[Peace-discuss] Slash nuclear weapons?

[E. Wayne Johnson]

No doubt it's in the correct direction.  That's exactly what we are 
supposed to see.

My meaning is that I perceive it as being simply cosmetic.  "Beige 
lipstick" (no real change).
I would prefer that they do something meaningful.  We should not be 
fooled into
finding much meaning in this action. 
/
Fake left, dribble right and shoot./

Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> Reducing the number of nuclear weapons by the two powers who hold by 
> far the most is certainly moving in the right direction towards world 
> nuclear disarmament. As the article implies, it may also put pressure 
> on all other nuclear weapons states, including Israel. Iran at present 
> has no nuclear weapons, but it may dissuade them to produce them. Of 
> course, there would be a long road to go to achieve such ends, but it 
> is worth a try. 
>
> Your statement makes little sense to me.
>
> --mkb
>
> On Feb 5, 2009, at 11:24 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>> Lead to what important development?  Attacking Iran when they don't 
>> get the message or take the bait?
>>
>> Lipstick on a pig.  And interesting that the Obots are seeking a new 
>> diversion at this time.  ZbigNEW that is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> This could lead to an important development…  --mkb
>>>
>>> February 04 2009
>>> *President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons*
>>>
>>> The radical new treaty would reduce the number of nuclear warheads 
>>> to 1,000 each
>>>
>>> By Tim Reid
>>>
>>> President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks 
>>> with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s 
>>> stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.
>>>
>>> The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 
>>> each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the 
>>> Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in 
>>> Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.
>>>
>>> Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White 
>>> House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a 
>>> non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. The 
>>> talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
>>>
>>> No final decision on the defence shield has been taken by Mr Obama. 
>>> Yet merely delaying the placement of US missiles in Poland and a 
>>> radar station in the Czech Republic — which if deployed would cost 
>>> the US $4 billion annually — removes what has been a major 
>>> impediment to Russian co-operation on arms reduction.
>>>
>>> Any agreement would put pressure on Britain, which has 160 nuclear 
>>> warheads, and other nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles.
>>>
>>> Mr Obama has pledged to put nuclear weapons reduction at the heart 
>>> of his presidency and his first move will be to reopen talks with 
>>> Moscow to replace the 1991 US-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 
>>> (Start), which expires in December. Under that pact, the two 
>>> countries have cut their respective stockpiles from roughly 10,000 
>>> to 5,000.
>>>
>>> “We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally 
>>> binding arms reduction process,” an official from the Administration 
>>> said. “We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the 
>>> Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised 
>>> if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty.”
>>>
>>> Efforts to revive the Start talks were fitful under Mr Bush and 
>>> complicated by his insistence on building a missile defence shield. 
>>> “If Obama proceeds down this route, this will be a major departure,” 
>>> one Republican said. “But there will be trouble in Congress.”
>>>
>>> The plan is also complicated by the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which 
>>> launched its first satellite into space yesterday, and North Korea, 
>>> which is preparing to test a long-range ballistic missile capable of 
>>> striking the US.
>>>
>>> Mr Obama views the reduction of arms by the US and Russia as 
>>> critical to efforts to persuade countries such as Iran not to 
>>> develop the Bomb.
>>>
>>> Source: The Times of London 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>   
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090205/f1c62b28/attachment.html