http://www.euronews.net/2009/09/24/obama-calls-on-the-world-to-ban-the-bomb/

<quote>

At a specially convened summit, the UN Security Council unanimously approved 
a resolution put forward by Obama calling on states to scrap their atomic 
arsenals.

</quote>

No doubt spurred on by a fear that Iran and other players may get nukes, 
plus the more rational fear we could all end up annihilated in a nuclear 
holocaust, it is however good to see Obama taking up the gauntlet that GWB 
was reluctant to touch.

At least it's the rational approach - we are all either allowed nukes or 
not, and we'll all be better off without - than the hypocrisy of 'we can 
have nukes but you cannot' which was never going to wash with those who 
desired to see a level playing field. There was always a delightful irony 
in, 'we'll nuke Iran and North Korea back to the stoneage if they acquire 
nuclear weapons', and in NK's case, the rhetoric proved rather hollow.

Most people seem to have come to realise nukes are not really a defence, use 
them first and you'll die in the retaliatory attack, a mere final gesture if 
already being nuked. They don't stop those who would, and cannot be used 
first-strike without risking utterly destroying a nation's moral 
credibility.

The question is whether there is real commitment from the big players to cut 
back and finally eradicate nukes ? Getting over the fear and paranoia that 
someone, somewhere has a nuke tucked away just in case, so we'll do 
likewise, is going to be the biggest stumbling block.

We have a world full of distrust and it's hard to see that changing while 
some hold the view that they are perfectly right in being able to impose 
their will on the lives of others. That's the bigest mindset change which is 
needed to rid the world of distrust and consequently nukes. It will be 
harder for some countties than others.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:13:56 +0100, The Happy Hippy  
 wrote:

> The question is whether there is real commitment from the big players to  
> cut
> back and finally eradicate nukes ?

Not while they totally ignore Israel's nukes, and the excuse they  
themselves provide for others to acquire them or to continue to hold them.

British and French nukes are the only way the UK and France still remain  
members of the UN Security Council, and thus far able to claim priority  
over Germany, China or India. If they were serious, the 'big players'  
would start to make the UN Security council reflect today's power  
structure, not the power structure of 1945.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:19:42 +0100, Robin T Cox  wrote:

> British and French nukes are the only way the UK and France still remain  
> members of the UN Security Council, and thus far able to claim priority  
> over Germany, China or India.

Not to mention Russia, of course.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free.

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:13:56 +0100, The Happy Hippy 
>  wrote:
>
>> The question is whether there is real commitment from the big players to 
>> cut
>> back and finally eradicate nukes ?
>
> Not while they totally ignore Israel's nukes, and the excuse they 
> themselves provide for others to acquire them or to continue to hold them.
>
> British and French nukes are the only way the UK and France still remain 
> members of the UN Security Council, and thus far able to claim priority 
> over Germany, China or India. If they were serious, the 'big players' 
> would start to make the UN Security council reflect today's power 
> structure, not the power structure of 1945.

The world is changing, power is shifting; the G8 has been displaced by the 
G20, the 'select club' is having to face up to the changing world and I'm 
sure we'll see more changes in the coming years. With power gained, eyes 
will be directed upon institutions where they don't have such power.