It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Push To Eliminate Nukes Worldwide

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

New Push To Eliminate Nukes Worldwide


www.cbsnews.com

(AP) A new international group committed to eliminating nuclear weapons over the next 25 years has enlisted scores of world leaders as its campaign gets under way at a conference in Paris on Tuesday.

"The aim is to get to zero," said Richard Burt, chief strategic weapons negotiator for President George H.W. Bush. Even Iran is considered a potential supporter, he said in an interview.

"If there is growing support by nuclear powers and public opinion worldwide, I think it becomes harder for any government, including Iran, to cross that barrier," Burt said.

The group, Global Zero, is proposing deep cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, a verification and enforcement system, and phased reduction leading to the elimination of all stockpiles.

After the kickoff meeting, delegations will go to Moscow for talks with Russian officials on Wednesday and to Washington to see Bush administration officials and possibly advisers to President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
This is the kind of global initiative the people of the world not only want but need. It is time that all nations return to a time of cooperation, to work together to resolve differences, to build our economies together, explore space together and above all eliminate weapons of mas destruction while pursuing global peace... It may be a dream and perhaps impossible but a world free of nuclear weapons has much greater potential for all of humanity than a world with nukes.

The economic benefits for all nuclear nations would be worthwhile, monies that could be better spent elsewhere.

That leaves a somewhat bothering question, if Iran does sign on along with all other nuclear nations but Israel does not, then it will all be a waste of time.

Surely those who brought us the atomic bomb must have at least pondered the ability they had put into the hands of man. And that one day many nations would have these weapons.

I really hope this "push" gets traction and from reading the article there is reason to be optimistic about it.

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


Walks
Yes it is a nice thought, but for it to actually happen I think it will be little more then a pipe dream. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. managed to agree on a verification program. I see it being much more difficult for the rest of the world nuke capable countries to agree on something. Namely Korea, Israel, and Iran.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


I agree, yet when you look at the governments involved so far it has promise... And if enough nations sign on then perhaps others will... It is an expensive weapon to build maintain and replace... Verification will be a huge issue, and that kind of cooperation between nations especially known adversaries seems impossible in these times, yet if they find a way to get on board with this plan, this could be a great catalyst for a lasting global peace.

Though it seems rather like asking soldiers on both sides of an intense battle to lay down their weapons... Yeah right!

I still would like to see how this goes, I know I will be following this story. It is far better to be optimistic rather than waiting for the world as we know it to end in some nuclear war.

Also, it is worth saying, at least in my opinion.... This push to eliminate nuclear weapons would have never been possible with the Bush administration still safely in office.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
There is not much can be done to get rid of them except get rid of the knowledge of how to make them, which is impossible.
In my opinion those that have them should continue to have them and those that dont (here's lookin at you iran) should be without, why upset the status quo?
Although they should be reduced to a more managble level if for nothing else but cost savings.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Europe
 


While it may be impossible to completely eliminate nukes, major global reductions of arsenals and strict cooperative verification between all nuclear nations is "possible" and there is the opportunity for peace... Again something I believe was completely impossible during the Bush administration.

From the article:

Obama said in July that "as long as nuclear weapons exist we will retain a strong deterrent." But he said of his plans, "We will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."

Sounds like a great goal to me.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
This has sort of been tried before.

www.nti.org

Sam Nunn, Ted turner and thousands of people across the globe, including myself have been working to do the same. It has evolved into a threat assessment, wmd reduction & newswire service.

I'll also say that this line of activism is LUCRATIVE and it surprises me not that others want to get in on the action.

NTI has been around a long time now and has done a LOT to secure stockpiles and encourage non proliferation. I just hope the ZERO group work hard and concentrate on their guiding principles, not the fund raising.

A good cause supports itself through obvious conscious / moral regard for future generations and will attract funds on principle.

Let's hold all our feet to the fire.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


As much as I would like that, I think it's never going to happen.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
If it's been tried before and hasn't worked there is no reason to believe that it may not eventually it may work. Lowering the stockpile is one step at a time but it would take years if not decade(s) to implement. Progress is progress and that's what is important.



posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong I am no way a nuke supporter but imagine how much nucleur waste would be created through a global disarmament , the waste would be huge . Woudn't it be better to just get all the nukes and lock them away in a huge vault . Plus they may proove usefull for non harmfull uses oneday maybe in outer space . I am not meaning use them against aliens that would be stupid it would be better to befriend them .

I am aware of how bad nukes are I am not supporting them I just think more harm would come out of taking them apart because of all the waste , it would be better of to leave them as they are and just lock them away in a huge concrete and lead vault .



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   
The one nation I can't see ever giving this any real attempt would be the U.S.

All the other nations can either be persuaded, or bribed in some fashion... but the US has it in it's head that it's the worlds police... and for some reason, needs enough nukes to wipe the world clean many times over.

Nukes have only one feasible use.
Genocide.

Clearly some nations consider genocide to be a viable option.


Unfortunately for these guys, Canada already beat them to it.
Still the only nation to successfully complete a total nuclear disarmament.
Woot!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
WOW that's a great idea, let's let the low population, high technology, somewhat civilized world... throw away all our Advanced weapons

In a world where some cultures breed into the Billions

Sounds like i'd end up with a bright future that way...

and this is great because, once all the Nukes are gone, the first scum bucket low life dictator to secretly build a handful of them can take the world hostage...

This is a great idea

Next i'm going to go to the Zoo and Jump in the Lions Cage and pet the Kitties



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I just can't see it happening. But I can see nukes getting smaller and smaller so it will make it seem like their aren't a lot of nukes.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
yeah,wishful thinking humanity isnt civilized enough as a whole to actually want peace.The only time nukes would be eliminated is if they make a more destructive, cheaper to make and easier to maintain bomb.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I was a supporter of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament* throughout the 1980s and would like to see this happen.

However, I doubt very much that America or perhaps Nato generally would actually want this to happen without something to actually replace it that was equally destructive.

I think the fact that some of the 'non-Western' nations are catching-up regarding the ability to destroy the planet has a lot to do with it. It's hard to have any real leverage with an opponent if they're as equally capable of turning the planet into glass as you are. Maybe it's time to move on and pull something else out of the bag that will give another 20 year technological advantage whilst those angry brown people play catch-up. Repeat as necessary.

Or maybe it's a case of redefining some of these weapons. Hasn't the last couple of middle-Eastern conflicts seen some pretty shoddy attempts to get around weapons bans of certain types by simply 're-branding' existing weapons or at least legacy variants to get around the 'we don't use those nasty weapons anymore!' false ethics?

*if anyone is interested in some genuine 'conspiracies' regarding government disinfo/tactics against CND, the group's wiki page makes for some interesting reading touching on leaks, funding, smear campaigns &c.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 04:31 AM
link   
well if it happens it wont be easy and as said it will in itself actually be a risk factor.
is there any alternative uses for the weapons grade waste of plutonium, uranium and the likes??



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

Unfortunately for these guys, Canada already beat them to it.
Still the only nation to successfully complete a total nuclear disarmament.
Woot!

[edit on 7-12-2008 by johnsky]


Huh? I wasn't aware Canada ever had nuclear weapons to begin with, let alone any to disarm! I know you guys have nuclear power and the know how, but so does germany and Japan, yet they have never built a bomb either.

The only country that I was aware had ever voluntarily and unilaterally gave up nukes was South Africa.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by WishForWings

As much as I would like that, I think it's never going to happen.


Dead right, never. Unless they figure out how to turn the nukes that are there into massive profit or another weapon comes along.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WishForWings
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 


As much as I would like that, I think it's never going to happen.


I agree. The motivation, at present, is simply not there. Geez, the world doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stop a country from getting nukes in the first place (assuming Iran is truly headed in that direction).

The only event which MIGHT trigger nuclear disarmament is after they're actually used in a modern exchange (like Pakistan / India). Of course, an event like that could also serve to trigger modernization and expansion of arsenals worldwide. Both are "see I told you so" moments on both the nuc opponents and nuc proponents sides.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Even if nukes were no more, I don't know who seriously would believe that.
Can ANYONE see the US abandoning their nukes?

If you had a neighbour who had a gun and you suspected he had some harsh feelings towards your family, you'd want to buy your own bigger & better gun.

So what now, abandon nuclear war and concentrate on biological warfare?

I'd rather be vaporized than having to spew up my intestines, wouldn't you?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join