Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by Donna2

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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."

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by Donna2

...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?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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?

Originally Posted by Donna2

Just for reference, what about Chamberlain?

Touché. Good one!