintenance v. decommissioning. I don't have any numbers on that, but it sounds like you probably do. Can you point me at them?

Why don't we just equally distribute the weapons to all the countries that push their nose up at us. We could even make friends with ALL the Arab countries. That should be a nice gesture! Like a stimulus package. Fannie Mae can be in charge of the distribution and paperwork.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,119]

>So you disagree with the obama on nuclear power in the USA?

Not substantially. He is more cautious than I would be, but I think nuclear power is one of the power technologies that will make up our energy future. Quotes from him:

"... as Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs."

"I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense? Because the problem is, is that a lot of our nuclear industry, it reinvents the wheel. Each nuclear power plant that is proposed has a new design, has—it, it has all kinds of changes, there are all sorts of cost overruns. So it has not been an effective option. That doesn't mean that it can't be an effective option, but we're going to have to figure out storage and safety issues. And my attitude when it comes to energy is there's no silver bullet. We've got to be—we've, we've got to look at every possible option."

[Ron 10]

Quote

Nuclear weapons are irrelevant

I know about a million American servicemen from about August 1945 that would disagree.

Quote

Some estimate Allied forces would have suffered 1 million casualties in such a scenario, while Japanese casualties would have been in the millions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rushmc 23]

Keeping this one too? But then, you were warned on this one

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/07/detainees-acquitted-free/

From the WSJ

Quote

Detainees, Even if Acquitted, Might Not Go Free
Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely.
The Wall Street Journal

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

0 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
6 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos

A detainee walks in Camp 4 at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. (AP Graphic)


PEOPLE WHO READ THIS ALSO READ
Mullen: Strike on Iran an Option, But a Bad One 26257406
Google Plans to Unveil PC Operating System 26258222
Palau Asks for More U.S. Funding After Gitmo Deal 26260400
S. Korean Web Sites Paralyzed by Suspected Cyber Attack 26257088
Air Force Denies Request for Flyover at Christian Festival 26252356
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

Johnson said such prisoners held without trial would receive "some form of periodic review" that could lead to their release.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading Republican on detainee policy, approved. "Some of them will be able to get out of jail because they've rehabilitated themselves and some of them may in fact die in jail," Graham said. But "I don't want to put people in a dark hole forever" simply "because somebody like Dick Cheney, or you fill in the blank with a politician, said so."

Also at the hearing, Obama administration officials differed with the Navy's senior uniformed lawyer over whether coerced statements should be used to convict Guantanamo defendants.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

That is one scarry string of pictures dude

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Quote

I know about a million American servicemen from about August 1945 that would disagree.

I'm not saying nuclear weapons have always been irrelevant. I am saying they are currently irrelevant, and have been so for some time now. Let's stop spending money on their maintenance, and use it to address problems in our own country.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am saying they are currently irrelevant, and have been so for some time now.

Wonder how many Koreans agree with you.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

I am saying they are currently irrelevant, and have been so for some time now.

Wonder how many Koreans agree with you.

Doesn't matter.

Koreans are irrelevant.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

I'm not saying nuclear weapons have always been irrelevant. I am saying they are currently irrelevant

Tell that to Israel.

Like it or not, while they work best when not used, IMO. Having a big stick prevents a good number of problems.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,119]

>Having a big stick prevents a good number of problems.

Usually - which is the one value to Israel (or Pakistan, or Iran, or North Korea) having nuclear weapons. The question is - is it worth the downside?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Having a big stick prevents a good number of problems.

Usually - which is the one value to Israel (or Pakistan, or Iran, or North Korea) having nuclear weapons. The question is - is it worth the downside?

For the Israelis, without a doubt. Compare the number of nations/instances that warred against them in the first 25 years (48-73) and the number since (0).

Worth it for NK too. Pakistan - dunno - not a area I pay great attention to.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Usually - which is the one value to Israel (or Pakistan, or Iran, or North Korea) having nuclear weapons. The question is - is it worth the downside?

I'd say no. Regrettably, we don't live in a World where people act reasonably. Without a nuke, Israel would have faced many more attacks than they have.

Without both the US and Russia having Nukes, the one with a nuclear weapons would have been much more aggressive.

Same thing with guns for self protection. If we could stop violent crime, there would never be a need to be able to protect yourself.

N. Korea seems to think that it is worth it.

So, no. In a grand World view nuclear weapons create some very bad situations. But, since we can't get the "bad guys" to agree not to use them and play nice.... Well, they still are a tool that works.

I always find it funny though that people complain about the two atomic weapons the US used... Yet the US killed many, many more with traditional ordinance.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334