Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (269922)	1/24/2006 7:57:15 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 1571068

It's the kind of an initiative a Clinton or Carter might do, but Bush will never do. He doesn't have the patience or the diplomatic skill. Carter would distribute the nukes evenly around the world and Clinton would give each $5 Billion to complete their own programs like he did for North Korea.

To: bentway who wrote (269922)	1/24/2006 9:31:19 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571068

JCP, re: I DO think if we were seen to be working HARD to "build down" our and Russia's arsenal, we'd have the moral authority to gain the support of MANY more countries than we have now. Maybe enough to force a real, meaningful UN action against Iran, with a majority of the world's countries participating. The thing is, the UN is the security council, and most of the security council is a member of the club. The realpolitik is that the club members want don't want to give up their nukes, and they don't want any more members. I hate to be cynical but we're dealing with human nature. re: Countries aquiring nuclear weapons are going to be an ongoing problem that just gets worse, as the technology advances. We need to be getting a handle on it NOW. ( actually, way before now, but better late than never ) It's the kind of an initiative a Clinton or Carter might do, but Bush will never do. He doesn't have the patience or the diplomatic skill. Maybe Carter, I doubt it, not Clinton. Who is going to be the first to unilaterally disarm; who is going to be the last? It's not going to happen. <The only thing that could change the psychology is a real nuke war. But even that probably would not work>. John

To: bentway who wrote (269922)	1/25/2006 2:24:08 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571068

I don't think that if we gave up half our nukes, Iran or N. Korea would give up theirs. I DO think if we were seen to be working HARD to "build down" our and Russia's arsenal, we'd have the moral authority to gain the support of MANY more countries than we have now. Maybe enough to force a real, meaningful UN action against Iran, with a majority of the world's countries participating. You're crazy. The reason the UN may not take action against Iran is not because the US has lots of nukes - rather, its because Russia and China have large economic ties to Iran. If the UN punishes Iran, Russia and China will also suffer, so the UN probably won't punish Iran. In other words, its 100% self interest, not the US's nuclear capability.