The Nuclear Summit

[PanzerJaeger]

As everyone is probably aware, America's great president convened a summit in Washington to address the issue of nuclear proliferation. Well, the large gathering of world leaders wrapped up yesterday, but what was actually accomplished - apart from another glorious photo of our president bowing to yet another one of our creditors?

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/capt_52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b.jpg

I tend to agree with Jon Kyl.


The summit's purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communique that largely restates current policy and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran's nuclear weapons program.

[Lemur]

AWell, the large gathering of world leaders wrapped up yesterday, but what was actually accomplished - apart from another glorious photo of our president bowing to yet another one of our creditors?
Assuming this is something besides a rhetorical question (http://www.necn.com/04/14/10/White-House-touts-success-of-nuclear-sum/landing_nation.html):


During the summit, leaders of some countries made specific promises. Both the Ukraine and Canada vowed to get rid of their highly-enriched uranium.

The United States and Russia signed an update to a ten-year-old agreement to eliminate weapons-grade plutonium from their military programs.

[PanzerJaeger]

Awesome! I have been losing sleep over Canada's uranium stockpiles. Some of them are still pretty upset over the War of 1812.

[Lemur]

By all means, let us ignore the enriched uranium stockpiles around the world. After all, it's not as though anyone wants to do anything with them.

If I thought you had the slightest interest in nuclear issues, we'd have something to talk about, but let's be honest; this is just another platform for you to bash the Prez, nothing more or less. You claim that nothing was accomplished, literally: "what was actually accomplished". Your words. When they are refuted, you dodge into a bit of silliness about how enriched uranium stockpiles don't matter, betraying your utter lack of seriousness on the subject.

[Louis VI the Fat]

US diplomacy has made great strides the last year towards cooperation with China to thwart Iran´s nuclear ambitions.

Considering that a western boycott, technologically or economically, is useless when Tehran has the luxury of choice, this is a great step.



Few fear Canada*, or doubt its resolve to keep nuclear fuel out of the wrong hands. Canada may have agreed to send spent nuclear fuel to the US to make it politically palatable for the Ukraine to do the same. Such is my entirely subjective intuition at least.


*Except Canada´s environmental track record, which will destroy the world before a nuclear armaggedon does.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why so sour this wonderful spring morning?


By all means, let us ignore the enriched uranium stockpiles around the world. After all, it's not as though anyone wants to do anything with them.

Who said anything about ignoring them? I thought the point of this summit was to do something about them. Unfortunately, it seems to have accomplished very little. Hence the thread.. to discuss it.


If I thought you had the slightest interest in nuclear issues, we'd have something to talk about, but let's be honest; this is just another platform for you to bash the Prez, nothing more or less.

Actually, I was very hopeful that the summit might produce some tangible results. They are scant at best. So why shouldn't the president's performance be criticized? He promised the nation better results through diplomacy, but he doesn't appear to be particularly skilled at it.

As an aside, I have noticed that anytime anyone is critical of this president you launch in to rhetoric about how it has nothing to do with the issues and its all about him personally. Noted. :book:


You claim that nothing was accomplished, literally: "what was actually accomplished". Your words. When they are refuted, you dodge into a bit of silliness about how enriched uranium stockpiles don't matter, betraying your utter lack of seriousness on the subject.

No, my response was a comical way of saying that the "accomplishments" of the summit were not particularly great.

[Vladimir]

By all means, let us ignore the enriched uranium stockpiles around the world. After all, it's not as though anyone wants to do anything with them.

If I thought you had the slightest interest in nuclear issues, we'd have something to talk about, but let's be honest; this is just another platform for you to bash the Prez, nothing more or less. You claim that nothing was accomplished, literally: "what was actually accomplished". Your words. When they are refuted, you dodge into a bit of silliness about how enriched uranium stockpiles don't matter, betraying your utter lack of seriousness on the subject.

Then dispense with ad hominem attacks and focus on substance. As he brilliantly illustrates, this summit is heavy on symbolism and short on substance. All we've done is relive certain, mostly friendly countries, of the burden of securing enriched uranium. It's like offering to collect used hypodermic needles so they don't was up on our shores. The truth is that this summit has done little to ensure our security. Proliferators are free to proliferate and China hasn’t moved an inch. It's another feel good and silly performance for the President. That's why he bows so much.

[rory_20_uk]

Is this aimed at all Presidents and their inability to scrap all WMDs in one fell swoop and balance the books, or merely as currently it's a Democrat who'se doing these things?

Of course it is rogue states with undeclared nuclear stockpiles that are dangerous, such as North Korea and Israel, of which neither countries leader attended.

But by reducing amounts in the world in other countries will apply political pressure to countries who are amenable to these things... not countries such as north Korea and Israel, of course.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

So why shouldn't the president's performance be criticized? He promised the nation better results through diplomacy, but he doesn't appear to be particularly skilled at it.
By what metric? What, exactly were you hoping for? If you want to be taken seriously, then propose something serious. Blanket criticisms of a man you despise don't count for much.


I have noticed that anytime anyone is critical of this president you launch in to rhetoric about how it has nothing to do with the issues and its all about him personally.
If your entire argument rests on the WND/FoxNews meme about bowing, well, you get what you paid for, which ain't much. Propose a serious argument and you'll get a serious response. Recycle rightist memes and you'll get a pimp slap.


Then dispense with ad hominem attacks and focus on substance.
And the substance is ...? Care to inject your deep understanding of nuclear proliferation issues here?


All we've done is relive certain, mostly friendly countries, of the burden of securing enriched uranium. It's like offering to collect used hypodermic needles so they don't was up on our shores. The truth is that this summit has done little to ensure our security.
Another deeply unserious response. Explain, in 200 words or less, why enriched uranium stockpiles are a concern for U.S.A. security.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't think the question is really about uranium stockpiles. More like what more should have been done.

Didn't they sign a new treaty with Russia a few weeks back to reduce stockpiles of warheads by 1/3 though? That's decent.

[Lemur]

Didn't they sign a new treaty with Russia a few weeks back to reduce stockpiles of warheads by 1/3 though? That's decent.
Details here (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/04/09/russian_president_obama_sign_nuclear_arms_treaty/).


Casting aside years of rancor, President Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia signed the biggest nuclear arms pact in a generation yesterday, lacing the moment with new warnings of sanctions for an intransigent Iran. [...] The pact commits their nations to slash the number of strategic nuclear warheads by one-third and more than halve the number of missiles, submarines, and bombers carrying them.

That still leaves the two countries with enough nuclear firepower to ensure mutual destruction several times over, but the move sets a foundation for deeper reductions, which both sides are already pursuing.

And a plutonium disposal agreement, with details here (http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100414_4872.php).


"When this mechanism starts working we expect its positive influence on the process of nonproliferation," Lavrov told reporters.

He described the event as having "significant importance." Clinton said the total amount of material involved is enough for nearly 17,000 nuclear weapons.

Both diplomats said the agreement prevents any future military use of the plutonium.

I can't wait to hear from the usual rightists how this is all symptomatic of Obama's abject failure at diplomacy. No metrics, no examples, no reasoning, just blind assertions which, due to their evidence-free and fact-free nature, are impossible to refute or even discuss like an adult.

[Vladimir]

And the substance is ...? Care to inject your deep understanding of nuclear proliferation issues here?


Another deeply unserious response. Explain, in 200 words or less, why enriched uranium stockpiles are a concern for U.S.A. security.

Very serious indeed. :yes: Oh yes, let's sing the left wing rally cry about Fox news.

Would you care do do the same? Again, you're attacking Panzer and not addressing the summit. Care to put your money where your fingers are...so so speak.

[Lemur]

Would you care do do the same? Again, you're attacking Panzer and not addressing the summit. Care to put your money where your fingers are...so so speak.
In other words, you are incapable of addressing the question, so you ask me to do your homework for you. Gladly.

Enriched uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium) is the single-most-difficult element (http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/atomic_bomb.htm) to manufacture when creating an atomic weapon. Background:


The most complicated issue to be addressed in making of an atomic bomb was the production of ample amounts of "enriched" uranium to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, uranium-235 was very hard to extract. In fact, the ratio of conversion from uranium ore to uranium metal is 500:1. Compounding this, the one part of uranium that is finally refined from the ore is over 99% uranium-238, which is practically useless for an atomic bomb. To make the task even more difficult, the useful U-235 and nearly useless U-238 are isotopes, nearly identical in their chemical makeup. No ordinary chemical extraction method could separate them; only mechanical methods could work.

So having large stockpiles of enriched uranium sitting about in underfunded facilities in the former Soviet Union is what most proliferation experts would call an abysmally bad idea.

Your comparison to used hypodermic needles shows how unserious you are on this issue. If you have a neighbor who won't take care of, say, some medical waste, it's not a big problem. If, on the other hand, your neighbor has a stockpile of gasoline, gunpowder and thermite fuses that he won't secure, you might consider it a security issue.

-edit-

There appear to be two groups that are unhappy with President 44's nuclear maneuvering: American rightists and Immadinnerjacket's government (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-14/iran-s-ahmadinejad-says-u-s-is-practicing-nuclear-blackmail-.html). I doubt this is the last time we'll see these two in alignment.


Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told United Nations leaders that the U.S. was attempting “nuclear blackmail” by retaining the option of using atomic weapons against his country.

Ahmadinejad, in a letter dated April 13, cited Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as saying that “all options are on the table” regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran in response to an attack. The statement was part of President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review that was released last week.

[Strike For The South]

Will someone explain the bowing thing to me? I realize a true American never bows to nobody, unless of course he's presidnet, because they all bow....Even to the pope, which I find much more egregious than anything else.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, I think you can joke about Canada, but less enriched Uranium in the Ukraine would seem to be very worthwhile. Uh, well, my only reason for saying that is that it's a lot closer, I don't actually know anything about the Ukraine.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen, the tone of this discussion leaves something to be desired. Please be less beastly to each other.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Will someone explain the bowing thing to me? I realize a true American never bows to nobody, unless of course he's presidnet, because they all bow....Even to the pope, which I find much more egregious than anything else.Obama is just being your typical uncultured American. A bow is never supposed to be done together with physical contact, as Obama does in the picture of the OP. It's a laff.*

Although I suppose the criticism is that Obama is grovelling to a foreign leader again. I might in fact share this criticism, but I can't make up my mind where cultural sensitivity ends and grovelling begins. There is something refreshing, instead of laughable, about typcial American culturally sensitivity, which contrary to public perception is something the Americans excell in and always make an effort to.


* Incidentally, while I'm at it, in the modern age, one does not kiss a woman's hand. You're not a dog, and she doesn't need your saliva all over her hands. Your lips move close to her hand, then blow a little.

[Strike For The South]

Obama is just being your typical uncultured American. A bow is never supposed to be done together with physical contact, as Obama does in the picture of the OP. It's a laff.*

Although I suppose the criticism is that Obama is grovelling to a foreign leader again. I might in fact share this criticism, but I can't make up my mind where cultural sensitivity ends and grovelling begins. There is something refreshing about typcial American culturally sensitivity, which contrary to public perception is something the Americans excell in.


* Incidentally, while I'm at it, in the modern age, one does not kiss a woman's hand. You're not a dog, and she doesn't need your saliva all over her hands. Your lips move close to her hand, then blow a little.

Agreed, Americans are probably some of the most cultrually sensitive people on the planet.

And dont tell me how to introduce myself to your sister.

[PanzerJaeger]

By what metric? What, exactly were you hoping for? If you want to be taken seriously, then propose something serious. Blanket criticisms of a man you despise don't count for much.

I know it may be pushing the envelope a bit, but an actual binding agreement of some kind would have been great. Actions against known weapons proliferators with nuclear capabilities such as North Korea would have been an accomplishment, as well. And, as crazy as it sounds, I actually hoped the Nuclear Summit would result in sanctions against Iran, or at least meaningful progress towards that end.

Really though, you can pick any metric you like besides "meaningless rhetoric" and this summit fails to measure up. IIRC, the last time a president convened a summit this large, the United Nations was formed.



If your entire argument rests on the WND/FoxNews meme about bowing, well, you get what you paid for, which ain't much. Propose a serious argument and you'll get a serious response. Recycle rightist memes and you'll get a pimp slap.

Ah, but my entire argument does not rest on Obama bowing, but on the substance of this summit - which is lacking. It is interesting that you are trying to paint this as some sort of rightist propaganda. Criticism of the summit has come from all political corners.


So having large stockpiles of enriched uranium sitting about in underfunded facilities in the former Soviet Union is what most proliferation experts would call an abysmally bad idea.

Your flippant, ignorant comparison to used hypodermic needles shows how completely unserious you are on this issue. If you have a neighbor who won't take care of, say, some medical waste, it's not a big issue. If, on the other hand, your neighbor has a stockpile of gasoline, gunpowder and thermite fuses that he won't secure, you might consider it a security issue. If you had your brain even slightly plugged in.

Holy ad hominem, Batman!

Who is saying that proliferation isn't a concern? That’s the point! Very little was done at the conference to deal with it.

[Lemur]

I know it may be pushing the envelope a bit, but an actual binding agreement of some kind would have been great.
So your "abject failure" argument boils down to the fact that there were agreements, but not in writing. And there were steps taken toward non-proliferation, but not big enough for your taste. That's a rather different take than "failure President does nothing but bow," yes?


Actions against known weapons proliferators with nuclear capabilities such as North Korea would have been an accomplishment, as well. And, as crazy as it sounds, I actually hoped the Nuclear Summit would result in sanctions against Iran, or at least meaningful progress towards that end.
What's the biggest barrier between us and meaningful action against Iran and NK? Would that be China and Russia (http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090618_5449.php)? Or did you have something else in mind? And if we are having improved relations with, say, Russia, and they are increasingly siding with us when we speak out against Iran, (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/medvedev.iran.russia/?hpt=T2) does that qualify as ... well how does that factor into your Republican playbook? A non-narrative fact which must be discarded? Or would you care to describe how we're going to deal with Iran without Russia's help (or at least acquiescence)? That I'd really like to hear.


Really though, you can pick any metric you like besides "meaningless rhetoric" and this summit fails to measure up.
So fact-free, I can consume as much as I like without gaining weight! Your arguments are like the olestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra) of debate!

Any metric I like? Okay, how about a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/04/09/russian_president_obama_sign_nuclear_arms_treaty/), a plutonium disposal agreement with same (http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100414_4872.php), an increase in help from Russia with (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/medvedev.iran.russia/)Iran, and an agreement to remove Ukraine's enriched uranium. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-13/ukraine-uranium-agreement-gives-obama-summit-result-update1-.html) There, facts win, rhetoric loses. That was shockingly easy.


Who is saying that proliferation isn't a concern? That’s the point! Very little was done at the conference to deal with it.
I'm sorry, I believe your OP implied that nothing was done ("what was actually accomplished?"). Now you've shifted to "very little"? And how shall we quantify "very little"? That's a slippery little phrase if ever I saw one. "Very little" can mean whatever you like; it's hard to think of a more subjective choice of verbiage. I can declare that "very little" was done in the industrial revolution. Arguing against that sort of vagueness would be like trying to box a cloud.

[PanzerJaeger]

So your "abject failure" argument boils down to the fact that there were agreements, but not in writing. And there were steps taken toward non-proliferation, but not big enough for your taste. That's a rather different take than "failure President does nothing but bow," yes?

Is that a serious question? Tell me what an agreement, especially concerning geopolitics, is worth that isn't in writing. Those in writing are already flimsy enough.

Further, could you describe a situation, in Lemur's world, in which this summit could have been a failure?



What's the biggest barrier between us and meaningful action against Iran and NK? Would that be China and Russia (http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090618_5449.php)? Or did you have something else in mind? And if we are having improved relations with, say, Russia, and they are increasingly siding with us when we speak out against Iran, (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/medvedev.iran.russia/?hpt=T2) does that qualify as ... well how does that factor into your Republican playbook? A non-narrative fact which must be discarded? Or would you care to describe how we're going to deal with Iran without Russia's help (or at least acquiescence)? That I'd really like to hear.

I appreciate your willingness to give lessons on information everyone is already readily aware of, but I'm wondering what any of that has to do with the summit. Russia has been nominally on our page for a while now. And what of China?



So fact-free, I can consume as much as I like without gaining weight! Your arguments are like the olestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra) of debate!

And your insults are increasingly desperate.


Any metric I like? Okay, how about a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/04/09/russian_president_obama_sign_nuclear_arms_treaty/),

Now you are reaching to try to tie in events having nothing to do with the summit to bolster your position.


plutonium disposal agreement with same (http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100414_4872.php),

Good stuff. One wonders if it took a world summit to update an existing treaty between the US and Russia.


increase in help from Russia with (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/medvedev.iran.russia/)Iran,

You keep linking to an article about a speech Medvedev gave at the Brookings Institution restating a position Russia had before the summit as if it is some sort of grand alliance forged at the summit. What meaningful, real steps were taken toward sanctions from either Russia or China?


and an agreement to remove Ukraine's enriched uranium. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-13/ukraine-uranium-agreement-gives-obama-summit-result-update1-.html) There, facts win, rhetoric loses. That was shockingly easy.

Yay. So essentially what we've got is an update to an already existing treaty and a deal with Ukraine for its uranium. For a conference of this magnitude, I'd call that shockingly little in real gains.


I'm sorry, I believe your OP implied that nothing was done ("what was actually accomplished?").

No, those are words you're putting in my mouth. You'll note that the only position I staked out was a general agreement with Kyl.


The summit's purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communique that largely restates current policy and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran's nuclear weapons program.

And now you are going to proceed to argue against the position you've created for me in your head...


Now you've shifted to "very little"? And how shall we quantify "very little"? That's a slippery little phrase if ever I saw one. "Very little" can mean whatever you like; it's hard to think of a more subjective choice of verbiage. I can declare that "very little" was done in the industrial revolution. Arguing against that sort of vagueness would be like attempting to hold a boxing match with a cloud.

I see what you did there. :pleased:

So, in Lemur's world, would this conference be considered a complete and unmitigated success? I'm not as good as you at reading other people's minds, so I'll let you answer that before I just ascribe a position to you.

And to reiterate my earlier question, in your opinion, were there any possible outcomes to this summit in which you would be prepared to declare it a failure, or are you in agreement with the far left talkers that the very existence of the summit is a success?

[Lemur]

Further, could you describe a situation, in Lemur's world, in which this summit could have been a failure?
Happily. Unlike you and the Republican minority whip, I don't think the important stuff happens at these summits. They're a photo op, but the real negotiations happen behind closed doors. So demanding to know whether a summit was a failure or a success is kind of weird in my book; summits are summits. They exist. They serve their purpose. It's a bit like asking if your prom was a success or a failure.

I'd rather look at the overall picture with the players, and see which way things are moving. When it comes to nuclear proliferation/containment, I'd say they're moving in the right direction. I'm sorry you see all of these other developments as "reaching to try to tie in events having nothing to do with the summit," but I don't think considering a summit in isolation is a useful exercise, unless you've got a political axe to grind, and are attempting to score a political talking point for the day.

I don't think you've done much to answer my question, which was what you wanted to see happen. Yes, I know, North Korea disarmed and Iran contained permanently. No hint of how that would happen, of course, but anything short is deserving of your scorn.

[Louis VI the Fat]

With the end of the nuclear security summit in Washington, it is time to do an audit of President Obama's nuclear weapons agenda set out in Prague a year ago.
He listed the following aims in his Prague speech, in this order:


1. "The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons... We will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."
2. "We will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year."
3. "My administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."
4. "The United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons."
5. "Together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]"
6. "We must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon."


So, how far have these ambitions been achieved?


See link for an assesment of the achievements: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8617687.stm

[Xiahou]

There appear to be two groups that are unhappy with President 44's nuclear maneuvering: American rightists and Immadinnerjacket's government. I doubt this is the last time we'll see these two in alignment.And thus, we have come full circle. We have supporters of a Democratic president implying that Republicans are supporting our enemies. Bravo, sir.:applause:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All such summits are little more than "show" at this juncture. Summits which produce substantive results do so because of quiet efforts for weeks or months before the official gathering. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this summit did accomplish it's purpose of "kicking off" an international cooperative effort. The details are mostly ahead of us, but that was accepted by all players from the get-go.

Obama's administration has made some small, but concrete, efforts in this area. In addition to the summit, there was the quiet transfer of weapons grade material from Chile (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/08/world/main6375246.shtml) to the USA, the arms reduction treaty with Russia, and an altered stance on U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons (http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf). The Chilean transfer is a very good thing and met with approval (however quiet by the GOP) from all sides. The alterations in the NPR and the reduction treaty have met more opposition (for example a (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070902363.html) b (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14859690)) but probably generate as much or more positive response from other nations as opposition.

Panzer:

Obama made a campaign promise to work for the reduction/elimination of nuclear weapons. He reiterated that stance in the Prague speech. He and his administration are acting on their promises. Most of his moves will be popular among a large portion of the USA and even more popular around the world. Most of humanity would adore a world where no such weapons exist and no nations can use that club to force others to do as they wish. They realize it'll probably never get to a nuke-free world, but they deeply appreciate the try that is being made.

I actually share a number of Krauthammer's concerns -- not pollyanna enough I guess -- but I think you are going to find that this aspect of the Obama administration's efforts is going to meet with broad approval and will curb some of the animus he incurred by putting through the health care package -- which shows some decent politicking on his part. The man is not dumb.

[PanzerJaeger]

Happily.

Well, go ahead then.


Unlike you and the Republican minority whip, I don't think the important stuff happens at these summits. They're a photo op, but the real negotiations happen behind closed doors. So demanding to know whether a summit was a failure or a success is kind of weird in my book; summits are summits. They exist. They serve their purpose. It's a bit like asking if your prom was a success or a failure.

So despite our little ride in the merry-go-round, we are actually in agreement that the summit produced very little in tangible results; and you are now taking the position that international summits are equivalent to presidential proms, and it is stupid to endeavor to understand if anything of any consequence was accomplished. Basically: accountability doesn't apply here, move along. Well, ok. :shrug:


I'd rather look at the overall picture with the players, and see which way things are moving. When it comes to nuclear proliferation/containment, I'd say they're moving in the right direction.

I fear your assessment of the overall picture is rosy at best. I have a hard time seeing China imposing any meaningful sanctions on one of its biggest oil trading partners (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/14/china-petrol-iran-un-sanctions) and Russia's commitment (http://www.sevensidedcube.net/politics/2010/russians-say-the-nuclear-reactor-they-are-building-in-iran-is-nearly-ready/) to a nuclear free Iran is questionable. Hopefully I'm wrong, though.


I don't think you've done much to answer my question, which was what you wanted to see happen. Yes, I know, North Korea disarmed and Iran contained permanently. No hint of how that would happen, of course, but anything short is deserving of your scorn.

Ah, but I have. A binding agreement would have been good, actions against North Korea would have been better, and sanctions against Iran would have just been great.



All such summits are little more than "show" at this juncture. Summits which produce substantive results do so because of quiet efforts for weeks or months before the official gathering. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this summit did accomplish it's purpose of "kicking off" an international cooperative effort. The details are mostly ahead of us, but that was accepted by all players from the get-go.

Obama's administration has made some small, but concrete, efforts in this area. In addition to the summit, there was the quiet transfer of weapons grade material from Chile to the USA, the arms reduction treaty with Russia, and an altered stance on U.S. doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons. The Chilean transfer is a very good thing and met with approval (however quiet by the GOP) from all sides. The alterations in the NPR and the reduction treaty have met more opposition (for example a b) but probably generate as much or more positive response from other nations as opposition.

Panzer:

Obama made a campaign promise to work for the reduction/elimination of nuclear weapons. He reiterated that stance in the Prague speech. He and his administration are acting on their promises. Most of his moves will be popular among a large portion of the USA and even more popular around the world. Most of humanity would adore a world where no such weapons exist and no nations can use that club to force others to do as they wish. They realize it'll probably never get to a nuke-free world, but they deeply appreciate the try that is being made.

I actually share a number of Krauthammer's concerns -- not pollyanna enough I guess -- but I think you are going to find that this aspect of the Obama administration's efforts is going to meet with broad approval and will curb some of the animus he incurred by putting through the health care package -- which shows some decent politicking on his part. The man is not dumb.

:applause:

Wow. A well thought out, reasonable post that argues against my position that is free of insults and that doesn't leave me feeling personally insulted. Well done, sir. Of course I disagree, and believe that these summits should, can, and have had tangible results (including international arms treaties, trade agreements, etc.), and that some level of accountability should be applied when judging their outcomes. +1 to Obama for the Chilean transfer, though.

[Lemur]

[I]t is stupid to endeavor to understand if anything of any consequence was accomplished. Basically: accountability doesn't apply here, move along.
If I see you "endeavoring to understand," I'll make sure to stop and help. As it stands, you opened this thread with a high-class troll and have been whining about the results ever since. Tell us again about the bowing, why don't you.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't see the OP as a troll. The thread is pretty clearly about the nuclear summit.

My instinct would be to agree with Seamus's view. I think it's tough (without in depth knowledge) to say whether small steps are satisfactory, or if more should have been achieved. Sometimes they simply don't do enough it's true, but they are often criticized for taking a small step when it was really the only viable option.

[Megas Methuselah]

Ugh. Nevermind. I won't bathe in his filth.

[KukriKhan]

I just wanna give kudos to whoever it was that was in charge of security for this wingding Summit. Leaders of 47 Nations arrived safely, were accomodated, had their meeting(s), and departed without significant security incident, and the city in which they met continued to function. Fine job Top-Cop, whoever you are! (Imagine the behind-the-scenes coordination required.)

Any effort: political, physical, legal... to better secure and account for nukeMat = good effort IMO.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just wanna give kudos to whoever it was that was in charge of security for this wingding Summit. Leaders of 47 Nations arrived safely, were accomodated, had their meeting(s), and departed without significant security incident, and the city in which they met continued to function. Fine job Top-Cop, whoever you are! (Imagine the behind-the-scenes coordination required.)

Any effort: political, physical, legal... to better secure and account for nukeMat = good effort IMO.

Ever since the party-crasher incident, I think the Security folks have been under THOROUGH review -- and they're a darn skilled bunch when they keep on their toes.


Pever' & Sasaki:

I have quite a few reservations -- a few of Krauthammer's points really do make sense to me -- about the policy shift/strategic stance/USA's role changing that this represents. I am merely willing to acknowledge good results when they happen (Chile) and recognize that Obama acting on promises he made while campaigning can hardly be viewed as some kind of "secret treason" which constitutes the tone of far too many who oppose his actions. I can oppose most of the man's policies while still accepting his skill, intelligence and successes. That's what being in the loyal opposition is all about.

[PanzerJaeger]

If I see you "endeavoring to understand," I'll make sure to stop and help. As it stands, you opened this thread with a high-class troll and have been whining about the results ever since. Tell us again about the bowing, why don't you.

I would love to hear you explain that one, considering you've done nothing but attack me throughout this rather innocuous thread.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would love to hear you explain that one, considering you've done nothing but attack me throughout this rather innocuous thread.

Well there's your problem. You seem to think you created an innocuous thread.

[Lemur]

The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15915393) weighs in, with some interesting points:


Earlier this month, Mr Obama unveiled a new policy that reduced America’s reliance on nukes. America’s priority was not so much deterring nuclear attack by other states, but preventing foes like Iran and terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. America would not develop a new generation of warheads; nor would it use nuclear weapons against countries in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), even if they resorted to chemical or biological weapons. By extension, states like Iran, suspected of breaching the NPT, remain open to nuclear attack.

Mr Obama is hoping to convince others to join his show. He may be succeeding. On April 12th-13th he hosted a nuclear-security summit in which 47 countries—billed as the most important diplomatic gathering in America since the founding of the United Nations in 1945—agreed that “nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security”. They set out a four-year timetable to gather up and secure bomb-usable fissile material.

It is easy to say that terrorists should not obtain nuclear bombs, and the meeting produced no binding accords. Negotiating a new treaty would be arduous, if not impossible. Instead America is promoting a more informal consensus-building approach. American officials said that simply reaching agreement on the nature of the threat was important, and the involvement of so many leaders meant that the accord might be taken seriously. Among many exhortations, the summit urged countries to ratify existing nuclear-security treaties. It called on states with reactors burning high-enriched uranium to switch to the low-enriched sort.

Several countries went further. Ukraine, Canada, Chile, Mexico and Kazakhstan were among those promising to dispose of bomb-usable enriched uranium or plutonium on their soil. Russia and America finalised a decade-old deal to eliminate 68 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium, enough for nearly 17,000 nuclear devices. Russia also said it would shut down its last plutonium-producing reactor. [...]

In the view of Britain’s foreign secretary, David Miliband, America’s new policy should turn the tables on critics of the old nuclear powers. It “exposes clearly that those who would charge hypocrisy against us are in fact guilty of the very sin themselves.” Beyond such debating points, Western diplomats have little hope of real gains, such as establishing intrusive nuclear inspections (of the sort that Iran now rejects) as a universal norm. Even an anodyne diplomatic statement looks hard. Perhaps the best that can be expected is a deadlock in which Iran loses support from Brazil, Egypt and key emerging countries.

So for all the feel-good talk in Washington this week, Mr Obama knows he has much to do if he is to curb Iran, and silence those who think he is giving up America’s nuclear defences for no gain.