&host=rt.com&uri=/usa/news/un-security-nuclear-resolution/comments/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
United effort: ridding the world of nuclear weapons
Published: 24 September, 2009, 22:02
Edited: 27 September, 2009, 10:30
It took just minutes for the UN Security Council chaired by the American President Barack Obama to unanimously approve the US-drafted resolution aimed at global nuclear weapons disarmament and non-proliferation.
Nice sentiment. But it will serve more as a weapon against those that will try to develop nuclear energy, then against those that alrady have nuclear weapons. It is a political move on behalf of US to stop the critics who point at the IAEA founding principles. Those principles require that thenon-nuclear members forego the development of the nuclear weapons, and the countries with the weapons, there is an obligation to reduce them. While the pressure is on non-nuclear states to forgo even the development of nuclear energy, which is their right under IAEA charter, the nuclear club has no obligations. This symbolically puts nuclear club on notice that they have this responsiblity. How realistic is the Resolution? It is not. It does not even start to address the true global security for all, not just only those who can have satellite guided missiles at their disposal. But it makes for great PR. So that the young and gullable world-wide can go out on the nicely correographed protests against nuclear weapons, asking for a nuclear-free world. This is about looking good without work, and making great pronoucements which do not start to address the lack of security today for small and powerless.
Nuclear disarmament is an absolute necessity. When the most powerful nations in the world set a precedent by disarming, the smaller nations will inevitably follow their lead. The United States, the UK, Russia, Israel, India, China, and Korea must be the first to dismantle their nuclear armaments programs and arsenal.
Don't fall for this one. Why are we all happy to talk about nuclear disarmament? Simple for two reasons; the first because the big boys all have an alternative that is just as effective to use in terms of defensive posture, weapons that will derisk the government leaders from a direct conflict involving their electorate. Basically moving war back to the battlefield; notice politicians will always fight wars, when the killing is on the battlefield. They won't touch it when the voting public is swathed in radiation. The second is that it demotes second tier nations and prevents others joining the destructive club. So what will this mean then, in the end if it was ever implemented. Simply making sure that Russia and the US have a top spot, followed by China and then India Making sure no one else really has a look in for quite a time in the future. It would be a reset of weapons technology and the opening up of a gap that was starting to close. And the big bonus, you can lean hard on nations and deny them access to nuclear fuel, other than from your supply. See there is always a money motive. What a bunch of Bankers! Will it happen, maybe not, because if just one has nuclear weapons the others will retain them and the Politicians neck will remain on the block. Always a nice place to see it!
The US will never disarm. This is dishonest declaration from their side. They want that no one has nuclear weapons so they can colonize the world using conventional arms. Are satellite guided missiles conventional? I will believe in disarmament if the US scrap its planes and aircraft carriers and satellite guided missile systems and its colonial expansion as a whole.