Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Liste der Diskussionsforen
Es ist Dir nicht erlaubt, Nachrichten in diesem Forum zu schreiben. Man muss dazu mindestens den Mitgliedsrang Brain Bauer (Pawn) haben!
Last Thursday the UN Security Council adopted a resolution aiming to create a nuclear-free world. President Obama announced it at the UN Summit in New York.
This news went mostly unnoticed, even though they concern all of us, regardless of where we live or what political thinking we follow.
It seems to me like an extremely difficult thing to achieve. There would have to be something like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in place, and it would require signing and ratification by all member states of the UN.
At the present time Iran has signed the treaty but not ratified it. North Korea, Pakistan and India have not signed it. The Us and Israel have signed it, but not ratified it. China dn Russia have signed it and ratified it. It is meaningless since the treaty does not come into force until all member states both sign and ratify the treaty.
Barack Obama said during his electoral campaign that he would attempt to convince the Senate to ratify the treaty once he became elected.
I think it will be difficult for him to convince law makers and the Ameican public that ratifying the treaty is in the best interests of the US. I think the political sentiment is that the US needs to keep the option of testing open. Specially in light of the testing done during the Bush administration. Reliable bunker-busting nuclear missiles was one of the objectives in nuclear weapons research done by the US during the last 10 years.
Those countries (like Iran and North Korea) attempting to get nuclear weapons are likely to reject the treaty. So will countries that use nuclear weapons as a deterrent against their neighbors (Pakistan, India, Israel).
I think that if President Obama can convince the Senate, then the treaty will be more acceptable to many countries that are refusing to ratify the treaty. I would be curious to think whether any of you think we could achieve a nuclear-free world. What would it take? Should the nuclear superpowers make the first steps and solid commitments? Or should the countries with nuclear ambitions give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons first?
Bwild: I would have thought MOAB's had kinda made Nuke's partly redundant. Especially the tactical kind. That anyone using a nuke will be um .... um .... in severe trouble kinda makes them redundant.
Thema: Re: I would be curious to think whether any of you think we could achieve a nuclear-free world. What would it take?
Verändert von gogul (29. September 2009, 10:51:44)
Artful Dodger: The nuclear waste of powerplants will pursuit generations, even following zivilisations. The final depots allready build turned out to be not very final, and nobody wants a final depot in it's neighbourhood, a endless problem. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reports talking about drug consume among workers in nuclear plants, this business is pure decadence. The newest generation of reactors gets build up in Finnland, and it's a strange awful mess, many objections, double of planed costs ect. (in Olkiluoto). A western companies builds up a "new" one in eastern Europe, the same type like in Chernobyl. This industry talks about a renaissance while many of the new power plants they talk about to illustrate this renaissance are construction cadavers. The recource uran is much shorter supply as oil and will get unpayable in 1 ore 2 decades. The environmental balance of nuclear power plants is very bad (mining of Uran and waste noone knows how to stock). The favoration of decadence over reason keeps power alternatives low, while the technique to awoid nuclear power plants is already here, on the market. Today you have lights using 3 Watt, the same light we used to use 60 Watt for few years ago and these examples are countless, like running a internet session with 10 Watt instead of 200, ever thought about running a fridge with water instead of electricity etc etc etc.
Nuclear power industry illustrates the decadence the best. One law of twisted human nature is squeezing the lemon till it's bitter end, like activating a granade but not wanting to throw it. This illustrates what I wrote a day two ago. The business model "nuclear power plant" is only possible because of corrupted politicians, it's the perversion of profit thinking, irresponsability at its worst, manipulation, corruption, decadence, lazyness, profiteering, collection of fists at latest.