Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nukes

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
Everyday it is something new.:censored:

[Guest]

Let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya and hope that India, North Korea, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, China, France, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Isreal, know the lyrics to Obama's song.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
Everyday it is something new.:censored:


I do not get this at all. It is always very idealistic to wish for non use of nuclear but what is his rush to announce this.....he will not even use them if we are attacked biologically...this guy is all words...all he has ever been...he lives in a world that is not real...it is academic at best !

[Guest]

It saddens me to say that it seems that we have to pick from one of the following:

Un-American

Anti-American

Enemy of the constitution

Fool

What say you?

Yoda

[Guest]

http://www.wikihow.com/Survive-a-Nuclear-Attack

[Guest]

It saddens me to say that it seems that we have to pick from one of the following:

Un-American

Anti-American

Enemy of the constitution

Fool

What say you?

Yoda I say the 1st three. :censored:

[Guest]

The man obviously needs his head nuked in a microwave oven for an hour. Then things will make sense to this moron.

[Guest]

The man obviously needs his head nuked in a microwave oven for an hour. Then things will make sense to this moron.

Don't hang you hat on Obama being dumb. He is a smart , calculating , genius at following and implementing the directions from others who share his idiology of Big Government with complete control of each of us and the private sector.

[Guest]

bkcuningham: You clearly missed this part of the article:


But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.


...specifically mentioning two of the countries you had concerns about. Though why you're worried about France, I don't know - unless I'm misinterpreting your meaning.

[Guest]

It saddens me to say that it seems that we have to pick from one of the following:

Un-American

Anti-American

Enemy of the constitution

Fool

What say you?

Yoda

Plus more. :beer3::beer3:

[Guest]

djplong, I listed France because they are part of the nuclear club. You know, one of the "nuclear weapons states" an internationally recognized status by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Guest]

I do agree that this administration is really about control........of everything, government and eventually even our lives, sound neurotic? Bet the Holocaust sounded neurotic in the beginning as well!

[Guest]

I honestly think this man hates America. No, I'm sure of it.

[Guest]

"It saddens me to say that it seems that we have to pick from one of the following: Un-American, Anti-American, Enemy of the constitution, Fool
What say you?
Yoda "

Yoda, I don't know. I found this New York Times article from July 4, 2009 "Obama’s Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision." It talks about Obama's 1980s days at Columbia University and an article he wrote for a campus magazine. In the magazine article, which is linked here, Obama talks about his dreams of a nuclear free world. All of this was written during the President Ronald Reagan presidency and his fabulous "axis of evil" speech.

On the third page of the article, Obama's nuclear strategy is discussed: "Even more ambitious, Mr. Obama wants a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which would bar all nations that sign it from making fuel for their atom bombs. But when asked how Mr. Obama would sell the idea to America’s allies — primarily Pakistan, India and Israel — administration officials grow silent.

"All this is supposed to culminate, next year, in an American effort to rewrite crucial provisions of the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Mr. Obama wants to strengthen inspection provisions and close the loophole that makes it easy for countries to drop out, as North Korea did in 2003.

" Each of those steps would require building a global consensus. It would also mean persuading countries to give up the coveted freedom to make fuel for reactors — and instead, probably, buy it from an international fuel bank.

" Most of all, Mr. Obama and like-minded leaders will have to establish a new global order that will truly restrain rogue states and terrorist groups from moving ahead with nuclear projects. "



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/05nuclear.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1


http://documents.nytimes.com/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article#document/p1

[Guest]

MAD worked just fine. 100% in fact. Why change it?

Yoda

[Guest]

every country should follow....especially with the likes of Almadinanutjob in Iran + N. Korea + and this last week Chavez throwing his hat in the ring. Might makes right and we are losing/giving it away.

Obama is taking the US back to being a paper tiger. Let's all hope and pray we don't have to witness his decision making in the event of another 911 type attack on our beloved America. GOD forbid it from happening.

When it comes to military might, there is little room for political, jabber jaw nice-nice.

btk

[Guest]

It was true on March 8, 1983, when President Ronald Reagan said it; and put in perspective to current events, it's still true, IMHO.

"And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President, in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

"Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

"At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

"The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

"I would agree to a freeze if only we could freeze the Soviets' global desires. A freeze at current levels of weapons would remove any incentive for the Soviets to negotiate seriously in Geneva and virtually end our chances to achieve the major arms reductions which we have proposed. Instead, they would achieve their objectives through the freeze.

"A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup. It would prevent the essential and long overdue modernization of United States and allied defenses and would leave our aging forces increasingly vulnerable. And an honest freeze would require extensive prior negotiations on the systems and numbers to be limited and on the measures to ensure effective verification and compliance. And the kind of a freeze that has been suggested would be virtually impossible to verify. Such a major effort would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html

[Guest]

Today Obama wants to take away our Atomic Bombs Tomorrow it will be our guns.

[Guest]

Using terms like "Global Order"and "Global Consensus" as if they were possible to achieve is not only naive but beyond sensible.

Will communists, dictators, socialists, or religious nuts who want to destroy us in the name of their Religion, reach an order or consensus with us?

If you think so you have your head in the sand and lets hope you never become the Diplomat who will sell us out to them.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html
Everyday it is something new.:censored:

Isn't this a week-old article that was published before we got the Russians to agree to the same limitations? Three days after this article was published President Obama and Russian President Medvedev signed an arms reduction pact that would cut the world's largest nuclear arsenals by two-thirds.

It seems to me that to get the only two countries with significant nuclear arms arsenals to agree to reducing the number of warheads each would have to an equal number, about two-thirds less than exist now, is a pretty significant accomplishment.

The United States and Russia have 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, a legacy of the Cold War. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev also had discussions regarding Iran's stated intent to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Noting that Iran hasn't responded to different proposals, Medvedev said, "We cannot turn a blind eye to this."

On the other hand, if one believes that our foreign policy would be best based on threatening other countries with our ability to instantaneously turn them to ashes, then maybe it's not so good an idea.

There's still a chance that our politicians can overturn this treaty. It has to be ratified by the Senate. It'll be interesting to see which Senators stand up against the treaty. More interesting will be their reasons why.

Let me make a prediction: all the Republican Senators will vote NOT to ratify the treaty. But we'll all struggle trying to understand why...other than to do so would embarrass President Obama.

[Guest]

It was true on March 8, 1983, when President Ronald Reagan said it; and put in perspective to current events, it's still true, IMHO...."A freeze would reward the Soviet Union for its enormous and unparalleled military buildup...(such a freeze) would divert us completely from our current negotiations on achieving substantial reductions."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganEvilEmpire1983.html

I'm lost here. President Reagan was against a freeze in the size of the respective nuclear arsenals because Russia's was so large at the time. He argued in this speech that to freeze at asuch a high level would be to Russia's advantage and would not meet our objective of a significant reduction in the size of the nuclear arsenals.

But what was agreed to this week wasn't a freeze. It was an agreed upon significant reduction in nuclear arsenals of both countries so that both would have the same number of nuclear weapons of the same types. Pretty much both countries guns would be filled with the same number of bullets, many fewer than they had before. That was pretty much what President Reagan was seeking, wasn't it?

[Guest]

of this nuclear agreement is obama's declaration to the world that we would never use a nuclear retaliation even when faced with chemical and terrorist attacks...this is an unnecessary and dangerous promise which robs us of a powerful deterrent against these attacks and probably has our most dangerous enemies laughing at our stupidity. the same for the enemies of israel.

[Guest]

After the world war to end all world wars, WWI, it took only 20 years for another world war to start.

After the USA ended WWII with new weapon, nuclear, there has been about 65 years without another world war.

And we need a new policy, why?

EDIT: It would be 85 years without a World War if we had a nuclear bomb to end World War I.

Can you imagine the "conventional wars" that would have consumed the last 65 years if the "bomb" was not invented and applied.

[Guest]

(The worst part) of this nuclear agreement is obama's declaration to the world that we would never use a nuclear retaliation even when faced with chemical and terrorist attacks...this is an unnecessary and dangerous promise which robs us of a powerful deterrent against these attacks and probably has our most dangerous enemies laughing at our stupidity. the same for the enemies of israel.

Reading only half the story can be misleading.

From Reuters New Service, April 6 "....The United States for the first time is forswearing use of atomic weapons against non-nuclear countries, a break with a Bush-era threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of a biological or chemical attack.

But this comes with a major condition. Those countries would be spared a U.S. nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran and North Korea would thus not be protected."

[Guest]

If we give up one third of our nuclear stockpile we still have enough power to destroy the ENTIRE world 6-7 times. The Russians will have the same capability.Paper tiger,no way. If, God forbid we are nuked it will be by a terrorist group not a country. That's what makes things so difficult. Terrorists have no country. Many of them are enemies in their own country.If we find out that they were from Pakistan do we nuke them? Nuclear weapons are a deterent to countries,they are not to terrorist groups.

[Guest]

As time goes by, more countries will have developed nuclear weapons. World War One was to be the war to end all wars. That only lasted for 20 years. Once many countries have nuclear it will now be considered a conventional weapon. Irresponsible backward countries would not hesitate to use nuclear. Gone are the days when only democratic countries have these terrible weapons.
We cannot afford to allow countries like Iran to develop these weapons. They will make the Cold War seem like a walk in the park. We cannot put our heads in the sand.
We should also remember who our friends are. Israel should not be dissed by this administration anymore.

[Guest]

If we give up one third of our nuclear stockpile we still have enough power to destroy the ENTIRE world 6-7 times....If, God forbid we are nuked it will be by a terrorist group not a country. That's what makes things so difficult. Terrorists have no country. Many of them are enemies in their own country.If we find out that they were from Pakistan do we nuke them? Nuclear weapons are a deterent to countries,they are not to terrorist groups.
...We cannot afford to allow countries like Iran to develop these weapons. They will make the Cold War seem like a walk in the park...

That's kind of the way I thought about it, as well. Even by cutting our nuclear stockpile by 2/3, we'd still have plenty to nuke the world. When I hear of some Senators resisting the treaty because it doesn't permit further nuclear weapon development and underground testing, I ask "so what?" The Russians are similarly limited and between the two countries we are lightyears ahead of anyone else in weapons development. What would we lose, the right to develop a 250 megaton nuke that could toast an entire continent? Would we ever use that kind of weapon? If no one else thought we would, it's not much of a deterrant.

If terrorists with no country--say Saudis who trained in Afghanistan to come over and explode a dirty nuke in Manhattan--what would we do? Nuke Afghanistan? Nuke Saudi Arabia? Nuke the whole Arab Middle East? Even with two-thirds less nuclear warheads, we'd still have plenty to do that. What are the chances we'd do anything? You know as well as I do...and so do the terrorists.

I think I posted earlier that all this posturing has a whole lot more to do with politics than it does actually reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. If the treaty fails to be ratified for purely political reasons, that would be a tragedy.

It would leave the entire rest of the developed world to conclude, "...hey, the U.S. isn't willing to reduce it's stockpile of nuclear weapons, why should we listen to them when they want us to stop developing or using nukes?" This treaty seems to have marginalized both Iran and North Korea. If it fails to be ratified by our Senate, it'll be Katy Bar The Door as far as nuclear weapons development is concerned. And while our politicians and foreign policy negotiators will make blustering noises to the contrary, that's all it will be--blustering. The bad guys will continue to try to make nukes, pretty much with impunity based on our own example, and then probably sell them to even "badder" guys.

Very specifically, if our Senate refuses to ratify the treaty between the U.S. and Russia, what are the chances that Iran will be the least bit motivated to slow or stop it's own weapons development program? If the answer is that they will feel they can continue on their course with impunity, ignoring what the U.S. or others in the world demand, what's going to stop them?

[Guest]

...We should also remember who our friends are. Israel should not be dissed by this administration anymore...

I'm certainly not suggesting that Israel is not our strongest ally in the Middle East. I specifically use the term "ally" because there really are no "friends" in the realm of foreign relations. Each country acts in what it believes to be its own best interests and once it becomes clear there is no further purpose in maintaining an allied relationship, even those who had been allies become just another country.

Just for the purpose of discussion, Donna, what would we do if...
Iran attacked Israel and Israel responded with a nuclear attack on Iran?
Or what should we do if Israel unilaterally attacked Iran's nuclear development facilities, resulting in a major Middle East ground war between Iran and other Arab nations who might support them in a war against Israel?

What I'm asking is--if Israel gets itself into a major war in it's region of the world, having its own sovereignty threatened, or threatening peace in the entire Middle East because of its actions--does the U.S. have a dog in the fight? Would we or should we deploy troops to help Israel in the resulting war? In either circumstance, would Israel still be a "friend"? Would they be an "ally"?

[Guest]

OMG Do you really think the "bad guys" give two cents on what useless negotiations Russia and the USA participate. These people play by their rules and their ambitions. A country that even denies that the Holocaust happened will deny anything.
One thing they do sense real good is weakness.

[Guest]

Gone are the days when only democratic countries have these terrible weapons.


Those days have been gone for over 60 years. The USSR exploded it's first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949 - just four years and a few days after the boms were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Guest]

Those days have been gone for over 60 years. The USSR exploded it's first atomic bomb on August 29, 1949 - just four years and a few days after the boms were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes, I mis spoke on that one. I meant besides the two super powers. Thanks for correcting me.

[Guest]

OMG Do you really think the "bad guys" give two cents on what useless negotiations Russia and the USA participate. These people play by their rules and their ambitions. A country that even denies that the Holocaust happened will deny anything.
One thing they do sense real good is weakness.

No, the bad guys don't play by the rules. But not just any old bad guys have the technical ability to enrich unranium, make nuclear weapons, and then figure out a way to deliver them. It takes a pretty well-developed scientific infrastructure, such as Iran and North Korea. I can think of few others

If thru the use of treaties and agreements, the U.S., Russia and maybe China can get together to pressure the bad guys we've been speaking of, there's a chance that kind of pressure can prevent the escalation of countries with nuclear arsenals. It is just a chance, but it's the only chance we've got.

If Iran is successful in developing nuclear weapons, how long do you think it would take for other neighboring nations to want to have similar weapons? How long might it take for someone to sell them to them? Would we all feel better if Iran got nukes and was quickly followed by Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Emirates, even South Korea and Japan? Then all it would take is one bad decision, one mistake, or some lousy security of the weapons stockpiles and we could have a conflagration that would affect the entire world.

Nope, in my judgement the direction that the U.S. and Russia are headed in, to reduce weapons stockpiles and join together to ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons altogether, is the right one. I just hope our partisan politics don't get in the way.

[Guest]

No, the bad guys don't play by the rules. But not just any old bad guys have the technical ability to enrich unranium, make nuclear weapons, and then figure out a way to deliver them. It takes a pretty well-developed scientific infrastructure, such as Iran and North Korea. I can think of few others

If thru the use of treaties and agreements, the U.S., Russia and maybe China can get together to pressure the bad guys we've been speaking of, there's a chance that kind of pressure can prevent the escalation of countries with nuclear arsenals. It is just a chance, but it's the only chance we've got.

If Iran is successful in developing nuclear weapons, how long do you think it would take for other neighboring nations to want to have similar weapons? How long might it take for someone to sell them to them? Would we all feel better if Iran got nukes and was quickly followed by Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Emirates, even South Korea and Japan? Then all it would take is one bad decision, one mistake, or some lousy security of the weapons stockpiles and we could have a conflagration that would affect the entire world.

Nope, in my judgement the direction that the U.S. and Russia are headed in, to reduce weapons stockpiles and join together to ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons altogether, is the right one. I just hope our partisan politics don't get in the way.

I understand your reasoning. I just think it is naive. Bringing down the totals a little bit will have no significant change of thought by the people that crave such weapons.

I don't think the "bad guys" look at the world the way reasonable people do.

[Guest]

VK, I wasn't making a direct point-by-point comparison of this summit and Obama's current military agenda with Reagan's negotiations with Russia. I was looking at the world as a whole. Not just the nuclear negotiations. I was taking liberties hoping the reader could see the similarities in our modern world and Reagan's Evil Empire Speech where he decries the decline of morals in our country, world evils, communism, extremists and dictators; and substitute that with today's "evil empires," "axis of evil" and "rogue states."

I believe Obama's vision is much different than just simply a world with no nuclear weapons. That is the reason I included Obama's college article, to just put one more piece of this puzzle of Obama's agenda together. Obama's agenda frightens me.

When Reagan said "I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.
"While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith," he didn't stutter calling a spade a spade.



"Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

"It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable 'Screwtape Letters,' wrote: The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-Shavian cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

"Well, because these 'quiet men' do not 'raise their voices'; because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace; because, like other dictators before them, they're always making 'their final territorial demand,' some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

"So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

I wonder what Reagan and Anatoly Dobrynin, who negotiated arms treaties, helped settle the Cuban Missile Crisis and was the dean of Washington's international diplomatic corps during his 24 years as Soviet ambassador to the United States and who just died last week on April 6, would make of it of the current summit.

I think Ron Marks, Senior Vice President for Government Relations, Oxford-Analytica, sums up my feelings.

"First, just when the White House staff got the President to stop bowing to foreign leaders; he now declares a no nuke use against countries that don’t have them. A lovely set of Marquis of Queensbury rules in a civilized world. Sadly, while we play chess games on this issue, others such as Iran will be laughing. International relations are not chess. They are poker. And you never let go of your hole card. In other words, never take an option off the table. It makes you look weak. And Tehran and Pyongyang eat this kind of behavior for breakfast.

"As for the goal of overall reduction and control of weapons, well the Russians and we still have ninety percent of them. So that seems like a nice idea – especially since the Russians have been a bit sloppy about maintenance and how they are stored. And, if we think the Russians are going to horse trade us on this for stiff Iran sanctions, we are about to be strongly disappointed.

"Moscow will do what it can to keep an Islamic neighbor marginally neutral. They have enough internal problems with radical Muslims. Like Senators Kyl and McCain, I too am worried about keeping the money up for maintaining our forces. Reduction often means Washington is reluctant to spend the money to update and upgrade weapons. These weapons represent our biggest military response. They must be the best and at all times be ready.

"Treaties like this also remind me of the London Conference in 1935-36 to reduce battleships. Everyone started reducing forces, but in the end, they also armed and rearmed in different, but in equally deadly ways. For instance, where are we on other WMD’s like biological and chemical – the poor man’s nukes? And, while far less lethal, what’s going in cyberspace where we are clearly getting our clock cleaned in this new increasingly militarized frontier.

"In the final analysis, this is a feel good event. I don’t see how in the world it makes a bit of difference to the people who are the most worrisome – Iran, North Korea and every Al Qaeda franchisee on the planet. It will offer little beyond the good citizens of the world saying they will continue to be good citizens. The bad boys could care less."

[Guest]

VK, I wasn't making a direct point-by-point comparison of this summit and Obama's current military agenda with Reagan's negotiations with Russia. I was looking at the world as a whole. Not just the nuclear negotiations. I was taking liberties hoping the reader could see the similarities in our modern world and Reagan's Evil Empire Speech where he decries the decline of morals in our country, world evils, communism, extremists and dictators; and substitute that with today's "evil empires," "axis of evil" and "rogue states."

I believe Obama's vision is much different than just simply a world with no nuclear weapons. That is the reason I included Obama's college article, to just put one more piece of this puzzle of Obama's agenda together. Obama's agenda frightens me.

When Reagan said "I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total elimination.
"While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith," he didn't stutter calling a spade a spade.



"Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

"It was C.S. Lewis who, in his unforgettable 'Screwtape Letters,' wrote: The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-Shavian cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.

"Well, because these 'quiet men' do not 'raise their voices'; because they sometimes speak in soothing tones of brotherhood and peace; because, like other dictators before them, they're always making 'their final territorial demand,' some would have us accept them at their word and accommodate ourselves to their aggressive impulses. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.

"So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position of military and moral inferiority. You know, I've always believed that old Screwtape reserved his best efforts for those of you in the church. So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

I wonder what Reagan and Anatoly Dobrynin, who negotiated arms treaties, helped settle the Cuban Missile Crisis and was the dean of Washington's international diplomatic corps during his 24 years as Soviet ambassador to the United States and who just died last week on April 6, would make of it of the current summit.

I think Ron Marks, Senior Vice President for Government Relations, Oxford-Analytica, sums up my feelings.

"First, just when the White House staff got the President to stop bowing to foreign leaders; he now declares a no nuke use against countries that don’t have them. A lovely set of Marquis of Queensbury rules in a civilized world. Sadly, while we play chess games on this issue, others such as Iran will be laughing. International relations are not chess. They are poker. And you never let go of your hole card. In other words, never take an option off the table. It makes you look weak. And Tehran and Pyongyang eat this kind of behavior for breakfast.

"As for the goal of overall reduction and control of weapons, well the Russians and we still have ninety percent of them. So that seems like a nice idea – especially since the Russians have been a bit sloppy about maintenance and how they are stored. And, if we think the Russians are going to horse trade us on this for stiff Iran sanctions, we are about to be strongly disappointed.

"Moscow will do what it can to keep an Islamic neighbor marginally neutral. They have enough internal problems with radical Muslims. Like Senators Kyl and McCain, I too am worried about keeping the money up for maintaining our forces. Reduction often means Washington is reluctant to spend the money to update and upgrade weapons. These weapons represent our biggest military response. They must be the best and at all times be ready.

"Treaties like this also remind me of the London Conference in 1935-36 to reduce battleships. Everyone started reducing forces, but in the end, they also armed and rearmed in different, but in equally deadly ways. For instance, where are we on other WMD’s like biological and chemical – the poor man’s nukes? And, while far less lethal, what’s going in cyberspace where we are clearly getting our clock cleaned in this new increasingly militarized frontier.

"In the final analysis, this is a feel good event. I don’t see how in the world it makes a bit of difference to the people who are the most worrisome – Iran, North Korea and every Al Qaeda franchisee on the planet. It will offer little beyond the good citizens of the world saying they will continue to be good citizens. The bad boys could care less."

Well researched and very interesting reading. Thanks.

While we may disagree on the current posture of this administration regarding nuclear weapons, one thing is consistently missing from the criticisms of those who are against the approach of the current administration...WHAT'S A BETTER IDEA? A BETTER ALTERNATIVE?

Continuing to do nothing while Iran gets closer and closer to developing nuclear capability hasn't worked and isn't working. Once they have those weapons, the floodgates will open with other countries who will either develop them or buy them from arms dealers on the world market. It seems to me that will be a worse situation than following the strategy developed by this administration. If there's a better idea, I'd sure like to hear it.

[Guest]

Well researched and very interesting reading. Thanks.

While we may disagree on the current posture of this administration regarding nuclear weapons, one thing is consistently missing from the criticisms of those who are against the approach of the current administration...WHAT'S A BETTER IDEA? A BETTER ALTERNATIVE?

Continuing to do nothing while Iran gets closer and closer to developing nuclear capability hasn't worked and isn't working. Once they have those weapons, the floodgates will open with other countries who will either develop them or buy them from arms dealers on the world market. It seems to me that will be a worse situation than following the strategy developed by this administration. If there's a better idea, I'd sure like to hear it.
There probably is many answers floating around but useless talking and signing useless papers is not one of them.

[Guest]

...probably many answers floating around but talking and signing useless papers is not one of them....

But that's what political leaders do...except those which history hasn't treated too kindly. The list of those that were all action with little inclination to conduct relations with other sovereign parties is a long one. Some that are on it in more recent times are Hitler, Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito), Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some leaders who are widely respected for what they were able to accomplish with words include FDR, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc.

What are you suggesting?

[Guest]

But that's what political leaders do...except those which history hasn't treated too kindly. The list of those that were all action with little inclination to conduct relations with other sovereign parties is a long one. Some that are on it in more recent times are Hitler, Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito), Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Some leaders who are widely respected for what they were able to accomplish with words include FDR, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc.

What are you suggesting?

Just for reference, what about Chamberlain?

[Guest]

Just for reference, what about Chamberlain?

Touché. Good one!