Twice in the past four years, the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to leaders trying to prevent nuclear catastrophe. It's time we listened to their warnings.
In 2005, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its leader, Mohammed ElBaradei, for their work to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In 2009, the Committee returned to this cause, giving President Barack Obama the prize, in part for his drive for nuclear disarmament.
We can expect that the media cycle will be dominated by cynicism and ugly political attacks. After the circus quiets down, we should think about what this award is really about: There is real danger out there. If we do not change course, nuclear bombs will explode in our cities. The Nobel Committee is trying to get our attention.
This is not about Obama. It is not about Bush. It should not be about domestic partisan politics, nor about who has the sharpest sound bite.
This is about Iran being a few years away from a nuclear bomb. This is about Al Qaeda being a few kilometers away from Pakistan's nuclear bombs. This is about 23,000 hydrogen bombs in the world ready to use, thousands in US and Russian arsenals still ready to launch in 15 minutes.
Understand this: These threats have grown over the past 10 years. Our policies are not working. They are making the problems worse. We have to change course.
The Nobel Prize is recognition of the international support for a new direction, for a new strategy of how to prevent new states and terrorists from getting the bomb and how to prevent any of the existing bombs from being used.
This approach already has support from both parties, support among the American military and national security establishments, and support from many political leaders. Now, we are gaining the support of our allies and other major nations.
This is a major gain for American national security. We need other nations to guard their supplies of uranium and plutonium the way we guard the gold in Fort Knox instead of the way they do now, like books in a library. We need all nations to reduce the numbers and roles of nuclear weapons and move away from weapons designed for the last century's threats. This will make our military stronger and our country more secure in the 21st Century.
We must do everything we can to prevent this crucial national security issue from being swept up in hateful, partisan politics. As Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals said today:
I first heard the call for a world free of nuclear weapons from President Ronald Reagan when he addressed the National Association of Evangelicals over twenty-five years ago. The Nobel prize for President Obama acknowledges and perpetuates the Reagan vision.
Anderson demonstrates the true American spirit: rising above politics to embrace an honor for the nation and a call to action for the world. This is the tone of serious discourse, one focused on issues, not partisan conflict. We should all strive to turn our national security debate back to this tone and substance. The stakes are too high not to.
Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione
We fear other countries because of their intentions. Other countries fear us because of our capabilities.
We have the capability to wipe any country off the face of the Earth in roughly 20 minutes.
We've gone to great effort and expense to make other countries afraid of us and then we're somehow surprised when they actually are.
Consider this: If Iran goes online with nuclear power and generates electricity it will provide the people of a nation smack in the middle of global oil concerns with greater ease of living, industrial prosperity, agriculture and quality of life. And the more content they are, the less likely they are to agree with western rhetoric and ideals. It may be nothing to do with bombing Israel and everything to do with repressing a major developed Muslim nation which might become better able compete locally for consumer products.
The West has to realize that the world in growing weary of living under it's thumb.
Bahhhh, Bahhhh
They're somehow a grave threat and a pushover at the same time.
It's great that we do what every we can PEACEFULLY to slow proliferation,
But it is our very threat of invasion and war that is now ACCELERATING the race for nukes.
We didn't invade nKorea BECAUSE they have a bomb.
Only world totalitarianism Fascism can prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and apparently the bansters have offered to be the rulers.
No more nuclear power! Burn up all the available fuel in the existing reactors, and stop creating more.
3 cent rooftop solar is cheaper faster, clean, safe, and ready to go now, solar doubled in 2008.
WASTE biofuels can supply all the fuels we need and eliminate our disposal problems.
Nukes are insane.
See my profile for proof.
Nuke power and nuke bombs are the same tech.
Otherwise, why would we be so upset about Iran's nuke POWER uranium enrichment?
China has an army larger than the US military and could move throughout Asia (ie., Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc.) Our army and navy is too small and are our navy too vunerable to cheap missiles to defend these countries with conventional weapons.
The use of nuclear weapons is a terrible thought. A world without a US nuclear arm is a prescription for a series of world-wide war. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc., are not our friends. If you think trade prevents war, prior to the start of Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, Norway, and Japan's of China,they were our TRADING PARTNERS.
Ask yourself one question: What is the long term goal of China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.?
My response to that question is they each believe they, individually, are entitled to rule the entire world.
Russia has had roughly the same imperialist designs since Stalin - namely, to create a chain of buffer states in Eastern Europe (or, now, retain what they consider theirs) and defend themselves against America's over-the-top aggression. They have neither the political will nor the military capacity to do much more than dick with Ukraine.
The Chinese have, again, a very clear sense of where their "rightful" borders lie, and have been completely content to dominate Asia through their sheer economic prowess. Seeing as they can already acquire the resources they need, war is bad for business and distracts from the real work of becoming an economic superpower.
Who wants to rule the world? The world is trouble, there's no benefit to having to manage it over just being a stable regional power.
Nobody has military designs on America, indeed without nuclear weapons it'd be virtually impossible to work up a military plan for the occupation of an entire freakin' continent of mostly nothing. We could easily defend our coasts against all comers with a dozen submarines and a tenth of our current standing armies.
-Ronald Reagan
If he has failed to make so much progress here at home, well then, there's plenty of reason for that as we can see every night on the teevee where the rightwing nutjobs are contorting themselves into pretzels trying to find a way to take him down.
Yes, we're still in Afghanistan. But the very same pundits on the left who are now lambasting President Obama for "escalating" the Afghanistan War were only a few months ago lambasting President Bush for failing to commit ENOUGH resources to Afghanistan. This is not a man who is going to keep us there for 100 years, like McCain. He's working to get us out as fast as possible without permitting a resurgence of te.r r .0 r. ism.
Congratulations, Mr. President. Don't listen to the incessant critics. You deserve this as much as anyone.
even if the prize is not about G.W. Bush or not G.W. Bush, it is still about forgetting G.W. Bush.
We must never forget. Never.
I can assure you that nothing would be more helpful than a republican party reinventing itself along the lines of whichever vision for worldwide peace Reagan may have had.
And maybe it can work. As far as I recall, nobody even made any funny comments when a guy named Mohammed earned a Nobel peace price. Or am I being too generous? Maybe someone in the Bush administration itself made a silly comment. Wasn't that the guy who couldn't find any nucular weapons even though it was his only job? Well, whaddaya expect from a guy named Muhammed, don't ya know?