President Barack Obama’s commitment in his 2009 Prague speech “to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” is a realpolitik decision and a political necessity for a peaceful human future.
The idea was applauded by the Nobel Norwegian Committee, who awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize, but overall this prospective peace blossom has wilted. A Peace Nobel is a heavy burden to uphold and now with the US senate not verifying the last round of Start Treaty we are concerned…
Yet people and law makers, legislators and leaders must understand fully the Geopolitical implications of this decision in order to address it accordingly:
There were two sides to Obama’s embrace of a nuclear-free world.
The first was the “vision,” as Obama acknowledged by saying he would “perhaps” not see the end of nukes in his lifetime.
Obama, very early in office spoke of his commitment, for “as long as these weapons exist,” to “maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary.” And he still maintained the Nuclear Zero Vision.
The second aspect of the nuclear “vision” is strategic. The idea was that it would give the United States moral leverage in persuading nations to reduce their nuclear arsenals or abandon nuclear ambitions. It would also advance U.S. nonproliferation efforts designed, among other things, to ensure no terrorists ever acquire nukes. The most dangerous aspect of the 21st-century world is the potential ability of smaller and smaller groups to do greater and greater harm. Israel, India and pakistan over Kashmir and North Korea are the renegades that will be brought into the fold once the big boys stop playing with their toys so much that they cause a sense of Envy… to the little Johnnies come lately boys and girls.
Because if we don’t limit our atom balls scratchicng, and playing – how can we effectively demand that Iran and North Korean ambitions have to be halted?
How can we legitimately limit the nuclear aspirations of Turkey and Syria – both ferocious antagonists, or that of others similarly minded to outmaneuver their national opponents and neighbors?
And here is where the results have been most uncertain. China continues to pursue the expansion and refinement of its nuclear arsenal at will… France maintains it’s status quo. Although ”Marie-Anne,” always publicly skeptical and privately contemptuous, having it’s own force de frappe as part of the cafe culture superiority, remains unmoved to scrap it’s nuclear heap of bombs. And with it’s recent defense accord with Britain, famous for its inclusion of nuclear cooperation with the proud ex-empire for cost savings makes the case that the era of nuclear weapons is passe. It’s not fashionable anymore. Let’s give it up. Even the utterly unfashionable UK Prime Minister, David Cameron’s – chicken-hawk – statement that “we will always retain an independent nuclear deterrent” sounds hollow and anachronistic in it’s imperial tone. The Etonian English arrogance of ”always” gives the game away. With this chicken little hawk, always means ”maybe tomorrow”….
And it gets better with Russia – the main boogey and the best nuclear armed arsenal of the world – clear headway has been made. A new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed earlier this year awaits Senate ratification. It would slash U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to their lowest level in a half-century. It’s compatible with America’s defense needs and should be ratified.
But the “Global Zero” idea, inclines Republicans to believe Obama is not serious about maintaining and modernizing America’s nuclear arsenal. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said of the goal of a nuclear-free world: “I think it’s a dangerous concept to get into our minds.”
That’s a fair guide to Republican thinking; and there will be 47, not 41, Republicans in the new Senate, as well as a Tea-Party-revved Republican majority in the House. New Start’s best hope is in the lame-duck Senate. But Obama is going to have to turn the page and realize “interconnectedness” is not just the state of the world but also the way things get done in Washington.
The art of possible will be his finest hour in getting the Senate right now to ratify the Treaty.
As for nonproliferation efforts, they remain stymied by contradictions that a review conference this year did little to resolve. Three states with weapons have refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty: Israel, India and Pakistan. With all three, the United States winks at noncompliance, in the Israeli case through a secret “understanding” struck in 1969. Of course this is not lost on the likes of Iran. The case of North Korea, which renounced the nonproliferation treaty in 2003, has reinforced impressions of American inconsistency.
Perhaps Japan makes clearest why “Global Zero” is a stillborn idea. As the nation of Hiroshima, it has always pushed hard for disarmament. But as the nation facing North Korean nuclear testing and missiles, as well as an ever-stronger Chinese nuclear arsenal, it clings to the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Idealism will not keep it safe.
Obama’s “Global Zero” vision for 2012 demands action now:
That action means the ratification of the Start Treaty immediately before it becomes difficult to do so with the incoming conservative Senate…
A challenge and an opportunity…
Mr PRESIDENT,
YOU SHOULD PUSH IT THROUGH THE LAMEDUCK SENATE RIGHT NOW.
CARPE DIEM
Yours,
Pano
PS:
As the Hiroshima memories are forgotten with the last survivors passing away, we stand forewarned.
A city of a human community that everyone makes every effort to survive like your home, was dropped off the map with one bomb…
A vision of a world without nuclear weapons is a Life altering experience and a certainty when you visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Much like the vast majority [98%] of all murders happen between families and people who know each other – just – because there are weapons at home in America;
the same applies to a world with Nuclear weapons.
Remove the Nukes and Life becomes far safer for the future…
At least that was the message from old Albert whose mass energy equivalency 
created the nuclear possibility for weapons and energy.
He clearly said that after a Nuclear Exchange, humanity [if it survives] will be back to the stone age.
Are we clever enough and going to risk that?
