Obama: Eliminate World's Nuclear Weapons

NY Times :

Senator Barack Obama will propose on Tuesday setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism, aides say.

In a speech at DePaul University in Chicago, Mr. Obama will add his voice to a plan endorsed earlier this year by a bipartisan group of former government officials from the cold war era who say the United States must begin building a global consensus to reverse a reliance on nuclear weapons that have become "increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective."

Read the whole story: NY Times

Comments

[RusStyles]

It's painfully pathetic that a leader is lambasted for suggesting that America asumes the lead role in eliminating the planet of nuclear bombs. Oh what a silly, naive thought...To try to save humankind from a nuclear holacaust.

[askmeificare]

Kumbaya

[jrizal]

Obama must be getting desperate to translate all that money he raised into increasing his poll numbers if he is going around making statements like this. If he keeps this up, he'll start singing John Lennon's "Imagine" to try to differentiate himself from other candidates.

[ceasenake]

Obama will never get elected by saying things like this.

He already has the black vote and the peacenic vote. He needs to reach out to someone who isn't planning to vote for him.

Making stupid, pie in the sky statements like this isn't going to help.

Maybe when Clinton 44 is President, he can be the Secratary of Peace or whatever the dems are going to call that new department they are planning to waste a ton of money on.

It's going to be funny!

[bdl0715]

Getting rid of nukes is such a leftist idea. A couple of the far left wingers that are proposing the same thing are a couple of radicals named George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.

[BigDan34]

Unlawful orders to bomb Iran


The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the highest law of the land, equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.

Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.


(Excerpt from An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots)

http://thepatriots.us/

[Overd0g]

The constitution!? That old rag was made irrelevant long ago by various nefarious means, including the interstate commerce clause, and the judiciary. BTW, I don't recall nuclear weapons being mentioned in the constitution. And no, the constitution doesn't prevent the U.S. from going to war. Solly Chahlie.

[loki]

My god, Now is it protocol to make stupid statements just because Hillary did it with her 5 grand for every baby.
I would hope Obama would have at least enough sense to know that due to US policy over the last 50 years, that ridding the world of Nukes is impossible. We, the US have shown the rest of the world what power can be wielded when you have a few good nukes. Why do you think every country that has to fear invasion by others who want their oil, cheap labor, and other natural resources, are trying like hell to get a few nukes. You dont need a big army to deter most of the Hitlers of the world, you just need a few big bombs.

[Overd0g]

True, if anything we need more nukes. In space if possible.

[MajorKong]

How the heck are we supposed to start Armageddon and make Jesus come back if we don't have nukes? Don't these people know anything?

[RusStyles]

There are some scary people posting here. To call it naive to want to establish goals for nuclear warhed reduction and eventual elimination is beyond ignorant. I can't think of an appropos adjective. Nuclear weapons represent the one element that has the potential to annihilate all of mankind. We need to do everything humanly possible to rid the earth of these potential world destroyers. As the character in the movie Crimson Tide said, "In a nuclear war there ae no winners." You people need to get a serious grip...

[armadillious2002]

Obama just lost the nomination. You know everybody - including me - is thinking. OK we get rid of our nukes but who's to stop little piss ant countries from developing them and then there are always going to be those like Russia and China who will keep a few back just in case. Get real Obama - what the hell are you thinking?

[MPeter]

You are hallucinating. Obama is speaking at a level some of you can't get. He is a man or rate qualities.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CStG

[TimmySlagle]

RusStyles wrote: "As the character in the movie Crimson Tide said, "In a nuclear war there ae no winners."

I actually think that Matthew Broderick who said that (to Ally Sheedy) in "War Games."

But remember the film was made in 1983, almost a decade before the United States came out as the clear victor in the Cold War. I guess a Nuclear War CAN be won.

Had Reagan not kicked Carter's butt in 1980, the Soviet Union would still bea Nation, rather than a question on a Huistory test and we would STILL be trying "to establish goals for nuclear warhed reduction and eventual elimination."

[Overd0g]

Wrong. Nukes can't destroy all of mankind. That is a falsehood which invalidates the remainder of your position.

[coyote4]

BARACK OBAMA HAS SENT A JOLT
THROUGH ALL THIS
--------------------------------------------------------
MERRY MADCAP OF ROUSING CHEERS
--------------------------------------------------------
FOR BLOOD LUST AND UNGODLY WEAPONS;

STOPPED US RIGHT IN OUR TRACKS
FOR A MOMENT
WITH A SPOTLIGHT ON OUR CRAZED FACES,
AND MADE US LOOK AT OURSELVES.

donaldw6posted 03:16 pm on 10/02/2007
edited by coyote

[KYJurisDoctor]

Bad, Obama, Bad. How are we supposed to kill of mankind for crying out LOUD!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/10/obama-promises-to-seek-world-with-no.html#links

[WolfLarsen]

Robert Oppenheimer lobbied hard for a ban on nuclear weapons after the detonations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Truman felt it was more important to present a strong presence in the face of communism. Edward Teller who worked with Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project wanted to go forward with the production of the hydrogen bomb and the rest they say is history.

There are those that say nuclear weapons have prevented major conventional warfare and there is compelling evidence for that viewpoint. But the threat we have had to endure and the treasure it has cost has come at a very high price.

The world is flooded with weapons that will end life as we know it. Is that sane? Maybe insanity is the only restraint humans respond to and that is a very sorry indictment of our species.

Obama is venturing down a well worn path that Presidents before him have traveled. It really is the only answer to long term survival. Someday an accident, terrorist attack or an insane decision by a sociopath will unleash the weapons we fear so much but refuse to live without. Until the day comes that we realize there is no living with these instruments of hell and do something to make the world a safer place then we will have what we deserve. A world on the brink...

[Overd0g]

Maybe if life as we know it is ended, life as we don't know it will thrive.

[MPeter]

Listen to what smart people are saying and learn something.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CStG

[OhPlease2007]

"And in MAY [2007], Senator John Edwards, in an under-reported event at the Council on Foreign Relations, announced his support for a nuclear-free world."

- Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Editor, The Nation
10/02/2007

Wow, way back in MAY, huh? Well, once again, Obama is following John Edwards' lead; better late ... than never.

Hillary and Obama either wait till the last second to vote -or- don't show up at all to vote; waiting to see howthe other candidate is going to vote before they vote in The Senate is not being a leader; it's being a follower. Both Hillary & Obama beat their chests trying to prove that they are leaders, but in fact they are both, followers.

BOTH Hillary and Obama have been following John Edwards' lead in this campaign. Not true you say ??? Even the Wall Street Journal wrote about it:

"Edwards, Trailing Rivals, Holds Sway Over Party's Agenda

By Christopher Cooper

NEW ORLEANS -- John Edwards may be stuck in third place in the polls and fund raising in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. But the populist seems to be playing an outsized role in driving the terms of the party's debate -- generally to the left -- on everything from Iraq to health care."

- Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2007


John Edwards is the TRUE 'leader' in this campaign for setting the Democratic agenda for REAL change; I am voting for John Edwards



Sources:

1. Obama and Edwards Get It on Nukes (The Nation, Editor's Cut, Katrina Vanden Heuvel)

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=239149


2. Edwards, Trailing Rivals, Holds Sway Over Party's Agenda (The Wall Street Journal)

http://online.wsj.com/public//article/SB118489677980072602.html?mod=blog

[ownsthepodium]

It's not like the Dems were ever going to give The Token a real chance anyways.
But man that's funny and a good representation of the childlike naiveness of libs.

[HumeSkeptic]

The clueless pody strikes again.

[bdl0715]

Libs like George Schultz and Henry Kissinger. They both signed on to this plan before Obama did. Not to mention Sam Nunn who is hardly naive or a liberal.

[jpmakole]

Eliminate nuclear weapons ?!

Does this man have any concept of the strategy of deterrence? The main reason why the third world war never took place...

The world has not changed that much since the collapse of the USSR. What would happen if North Korea decided to move against South Korea? Would the United States be able to stop China from taking Taiwan without the threat of escalation? What if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons after all, could we really guarantee the safety of the United States and it's allies?

What makes him think that nuclear weapons would be any safer sitting idle in forgotten storage facilities? The former USSR certainly doesn't inspire one with confidence that undeployed nuclear weapons are unsusceptible to ending up in the wrong hands.

While his enthusiasm is commendable, Mr. Obama must overcome what appears to be a messianic vision of himself and put some thought into what he says.

[mactheknife]

"Does this man have any concept of the strategy of deterrence?"

Absolutely not! He is just pandering to the democrat party's radical base.

Either that or he is really another loon that thinks America is no better than any other country and shouldn't have nuclear weapons, like that halfwit Secretary of State klintoon had, Madalind Notatallbright.

[Chrisa]

Despite the "nuclear fear" of a nuclear missile exchange lasting a few minutes, rapid firing missiles, and the end of the world; this scenario isn't even close to realistic. First off, it does nobody good during war. Nuking means randomly killing civilians - not really effective when that army camping out in the woods can fight back. Secondly, there's no way that any nation needs as many nukes as we have now. We would at most fire 2 - 5 of them, and even that is a stretch.

[Overd0g]

You're ignoring the tactic of carpet nuking. Divide your target zone into a grid of 2km squares, and drop a 50kt nuke in the middle of each (small nukes are more effective than giant ones). And make the nukes neutron bombs.

[repubesnivel]

Good idea, Obama, let's nuke 'em.