Skip to comments.Analysis: Obama no-nukes pledge not so farfetched
Posted on 04/04/2009 6:12:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON President Barack Obama's startling call Friday for a "world without nuclear weapons" brings to mind Ronald Reagan's idealistic, unfulfilled dream of eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Few experts think it's possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons, and many say it wouldn't be a good idea even if it could be done...
"This idea of a nuclear weapons-free world isn't sort of pie in the sky," said Peter Crail, a nonproliferation analyst at the private Arms Control Association...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If not atomic bombs, what then?
US President Barack Obama (R) shakes hands with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a meeting at the Winfield House, the US Ambassador's residence in London. Obama and Medvedev launched a milestone quest Wednesday to slash their nuclear arsenals, hoping to reverse the worst slump in the former foes' ties since the Cold War. (AFP/Saul Loeb)
Without nukes, it would be wise for Americans to learn Chinese, and be quick about it.
If conventional warfare is the only option, manufacturing might and population become key to any war’s outcome. It would appear that China would be holding those trump cards.
US President Barack Obama shakes hands with his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao during their meetings at Winfield House -- the US ambassador's residence in London. Obama and Hu agreed to fight protectionism and work to improve military ties at their first face-to-face meeting. (AFP/Saul Loeb)
“This idea of a nuclear weapons-free world isn’t sort of pie in the sky,”
Oh really, you going to be the one that turns yours in first?
When I heard the comment I wasn’t surprised. Just more of the same from someone who doesn’t know better, but ought to.
THE U.S. IS SO SCREWED FOR ONLY GOD KNOWS EXACTLY HOW LONG!
These anti-nuke “experts” sure are going to be shocked when the muzzies set one off in their neighborhood.
BO is living in a fantasy world.
You can always find an egghead to agree with you on any viewpoint you choose. NPR is the master at doing this; putting the desired spin on their adgenda through the words of some obscure prof. from Whatsamatta U. Fact: prohibition of any kind, once the genie is released is impossible. The only nation that will be w/o nuclear weapons will be the the US (with Obama as commander in chief). Why is anyone listening to this AP dribble?
Oh ppppuuuuuhhhhhh_llllllleeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Don’t put Obama’s naive, dare i say idiotic, idea in the same light as Reagan’s brilliant vision.
LOL, what the heck is a 'nonproferation analyst' and who pays the bills for the Arms Control Association?
You’re right... When bigger, more powerful Countries give up, or even drastically reduce their nuclear stockpiles... That is just going to make nuclear weapons much more desirable for smaller Countries and terrorist organizations. It will make nuclear weapons that much more valuable and relatively powerful. These people advocating a nuclear free world are idealistic fools that will put us at risk.
When nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes.
Ruskies - we got rid of ours, did you get rid of yours?
Bammy - yep.
Ruskies - all of them?
Bammy - yep, all of them.
Ruskies - uh.. well, sorry comrade, you will surrender now. We still have some.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
In the world of no nukes....
I hope we have nukes the first time that we discover a planet killer asteroid or comet on a collision course with earth.
Few people imagine the atomic bomb as an evolving weapons system, but in truth, that is what it is.
The first nuclear bombs were designed to be dropped by aircraft, but almost immediately they had to be reconfigured for the new Nazi technology, the ballistic missile. Missiles had a long way to go before they could carry major payloads, though, so long range bombers were still essential.
Once the Rosenberg and other Soviet spy rings had stolen US technology, the evolution of nuclear weapons changed again. This was because the Russians were obsessed with weapons size. They kept building larger and larger bombs until they had built one that would pretty much destroy a continent.
The US went in the other direction, with both its missiles and its bombs getting smaller, yet more powerful, through miniaturization.
Yet on top of this both the US an Russia started building smaller and smaller bombs, some that could be put in an artillery shell, with explosive force only about double that of a high explosive round.
From that, the emphasis was on putting multiple warheads on a single missile, and getting more and more yield from less nuclear material.
But since the time of Richard Nixon, as much or more emphasis has been put on anti-missile defenses. A nuke only works if you can get it to its target. And since Ronald Reagan, such weapons have become so good that much of the world’s missiles would be destroyed anyway.
The current state is the development of directed energy weapons that can shoot down missiles long before they are a threat. So nuclear weapons are no longer the ultimate weapon.
Zero’s education in the real world will be costly for normal Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.