Monday, April 06, 2009
Nuclear dream a noble cause
Obama's "Nuclear dream is a noble cause" say some commentators.
At the US-EU meeting in Prague, and on its fringes. Mr Obama made a dramatic announcement: he wants a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a tribute to his vision that he could even dream of such an eventuality. No more "rogue states" threatening peace, no more fears of deadly weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who could hold cities and countries to ransom.
IMO: Most sensible people would prefer that, but the question is how to do it.
Obama threatened punishment for North Korea, and demanded that Pyongyang should scrap its nuclear arms programmes. Meanwhile, he is engaged in complex negotiations on related questions. The position of Russia, the planned missile shield for the Czech Republic and Poland, and attempts to persuade Iran not to develop a nuclear weapons capacity, are all linked.
IMO: I think the North Korean issue should have been resolved peacefully by now. Certainly relatives of my friends died in the Korean war, and they have not been forgotten. It seems to me that shifty oligarchs like Putin can be reasoned with and do not really want more Chechnya style problems anyway. China has its own internal problems too, and China is such a joke it cannot even suppress the wouldbe friendly Dalai Lama, let alone actual enemies like its growing number of militant Islamists. Not that that is a criticism of Islam as such, but this all helps to show the world that just as Chairman Mao (a fine and great man IMO) made quite a few mistakes, so is China today making errors, possibly much more fatal than those of Mao. In fact in my opinion they are making more, but different, mistakes than Mao did. But they can be put right. The US can sort things out with Putin, and should not give much in return. The 'new kid on theblock' Obama should not be misled by ANY side. North Korea is a bigger problem for Russia than for the US. If I were running a nuclear Iran I would see Moscow as at least as good a target as New York, and much nearer. Think of the propaganda value in the 'stans, and proably less risk.
In the middle of the 19th century, Obama's hero Abraham Lincoln could not have imagined the magnitude of the questions an "imperial president" confronts in the early years of the 21st. But Abraham Lincoln would surely have approved of Mr Obama's determination to keep his country strong while he seeks peace. He would have liked his eloquence. And he would have admired his new relationship with his allies.
IMO: Fair enough, but Obama's methods will not leave us sleeping easy. Lincoln gave us the burning of Atlanta, and my impression is that the Czechs are not enthusiastic over Obama's US, and certainly everyone outside of Europe is wary now. Iran does not like the Taliban, and both the Taliban and Al Qaeda seem to actually be tolerated by the US administration. You can even read that message into Doonesbury. Whose side is Obama really on with his optimistic comments ?
At the US-EU meeting in Prague, and on its fringes. Mr Obama made a dramatic announcement: he wants a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a tribute to his vision that he could even dream of such an eventuality. No more "rogue states" threatening peace, no more fears of deadly weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who could hold cities and countries to ransom.
IMO: Most sensible people would prefer that, but the question is how to do it.
Obama threatened punishment for North Korea, and demanded that Pyongyang should scrap its nuclear arms programmes. Meanwhile, he is engaged in complex negotiations on related questions. The position of Russia, the planned missile shield for the Czech Republic and Poland, and attempts to persuade Iran not to develop a nuclear weapons capacity, are all linked.
IMO: I think the North Korean issue should have been resolved peacefully by now. Certainly relatives of my friends died in the Korean war, and they have not been forgotten. It seems to me that shifty oligarchs like Putin can be reasoned with and do not really want more Chechnya style problems anyway. China has its own internal problems too, and China is such a joke it cannot even suppress the wouldbe friendly Dalai Lama, let alone actual enemies like its growing number of militant Islamists. Not that that is a criticism of Islam as such, but this all helps to show the world that just as Chairman Mao (a fine and great man IMO) made quite a few mistakes, so is China today making errors, possibly much more fatal than those of Mao. In fact in my opinion they are making more, but different, mistakes than Mao did. But they can be put right. The US can sort things out with Putin, and should not give much in return. The 'new kid on theblock' Obama should not be misled by ANY side. North Korea is a bigger problem for Russia than for the US. If I were running a nuclear Iran I would see Moscow as at least as good a target as New York, and much nearer. Think of the propaganda value in the 'stans, and proably less risk.
In the middle of the 19th century, Obama's hero Abraham Lincoln could not have imagined the magnitude of the questions an "imperial president" confronts in the early years of the 21st. But Abraham Lincoln would surely have approved of Mr Obama's determination to keep his country strong while he seeks peace. He would have liked his eloquence. And he would have admired his new relationship with his allies.
IMO: Fair enough, but Obama's methods will not leave us sleeping easy. Lincoln gave us the burning of Atlanta, and my impression is that the Czechs are not enthusiastic over Obama's US, and certainly everyone outside of Europe is wary now. Iran does not like the Taliban, and both the Taliban and Al Qaeda seem to actually be tolerated by the US administration. You can even read that message into Doonesbury. Whose side is Obama really on with his optimistic comments ?
# posted by uv : 4:06 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
