Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elbaradei: U.S. Should Set Nuclear Disarm Example
Reuters ^ | 8/26/03 | Louis Charbonneau

Posted on 08/26/2003 1:00:51 PM PDT by TastyManatees

Elbaradei: U.S. Should Set Nuclear Disarm Example
Tue August 26, 2003 11:52 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog called on the United States Tuesday to set an example to the rest of the world by cutting its nuclear arsenal and halting research programs. "The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point," ElBaradei told Stern in the interview released ahead of publication.

The IAEA director, who has overseen inspections of nuclear sites in Iraq, North Korea and Iran over the past year for half a decade said the world's five original nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- should send a clear message to the world that they were disarming.

"Otherwise, we must live with the consequences. At the moment we are, at best acting, like the fire brigade. Today Iraq, tomorrow North Korea, the day after Iran. And then?" ElBaradei said.

Under the terms of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact aimed at stopping the spread of atomic weapons, the five original nuclear powers were permitted to keep their nuclear arsenals but agreed to negotiate terms for full global disarmament in good faith.

Nuclear nonproliferation experts have complained that Washington is undermining the goal of global disarmament with statements about its interest in exploring smaller scale atomic weapons, like nuclear "bunker-busters."

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in Vienna)


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: america; disarm; iaea; nuclear; un
Wow.

Tasty Manatees
1 posted on 08/26/2003 1:00:51 PM PDT by TastyManatees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Is ElBaredi Arabic for Dumba$$??
2 posted on 08/26/2003 1:02:33 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (This is hughly series, please be spefic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
No, he's correct. We should reduce the numbers of our Nukes.
It's not to late to send them to the places where they should have gone 9/12/01.
3 posted on 08/26/2003 1:06:59 PM PDT by ASA Vet ("No Comment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
LOL. Good guys put down your guns first.
4 posted on 08/26/2003 1:07:00 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (When does the next Crusade start?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
I dunno why they mind bunker busters, when we could just use 1.2 megaton B83's to get the job done too.
5 posted on 08/26/2003 1:09:30 PM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Good point.
6 posted on 08/26/2003 1:09:46 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (This is hughly series, please be spefic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
He's right. You have to be kind of a egocentric dipwad not to see that. We don't need em. Nobody needs em. It's hard to be a convincing preacher holding a nuclear howitzer behind your back.
7 posted on 08/26/2003 1:10:17 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
You're kidding I hope.
8 posted on 08/26/2003 1:11:41 PM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
and since it's the fastest way to parity with the USA you would think we'd pursue that avenue. That's a slap upside the head that I had never received. Wow.
9 posted on 08/26/2003 1:11:42 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
no. We don't need them. We have a far superior standing military. I figure we are the next to be on the receiving end of a nuke. Us or Israel. And it'll result in a billion of deaths in Islamakazi land. I figure the end time will have Israel unleashing some nukes in response to their destruction along with their secret arsenal of genetically specific mutagens. Israel is probably more hip on developing those as the response than nukes. Too much desert and too many targets for nukes to obliterate their enemy. Only a pandemic can get the job done.
10 posted on 08/26/2003 1:14:54 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Well you're wrong. China and north korea and whatever islamic nation next will load up on them, regardless of what we do. And if we disarm, just wait until they get lobbed our way.

This is the same idiocy I heard in the 80's. Was stupid then, is stupid now.
11 posted on 08/26/2003 1:16:27 PM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
"Otherwise, we must live with the consequences. At the moment we are, at best acting, like the fire brigade. Today Iraq, tomorrow North Korea, the day after Iran. And then?" ElBaradei said."

After that, perhaps Syria, Egypt, Saidi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, Yemen etc.

Any warning from a muslim for me to disarm, is BS. They outnumber us by 3 or 4 to one.
12 posted on 08/26/2003 1:16:30 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Neither ElBaraei, his wife, his daughter or his son live in Egypt, his birthplace. Now why is that? Could it be that Egypt under the military is a very scarey place to live? Would ElBaradei suggest that Egypt have nuclear weapons, just to even things out a bit? I'll bet not. As an educated Egyptian, albeit a bureaucrat (something the Egyptians have been working at for 5,000 years), he must be perfectly aware that the Muslim mind-set has not moved much beyond the 12th Century.

Now ElBaradei can babble away, as Egyptians will, but it scares me to think that Islam might be now rushing pell-mell into the 14th Century.

13 posted on 08/26/2003 1:17:24 PM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
So that chowderhead hasn't heard about the recent agreement between the U.S. and Russia for still futher reductions in nuclear arms? Or about the closure of the Rocky Flats nuclear arms plant?
14 posted on 08/26/2003 1:20:00 PM PDT by colorado tanker (Iron Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
We don't need them. We have a far superior standing military. I figure we are the next to be on the receiving end of a nuke.

So you’re advocating that we bring our “far superior” knife to the upcoming gun fight?

I will not vote for you, should you choose to run.

15 posted on 08/26/2003 1:23:02 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Hey ElBaradei, ever read this -

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

It's called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you're in charge of enforcing it.

For those interested, there is some great background here -

http://www.usun-vienna.rpo.at/npt1.htm
16 posted on 08/26/2003 1:23:18 PM PDT by Weimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
A couple of Saudi towns come to mind...
17 posted on 08/26/2003 1:25:17 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

Typical response of the leftists, America haters. Since they are completely unable to make the world safe, they propose to make therest of the world equally unsafe.

We can either live in a world of unequal freedom and happiness, vast difference in wealth, and varying degrees of safety or we can live in a world where except for a few elites, everyone is equally enslaved, miserable, poor, and unsafe.

18 posted on 08/26/2003 1:29:27 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monty22
That's right. . .in the words of an old squadron T-shirt. . .

An empty bomb bay. . .a mushroom-shaped cloud. . .and NOW, it's Miller Time !!!!

(until Miller Brewing objected, and threatened to sue. . .after which, production moved to South Korea and the Phillipines. . . .)

19 posted on 08/26/2003 1:34:20 PM PDT by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dead
If your gun fight is a nuke fight then what exactly is the point? The destruction of the world? I doubt we will respond with Nukes if and when the challenge is made in the form of a nuke detonated here. Therefore, what is the deterrent when the opponent is illogical.
20 posted on 08/26/2003 1:42:18 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
That missile shield's going to be worthless when the attack comes in the form of a few chinese made cruise missiles fired off the deck of some dilapidated freighter that makes it close enough to US land.
21 posted on 08/26/2003 1:44:24 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
So not building it makeus safer?
22 posted on 08/26/2003 1:47:46 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
There's only one thing to say: What a @#$%*& idiot!
23 posted on 08/26/2003 1:49:34 PM PDT by mil-vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I'd rather see us bankrupt ourselves on the power grid :). There are no easy solutions and Elwhathisname is prescient to see this.
24 posted on 08/26/2003 1:49:41 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
We need to keep all our options open in the coming conflicts. We are not France, and we will do what it takes to defend our nation.

I can't even believe that you would try to argue that unilaterally disarming our nuclear capabilities would make our country, or the world, a safer place. Talk about illogical...

25 posted on 08/26/2003 1:51:02 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside.

You pay, you play!

26 posted on 08/26/2003 1:52:03 PM PDT by Traffic_Can ("The future, Winston, is a boot smashing the face of humanity, forever" G. Orwell 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Wackos do not see a difference between weapons in the hands of democratically elected governments and weapons in the hands of brutal tyrants.

The Left's reliance on moral equivocation has reached new heights.
27 posted on 08/26/2003 1:53:22 PM PDT by Guillermo (Proud Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
Yeah, but they have California Drivers Licenses.
28 posted on 08/26/2003 1:53:42 PM PDT by Traffic_Can ("The future, Winston, is a boot smashing the face of humanity, forever" G. Orwell 1984)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mil-vet
It couldn't have been said any clearer. What a loon this guy is.
29 posted on 08/26/2003 2:27:11 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
Here's what needs to happen, I think. There HAS to be a way to use the energy contained within nuclear weapons to generate a different form of USEFUL energy.

Electricty may be only an example. And this might even be done on the far side of the moon (by future generations), to eliminate the radioactive problem.

Maybe not today, maybe not in the next decade, but someday, all that energy could be used constructively, like in:

Isaiah chapter 2 verse 4 (excerpted)

"they shall beat their swords into plowshares"

Or hell, just use them for terror weapons against the Arabs, before they do the same to us!


30 posted on 08/26/2003 2:45:31 PM PDT by RonHolzwarth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
I can't even believe you would try to argue that rampant nuclear proliferation would make our country, or the world, a safer place. Talk about illogical.

The spooks are probably working out a short term solution to proliferation. It's not a pretty solution but it'll prolly do the trick. Iran might meet with an unfortunate "accident" and a great many people might sicken and die from the resultant radiation poisoning. It'll serve to rally the world against nuclear proliferation and it'll buy some time. Iran can't be allowed to go nuclear. Ditto Brazil. Ditto Libya. Ditto ditto ditto.
31 posted on 08/26/2003 6:51:59 PM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
I can't even believe you would try to argue that rampant nuclear proliferation would make our country, or the world, a safer place. Talk about illogical.

What the hell are you even talking about?!

Can you show me where I advocated "rampant nuclear proliferation"?

No, you can't. Because you made that up when you couldn't address my actual point.

You favor our unilateral disarmament in a world where a dozen or more nations have nuclear weapons. That's an insane position, and you know it. That's why you feel obligated to make up other people's positions that are as utterly insipid as your own.

32 posted on 08/26/2003 7:18:14 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
If your gun fight is a nuke fight then what exactly is the point? The destruction of the world? I doubt we will respond with Nukes if and when the challenge is made in the form of a nuke detonated here. Therefore, what is the deterrent when the opponent is illogical.

There are worse things than world destruction. Being slaves to a bunch of gooks pops immediately to mind. "Better dead than red" is a slogan worth holding on to.

33 posted on 08/26/2003 8:32:59 PM PDT by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TastyManatees
"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

The fact that this guy's name is Mohammed ElBaradei is laughable!

34 posted on 08/26/2003 8:37:23 PM PDT by BunnySlippers (Why is the Left afraid of Arnold?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
I never said anything about unilateral disarmament. I advocate abolition of nuclear weapons. Everywhere. It's not going to happen so I'll go back to watching the clock tick down.
35 posted on 08/27/2003 4:33:45 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dead
And because you are apparently in favor of the status quo, by logical extension you advocate nuclear proliferation. Maintaining the status quo guarantees this.
36 posted on 08/27/2003 4:36:16 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
I advocate abolition of nuclear weapons. Everywhere.

I advocate universal niceness and ponies for all the children.

37 posted on 08/27/2003 6:09:01 AM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dead
How about deep caverns to wait out the fallout dissapation for children?

The status quo may end up getting a lot of Americans killed. Your either in denial or too dense to see that the enemy lies in wait, patiently acquiring the assets to bring us down.
38 posted on 08/27/2003 9:54:34 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
You must have some super secret plan, that only you can understand, whereby giving up our nuclear weapons will somehow reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of our enemies.

Your constant emotionalizing of the issue ("what about the children!") does nothing to further enlighten us as to your plan to save the world.

I would also support the elimination of our nuclear weapons, following some completely verifiable and enforceable assurances that all other nuclear weapons on earth will be similarly eliminated.

Until such a plan is presented (and it won’t be), your disarmament fantasies are the silly and meaningless wishes of a naïve child. Thankfully, more mature minds than yours are in charge.

39 posted on 08/27/2003 10:13:03 AM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dead; kinghorse
Dead,

Unfortunately, naïvete is a prerequisite for admission into most elite circles. That, and a willingness to promote tolerance of anything counter to Judeo-Christian principles.

40 posted on 08/27/2003 10:24:57 AM PDT by O.C. - Old Cracker (When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: O.C. - Old Cracker
Give me a break. I am simply acknowledging the obvious. Nukes make giants of pipsqueaks. Nukes are not beyond the reach of lesser powers now with the enormous calculating and communication power of a computer and the internet. Back in the 80's Reagan's people saw this day coming and the only thing they could figure was star wars to counter the inevitable.

I think you know this but for whatever reason prefer to avoid an uncomfortable subject. You better accept this calculus and come to your senses regarding a change or we are doomed.

41 posted on 08/27/2003 11:45:39 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kinghorse
I should not have said the only thing. Reagan's people are to be strongly commended for their thought prowess on the subject. They just didn't factor in the anonymous threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
42 posted on 08/27/2003 11:47:15 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson