Well, those in the non-western world should realize that nuclear technology was created by the western world, and that the western world, as it's author, not only owns it, but understands it better than they do. If it were a commodity, they would not have the right to it without it's creators' consent. It's not wrong for the west to say, 'we've created a very bad and dangerous thing, and we don't want it spreading to the rest of the world, and no matter how much you scream and cry we are NOT giving it to you'. These countries spit on the west, accuse the west of forcing it's ways on them, and brand everything western as evil, but at the same time demand that they be given the most the evil thing that the west has ever produced, claiming that it is their God-given right to have it. It isn't. As the creators of this monstrosity, the west has the right and responsibility to refuse to pass it on to others. It's also hard to find polite words to describe the greed and hypocrisy of those nations condemning the west for not allowing them to have nuclear technology on thier own terms. They greedily want all the fruits of the other people's efforts, particularly the bad fruits, fruits of work that was not their own, and say it is their right to have it. Psh! That it the mentality of thieves breaking into others' houses.

Firstly - Pandoras box was opened a long time ago, and as everyone knows, Pandoras box, once opened, can never be shut again. Secondly - US fear mongering seems to know no bounds. We have heard so many 'terroist threats' from Washington (helped no doubt by some in Tel Aviv too), that it was inevitable that they would continue esculating the threat until we finally got to nukes. What will come next when even this fails to keep the world in fear - green men in space ships with ray guns? Thirdly - An old proverb said 'tell a little truth with every lie'. This would appear to be what the US and Israel are currently doing with Iran. This is very worrying as talking up a threat is always a prelude to military action. It is even more worrying when we see the US threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed states. Fourthly - the real 'terrorists' are those who lie to thier own people in order to justify the invasion and occupation of foreign lands, and those who defy international laws. Finally - Most worrying of all are those who critisise the actions of other nations, and call for punitive measures, yet they themselves continue to build and stockpile - illegally - the very weapons they complain that others may be about to build.

The only thing in Pandora's box is her hope, and this has been used to manipulate the ages. Unfortunately, we must see and agree that the time will come when a new region wishes to establish itself and thus engages in nuclear terrorism or plain old war by its true name, nature and goals. By not inviting Iran or North Korea to the party, they've already begun to stir demons that conspire in isolated unity and ideology. Those two, though I never feel sorry for one or the other when it's my meal that is in their not, both are under the stress of other nations, and this brews both contempt and a hopeless hunger, and they will be the ones to fire first then everybody fires rapidly and we can get rid of the disease called man together. We unite for one cause at least.

I'm not sure how I feel. I do understand that it is hypocritical to say that some nations can have nukes and some can't, but North Korea and Iran have already shown evidence of trying to sell nuclear technology to terrorists. If terrorists get nukes, the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that keeps the rest of the world from nuking each other doesn't apply, because terrorist don't have a country to retaliate with. I think this conference is a good start. The only safe world is one without any nukes at all, and to get there we need to have the present nuclear powers start reducing their stockpiles. I commend Presidents Medvedev and Obama for working towards this goal.

Read this article posted from the Washington Post on how tight the security and the secrecy of the meetings were. Here is an excerpt from the article about suppressing the media with "written readouts." "In "bilateral" meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama's, there were only written "readouts." Canada: "The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership." India: "The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries." Pakistan: "President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan." Finally, away from other leaders, Obama took reporters' questions for 20 minutes. They were tough and skeptical questions that punctured the banal readouts: pointing out that the nonproliferation agreements weren't binding, noting China's equivocation on sanctions against Iran, and pressing Obama on the failure to curb North Korea's weapons. The Post's Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons. "

April 14, 2010, 00:18, Jack wrote > I'm not sure how I feel. I do understand that it is hypocritical to say that some nations can have nukes and some can't, but North Korea and Iran have already shown evidence of trying to sell nuclear technology to terrorists. If terrorists get nukes, the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that keeps the rest of the world from nuking each other doesn't apply, because terrorist don't have a country to retaliate with. > I think this conference is a good start. The only safe world is one without any nukes at all, and to get there we need to have the present nuclear powers start reducing their stockpiles. I commend Presidents Medvedev and Obama for working towards this goal. I believe that a country forfeits their right to have nuclear energy when it is known to the world that the ideology of their leadership finds that (1, there is a life that does not exist on this Earth that is of much more valuable. (2 It's spiritual belief finds it a positive even that another population be destroyed. But for military purposes, I feel that any country that wants nuclear energy as a weapon for military strengthen for attack or protect, brings total destruction on itself. A good case of that is North Korea. How can a country who has value for this life think that they can in fact use it's nuclear arsenal without being attacked itself afterwards. And why would someone choose to live on Earth after a global nuclear exchange. I suppose living underground has been done. But most of the people that I know of would not call that a life.