myata

Haven't I explicitly mentioned "nuclear arms race"? No I'm fully OK with the peaceful applications, not sure why one has to go with the other? "Surrendering advantage" is a good excuse, why does have vague reminiscence to other projects, Vietnam, Iraq?

Yes it's only too easy to deny responsibility for generic vague reasons ("security", "balance of power", "defence", etc). Yet for all we know, there was no compelling reason for the US to start nuclear arms race at the end of WWII. Let's remember also that Stalin's scientists, who later gave the technology to the Chinese, got some valuable tips (by some accounts - critically valuable) from their moles in the US labs. So, was there a way to keep it in the bottle? I'm not so fateful about it. Was there a will to resist military's drive for the ultimate advantage? Definitely not.

Sure. When, inspired by their Hiroshima and Nagasaki achievements, US started to build up their nuclear arsenals, evebody else was just supposed to watch and be grateful for world leadership backed up by these very convincing argument. The Russian bomb was tested only in 49 (first russian nuke test).

Which nations? The nation that started the search, never brought it to fruition before it went down the drain. There was a chance to nick it right there. As promised by the Manhattan project, "for the benefit of humankind". But the call of all the sheer power it would throw on the "balance" was too strong to resist.

Well, let's remember who's started the ball rolling. By bringing the thing to fruition and actually using it. But then, again, it ties into how one'd define responsibility. It's really a self imposed thing that can't be assigned from outside.

Today I heard Pres. Obama saying that due to its role in the matter, US has the responsibility to show the lead now. I can't disagree with that and any move forward is better than nothing for all of us. So I'll reserve my judgement for awhile, to see how it would translate into real act. Are we going to wait for Iran and N.Korea to show us the way, or we gonna do something ourselves.

No, I'm free of any such illusions, but thanks for your insights. It's all about how one defines "necessity". Sometime, in lives.. other, dollars.

Right, right. Did what you had to. What everybody would have done anyways, you just got to it first. Pat yourself on the head. Just leave that nuclear free world, universal justice and yada, preachery at home, for internal consumption. Till such time that you actually mean it.

For once we seem to be all finding a consensus here. Nuke free is just a dream. Pipe dream. We will always have one, by default, if only to maintain "balance of power", and with our generous example, who'd fancy to drop theirs?

To bribe somebody into doing / not what you like them to is one thing; to do it yourself (at least to any rational, reasonable level) is quite another. We're going to see, in the near future, how much real, practical, our own action would follow. Or it just gonna be another big hot air balloon, like the one with the leadership on climate change.

Like, right from the start? Because they are the highest priority? Because without them in the NPT not a speck of sand will move? Right on, I believe you, keep on talking. Like with the global warming, it's gonna move a lot of things.

Right on, loose, shifting focus is at the core of the issue. A minute ago we were talking "nuclear free", now it's all about "balance of power". Which one it would be, after all?

OK, you are saying that these incredibly enormous numbers of nukes are a post effect of the cold war, which is no more. Why wouldn't the all incompassing vision then start with a significant reduction of those? Still allowing major powers to feel safe in the company of others, but dropping the "rogue state" ruse, completely and entirely. Even down to the second echelon of a few hundred, like Europeans, India, Israel (ostensibly), would still be by far more than enough to decimate any "rogue state". What would Iran and N.Korea have with it? How are they so crucial to the success of this vision??

True, but the role of these "major powers", which have 99.99% of nukes on this planet, somehow, doesn't appear to get prominence in this vision. It appears to be all about N.Korea and Iran.

Yeah, but cold war is over. And, there's no record of any terrorist group getting hold of a nuke weapon, ever. And if they would, or even a like minded state would, they would be so utterly destroyed by our over superiority in conventional weapons, that it wouldn't even be a matter of defense. So what exactly do the need those 10,000 nukes for?

In this worthy parallel, which exactly "crimanals" are "holding theirs"? Let's make it plain and clear, without unnecessary obfuscation: is really about defending ourselves? Or dominating the others?

I'm all on board, 100%. Or even 110%. But how and why did the conversation almost immediately shifted to N.Korea and Iran? Can somebody do simple math? No, rather, basic arithmetics? So, is it the new vision for the world? Or still the old tired "see no evil"?

Organisation, indeed ... of evil monster aliens from another galactic, or demons incarnate. In any case, we're fully justified in our choice of remedies: forced reeducation, or extermination.

Savages are in the need of being civilized. Savages are up to no good. Is there anything new under this sun?

Surprising isn't it? Dress yourself into democratic robes, most importantly, put on that democratic hat - and you're still find yourself who you were yesterday, democratically inspired rebirth lost somewhere on the way. Mystery... Doesn't everybody on the planet want exactly what I want? Shouldn't everybody be just like me?

No, it could not be that we propped the wrong guy.. again... in our all cognsant wisdom of how these foreign and remote lands should be ruled ... such a tragic fault - and yet another one in the countless chain (shah, Noriega, Latin American dictators, Saddam (in his early years)...). Will we ever learn? I'm not very hopeful.

Though unrelated (from today's decision by Federal judge on admission of G.Galloway), hopefully, it'll clarify all possible confusions regarding the basic human right of anybody to enter and stay anywhere: "The admission of a foreign national to this country is a privilege determined by statute, regulation or otherwise, and not a matter of right," Martineau wrote in his ruling".

It's kept stable though, artificially, by our outdated electoral system, and it's a really big mystery to who's benefit (no, it couldn't be ...?!!).

Can't speak for French canadians, women canadians, other canadians, but me personally, I don't quite enjoy (not for a lack of stronger - much stronger word), this present duopoly where not voting for one side automatically means supporting the other. I mean folks, this is (much) less of of a freedom of choice we could have in this glorious age of democracy.

"Visit", hah? Just like that guy that just walked by my door, would like to visit me, or maybe even stay for awhile / forever (me having no say about it, granted), and I've only gotta get happy and Jesusy about it. Why is it so much more appealing to give a good godly advice to others, then to follow it ourselves, I can't quite fathom??