Poll | 07/06/2009 12:00 am

Is Obama's hope for global denuclearization realistic?

President Obama is beginning to push for a nuclear-free future. Do you think this is a realistic goal?

Read more about: Arms Race, Barack Obama, Nuclear Materials, Politics

49 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Japan doesn’t have one nuclear vessel. Of course, Japan also knows the USA has its back. North Korea and Iran get world attention by making threats. Without their threats, they would be nothing. So , it is possible but highly improbable.

By Maggie W on 07/06/2009 9:44 am

e-mail alert

Nuclear disarmament is categorized as a “lovely idea?!?!”. Is that like Obama’s first 100 days were “enchanted?” In terms of a nuke free world being obtainable…there words from our weekend news cycle…Kim Jong Il

By Mary Quite-Contrary on 07/06/2009 10:08 am

e-mail alert

it won’t work becasue we’d have to give ours up too, right?

By Chips AHoey on 07/06/2009 10:35 am

e-mail alert

I believer that it IS posssilbe! No I am not nuts…..I just happen to be aware of the difference between nuclear powered energy with Thorium, and nuclear energy tht could be turned into nuclear weapons——and the difference is HUGE!

It is no coincidence that Russia and the US are warming—-we have been in cahoots with Russia for several years to develop Nuclear energy using Thorium instead of Uranium….your tax money supported that effort for 5 years!, and we even signed a 123 agreement with Russia, in 2008….we are building thorium based nuclear power plants in the UAE, as I write! Norway has all their nuclear energy plants based with Thorium—not Uranium.

Mr. Dinner Jacket wants nuclear energy—-so they say——and Russia has already pressed for the non-prolific route, with Iran……and China with Kim-jong…….

Our congress has already held study groups, meetings, publci hearings, made declarations of law,, has a white paper and a written and partially executed plan for non-prolific nuclear energy—-using Thorium—-not Uranium.

Obama has a bargaining tool….and on his side is Russia, and the UAE, and yes…even China.

Nuclear energy…..thorium based……there is more thorium than uranium in the world….and it’s waste cannot be turned into bombs and weapons….it is cleaner and less toxic to our planet—it is the future—-and there have been hundreds and hundreds of unusual alliances to move this forward, workl-wide……

www.thoriumpower.com

By Patty E on 07/06/2009 10:38 am

e-mail alert

Good information, Patty. But I thought who is Mr. Dinner Jacket––thought immediately of Mr. Wow in His dinner jacket and then the light bulb lit––a little slow this morning. The claim that Iran has enough material for nuclear weapons refers to Iran’s stock of low-enriched uranium. This is misleading. To begin, with, one cannot make a nuclear weapon with low-enriched uranium––it requires highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and Iran posses neither. In theory, Iran could take its stock of low-enriched uranium and enrich it to a grade required for making bombs, but its low-enriched uranium is currently under the surveillance of the IAEA. Iran’s choice, therefore, are to cheat and get caught or to kick out the inspectors. Israel is like a dog with its teeth barred, watching and waiting. But back to your post: Thorium is key here. So maybe Mr, Dinner Jacket will succumb to this way of thinking? Whata wanna bet?

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 07/06/2009 11:29 am

e-mail alert

Here, here Patty E - good for you. And I "ditto" your post. Obama is "moving in" at the right time - when the sane world is concerned about nuts with nuclear. I am, too.

By C jay on 07/08/2009 8:23 pm

e-mail alert

Here is an interesting organization with a meeting in DC in mid-august—nuclear with thorium
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ind…

By Patty E on 07/06/2009 10:41 am

e-mail alert

I don’t think it’s possible, and the use of the word, "lovely," was not so lovely.

By Patricia Sprofera on 07/06/2009 2:44 pm

e-mail alert

It’s a rational move. I mean, no one in their right mind can use these weapons without destroying themselves and the whole planet and we have been consistantly building more and more, or else recycling them, as if this is the way to "secure" humanity. Crazy thinking! It has never been true that when one threatens the life of another that they will break down and be your best friend. They just step up their game developing the same power to destroy you. Obama has definitely moved in the right direction. Anything is possible.

By Kagan K on 07/06/2009 3:35 pm

e-mail alert

You can’t put the genie back in the bottle even if the greatest thinkers of all time believe it’s a fabulous idea. You have got to accept that even if all the good honest guys give up their nukes the dishonest power brokers will not. they may tell US that they have but when they need’em they’ll find’em in the hole they buried them in. Think Russia. Think Iran. Think anyone who doesn’t find the need to play by international rules to get what they want. It is naive to think that it is possible, reread your Machiavelli.

By CYNTHIA NEIL on 07/06/2009 3:53 pm

e-mail alert

Interesting to me is this: I thought I would check into the board to see how the comments were going re: todays’ meet in Russia….’surprise’ is a mild word…I was SURE there would be more commentary about the negotiations today—-hmmmmmmm—-especially as there a was a focus on the reduction of weapons…hmmmmm….must be there is no real threat perceived?

By Patty E on 07/06/2009 4:17 pm

e-mail alert

Mt 19:26 says, "with God all things are possible."

I believe global denuclearization is possible. In The New York Times this morning Writers Clifford J. Levy and Peter Baker wrote an article "Obama and Russian Leader Announce Nuclear Deal." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/europe/07/prexy.html?n1=po&emc=pol

I’m very optimistic and applaud President Obama and President Medvedev for taking this first major step toward denuclearization.

By L. C. on 07/06/2009 6:17 pm

e-mail alert

I don’t understand the question… nuclear power can be clean, safe, and is unbelievably efficient. Nuclear war won’t be too good, but I still hope that doesn’t happen.

By John G on 07/06/2009 8:23 pm

e-mail alert

Obama has a record of 25 years of living in some sort of Marxist fantasyland. He hated Reagan and thought a nuclear freeze would bring peace. He was wrong then and today he entertains the same fantasies.

Are we to believe he can negotiate with North Korea, Tehran or any of the rogue states attempting to develop nuclear weapons. His crazed ideas will cause other nations to develop independent nuclear weapons rather than depend on what they will see as an erratic and undependable ally. Doubt it? Look at Israeli naval movements in the past week. Does anyone believe Japan, Taiwan or Korea will depend on Obama’s assurances?

If so please contact me. My Nigerian partners have a wonderful investment opportunity for such clear thinking individuals as yourself. Do not miss this opportunity.

By Thomas Jackson on 07/07/2009 1:54 am