Skip to comments.Obama launches effort to reduce nuclear arms ("real and immediate consequences")
Posted on 04/05/2009 5:53:32 AM PDT by maggief
PRAGUE President Barack Obama on Sunday launched an effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons, calling them "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and saying the U.S. has a moral responsibility to lead as the only nation to ever use one.
In a speech driven with fresh urgency by North Korea's rocket launch just hours earlier, Obama said the U.S. would "immediately and aggressively" seek ratification of a comprehensive ban on testing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. would host a summit within the next year on reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, and he called for a global effort to secure nuclear material.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
US President Barack Obama delivers his speech in Prague, Czech Republic, Sunday, April 5, 2009. Obama will also attend a summit between the United States and the 27-member European Union in Prague later on Sunday. In background is the St. Nicholas church.
He’s a colossal idiot.
Peace through weakness has never worked in the history of mankind.
Let’s see, how can Obama divert attention from the economy? How about propose something that sounds really nice but is probably impossible?
I listened to some clips of this on Fox. I had to laugh when he spoke of rules must be enforced and words have meanings. He was speaking of the UN sanctions...It immediately took me back to the case against Iraq.
Oh, for God’s sake. I did not watch the speech. Did he apologize for the U S dropping the bomb in WWII?
Obamarama World Tour 2009. He truly thinks he is going to save the world.
He’s going to make his really, really mad face if they don’t behave.
obama’s in deep denial about the real world, and he’s willing to take us all down proving himself right.
I really do wonder what our enemies think of him. (That is if we still have enemies . . . /sarc)
Obama said North Korea’s launch emphasizes the urgency of the denuclearization agenda and also warned Iran that it had a choice on its nuclear ambitions.
“We will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy,or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations,” he said.
The president pledged to work with partners for the “denuclearization of North Korea through the six-party” process.
“We believe in dialogue,” Obama said.
Which, if successful, would instantly make China the master of the planet.
I agree with the post above, Obama is an idiot. Or he would be, if we could trust his motives.
That stupid motherf-—er has no idea of what he’s talking about.
The fact is, nuclear weapons are the reason that the United States was able to maintain military superiority over BOTH the old Soviet Union and Communist China for decades, why?
Because the military forces of those two nations easily outnumbered us so far as conventional warfare was concerned.
IF we had ended up in a war with either Moscow or Peking, their numerical superiority would have spelled curtains for us.
Nuclear weapons gave us an advantage which nullified any advantage the Communists might have in numbers, and that is a VERY good thing.
A good example of this was General MacArthur’s understanding of how atomic weapons could have been used to wipe out the ChiComs swarming across the Yalu during the Korean War, he advocated the atomic option and that would have wiped out those Commie hordes like a can of RAID sprayed into a nest of roaches. Unfortunately MacArthur didn’t know what President Harry Truman knew, which was that the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal at that point in time, consisted of 13 and ONLY 13 Nagasaki-style atomic bombs, all of which had to be hand assembled and transported to the air crews that would have to carry them, and they HAD to be held in reserve for their deterrent value in stopping the Soviets if Moscow had chosen to invade Western Europe.
MacArthur had the right idea, he just didn’t know that our nuclear quiver only had 13 arrows in it.
Fast forward 56 years, and Comrade 0bama thinks that his utopian pipe dream of a ‘nuclear free world’ is not only achievable, that it will result in a complete change of philosophy in the collective minds of our enemies.
He is a fool.
It was a campaign speech...he waved his finger, sounded really angry and said “yes we can!” And the crowds cheered.
What's with all the telepromtors then?He can't do without them.Anybody can read somebody else's words off a video screen.Is Soros giving him a live feed,telling him what to say?
They are actually a legacy of WW II, but hey--that's what happens when King Abdul buys an Ivy League eddication for you.
There are smaller nations that depend on our presence for their own security.
The reality is that right now the only hope this country has is if a Dem steps off the reservation. A Dem with power. A Dem who does not have his head up Obama’s ass (or Pelosi’s or Michelle's)
Amen! My thought exactly. I woke up with this idiot blathering, and my thought was “Whatcha gonna do, “Uh”bama, if a rogue leader insists upon following the WMD path, and his buds in the UN refuse to stop him? Invade with just a few friends, or even unilaterally????? Sound familiar?”
All around the globe, grins are appearing on faces that haven't cracked a smile in years.
It would certainly make America the patsy.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what his game is here. Obviously, we could unilaterally disarm under the ruse of an "agreement" but what happens when it inevitably surfaces that our adversaries are not complying? We then learn to live under conditions of nuclear blackmail. Nice work Obongo.
Well, Peking not so much. But Moscow for a certainty. Nukes were essential to keeping the peace in Europe and assuring its survival against the Red Army.
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.
In the world of no nukes....
In a conventional war without nuclear weapons or ICBMs, all three of these powers would be unconquerable. We wouldn't be able to invade and conquer either USSR or China, but then they wouldn't be able to invade and conquer USA.
Due to its massive population, we wouldn't be able to conquer China without using methods utterly unacceptable to the American public. We would probably have had to kill at least a hundred million people, and Americans wouldn't have stood for it.
The geographical size and conventional military power of the USSR also made it invulnerable to conquest.
OTOH, neither China nor Russia would have been able to even get at North America. They could have conquered Eurasia and possibly Africa between them, but they never came close to having the water transport capacity or naval power to launch a successful invasion of North America. Our conventional navy always outclassed theirs by a ridiculous degree.
What nuclear weapons and the fear of their use really did is protect Europe from conquest by USSR. They have prevented WWIV for well over 60 years. That's a pretty good thing.
Also, one may argue with some credibility that the world would be a better place had nukes not been invented. But since everyone knows they are possible, and roughly how to make them, I fail to see how destroying existing stocks would make us any safer. In the gun-free (or nuke-free) zone, the guy who breaks the rule is King.
Nahh. Give me a reasonable method by which China could launch a successful cross-Pacific invasion of North America.
Our inability to invade and conquer them does not imply their ability to invade and conquer us.
So the idiot wants to start with us becoming nuclear free — what a lamebrain idiot or shall I say we now have our Manchurian Candidate Muslim.
Gee, a “Test Ban Treaty!” Only someone with the Godlike qualities of our Messiah could have thought of something like that, huh? No wonder it’s never been considered before!!
“he called for a global effort to secure nuclear material.”
First we’ll invite international inspectors to monitor our sites. Syrians, Egyptians, Indonesions, Nigerians, Venezuelans...etc etc
then everyone else can follow our example ...
“”-The 56th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Chantilly, Virginia, USA 5 8 June 2008. The Conference will deal mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran.””
0bama is just carrying the water for the people who got him where he is today. No biggie.
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING is going to put it back in the bottle. There is NO international treaty or regime, minus a world-wide tyranny (which WILL keep the right to such arms for itself) that will prevent tyrants and would-be tyrants from building such arms, when they really want to. (How many years of ‘gun control’ laws have we had and how much easier is it for a criminal to get a gun than it is for citizen to get one legally??).
Thus, the moral nations who would abhor using such weapons, and have used them but once, and only as a last resort, MUST be prepared, with such weapons on hand AS A DETERRENT TO THE TYRANTS. Nuclear weapons are no more the problem in geo-political violence than are handguns in civil violence. Who has them and who would use them first is always the problem.
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.