Nuclear Non-Proliferation Under the Obama Administration

by linc, Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 02:43:54 PM EST

Back in July, Barack Obama said:

It's time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons.

I, for one, really like the sound of that, but what does it mean in reality?  However much I would love to speculate and debate Obama's appointments and non-appointments, I think it far more useful at this point to discuss a little bit more about what Barack himself thinks and what that will mean for our new administration's tact concerning "a world with no nuclear weapons."

For starters:

Senator Obama was among the first legislators to step forward to embrace this approach. In July 2007, Obama and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) introduced "the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act" (S. 1977), which outlines a comprehensive strategy for progress on disarmament and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

Among other things, the piece of legislation included provisions that would provide:

support for an international nuclear fuel reserve to discourage countries from building their own uranium enrichment capability; additional funding to strengthen the inspection capabilities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); talks with Russia to further reduce global nuclear arsenals; progress on a verifiable global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; expansion of export controls and interdiction capabilities; and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations about U.S. nonproliferation policy.

Being the anti-bomb guy that I am, that is pretty darn encouraging.  I particularly like the idea of giving stronger American supporte to the IAEA, especially after Bush et. al. basically gave the the f*** off over Iraq back in 03ish.  If the new Obama administration does intend to start supporting the IAEA a bit more, it could mean actually addressing the real issues that underline, imho, the real push for weaponization of any nation.  

Here is what the IAEA intends to start focusing its efforts on:

Recently, the IAEA Secretariat - supported by the vast majority of the members of its General Conference - has attempted to focus "more on providing significant socioeconomic benefits" to its members. A change in emphasis, away from IAEA nuclear-technology transfer projects, themselves, towards facilitating the use of such projects for "productive and sustainable human development."

Now this is something that I could really get behind- an administration outright supporting an organization intent on addressing the root causes of conflict?  Imagine that!

Tags: Bombs, obama (all tags)

  • 7 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

7 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Here is hoping

for a world without bombs and an administration that gets it.

by linc 2008-11-29 02:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Non-Proliferation Under the Obama Administration

I think the easiest thing the incoming Administration can do about nuclear proliferation is to not contribute to it.  How's that for a concept?

That means no more development of "tactical nuclear weapons", no more leaving "all options on the table" when it comes to using nuclear weapons, and - and this is probably the most important part - not encouraging other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Because the lesson of the past eight years is that if you're weak like Iraq, you get attacked.  If you're strong like Pakistan, and/or if you have nuclear weapons like North Korea, the US won't touch you.

by Jess81 2008-11-29 03:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
There could be a role for tactical nukes

But I could really only justify such development in the face of drastic dismantling of strategic weapons.

I can think of a few circumstances where a tactical nuke would be useful or even necessary.  However I could not accept the development of such weapons unless it was patentedly obvious that, on the whole, nuclear weapons were being minimized or eliminated over the longer term.

I'm all for robust capabilities.  I'm even more for proper safeguards, though.  Nukes are very, very dangerous.  

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-29 06:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: There could be a role for tactical nukes

wow. when would a tactical nuke ever be justified or needed?

by swissffun 2008-11-30 10:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You're not going to like the answer

And I wish to be exceedingly clear here - I'm no fan of war or slaughter.

You never know when the other side has a division you need vaporized in a hurry, or a weapons lab buried too deep to get at with conventional bombs.  War is a horrible, horrible thing and it involves horrible horrible weapons and horrible horrible acts.

We should do all we can to prevent wars from starting.  They are the purest form of hell ever created by man.  Sometimes they must be fought.  If that happens I don't intend to be on the losing side.  As I said above, I'm all for robust capabilities.  I'm just even more for safeguards.

Having a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon in our arsenal denies a potential enemy the confidence that they can dig deep enough that we can never deal with a threat.

This will not be a popular sentiment here, I'm sure.  I am absolutely NOT a warmonger.  I am also not a pacifist.  Wars should be avoided at all cost.  However, the only thing worse than winning an unjust war is losing a just one.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-30 03:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're not going to like the answer

vaporized?   you're right I just don't agree. I don't think it's ever justified to vaporize anyone, much less a battalion of sons and daughters just because the leaders of their countries wage war. there's enough destructive power in conventional warfare. more than enough.

by swissffun 2008-12-01 09:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Nuclear Non-Ptration

by swissffun 2008-12-01 09:06AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------