Start A Petition

NATO Goes Anti-Nuclear?

World  (tags: 'HUMANRIGHTS!', conflict, death, freedoms, Nuclear weapons, politics, society, world )

- 3396 days ago -
President Obama's call for a nuclear-weapons-free world in Prague last April unleashed a great outpouring of support from international allies and grassroots activists demanding a process to actually eliminate nuclear weapons.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


. (0)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 7:58 am
I agree with Gates when he says, "The demilitarization of Europe where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st." Unfortunately, such attitudes only work when one's enemies also are averse to militarization. And they aren't, of course.

And any thinking person wants to see a nuclear-free world. But unless and until we can create a mechanism to ensure that ALL nations, without exception, remain nuclear-free, we cannot unilaterally choose to dismantle our own nuclear arsenal. If we do, we are liable to become hostage to those who won't.


Lynn M (192)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 9:04 am
Noted. I agree with Lindsey. I don't believe we will ever be a nuke-free world because SOMEBODY will always be holding back, just in case. Sad situation!

Kit B (276)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 9:24 am
Yes. Lynn and Lindsey, but we can dream. I really do believe that JFK made the October Crisis last just a little longer to make us really aware how easy it would be to end everything we hold dear, our lives our families our friends. Oh, and of course the other stuff that would go instantly. He wanted us to be afraid not of the USSR but of NUKES and that lesson came through to many us, but so did the reality that once Pandora's Box is open...

Terry B (649)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 1:50 pm
The most important part of the headline is the question mark.

Kit B (276)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 3:01 pm
Sorry Terry but that didn't say much. The question is obviously in our hands - will all people force demand - push their governments all on earth to stop the madness???

Yvonne White (229)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 3:51 pm
I wonder where & how safe will the place be that warehouse these old nukes?
"[N]uclear proliferation and the development of more sophisticated missiles in countries such as North Korea and Iran are reviving the specter of an interstate nuclear attack. So how do we in NATO do out part of ensure that such weapons never are unleashed on the world?"
We need to develop non-lethal weapons & ways of detecting missils (nuclear or not), and ways of disabling those weapons.. I really think that could be done, given the incintive & the right people. Surely by Now Everyone Knows that it's suicide to attempt Any REAL attack on the U.S. - so I don't think it's a real problem. Now, our Allies May have the problem. I don't believe N. Korea or Iran has the Ability to send an ICM to the U.S. - closer neighbors Maybe..

Jan L (3)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 4:03 pm
The US and the other countries will always have nuclear weapons! It's part of the American way..ugh

Mike M (8)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 4:09 pm
Until humans finally evolve. There will always be war, greed and control is inevitable and the biggest bang wins.

Fiona Ogilvie (562)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 5:28 pm
i strongly doubt that some nations are trustwhorthy.

Rhonda Maness (580)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 9:57 pm
Thanks Kit!

Deborah O (98)
Saturday April 3, 2010, 9:58 pm
Some nations will be untrustworthy. Some nations will have good intentions but be unable to carry those good intentions forward into actions. Some nations are afraid to have nukes--but afraid not to have them. There are no easy answers. But I believe that if we (all of us, all nations) spent the same amount of effort, energy and resources into solving the problem that we put into creating the problem, we could arrive at solutions we could all live with.

Tinkie K (71)
Sunday April 4, 2010, 1:32 am
What about the "mini-nukes" which the Bush Administration rendered "safe" for the public and not in the "nuclear" catagory... Mini-nukes are only 6 times more powerful than the bomb which hit Hiroshima..

Tinkie K (71)
Sunday April 4, 2010, 1:40 am
And what about the Depleted Uranium, nowadays present in all ammunition.

Had anyone seen the effects in Iraq? Babies born with three heads... They should ban that as well.

And what about the cluster bombs? They maim children and animals years after they were strewn all over.

On one hand, some horrific new weaponry has been developed and the military is planning on coming up with alll kinds of terrors, and on the other hand, the same entity is promoting nuclear disarmament.

This current "credit-crisis" is actually exacerbating military equipment sales.

P.S. What about the business deal whiich the US administration made with India? New nuclear technologies for India, where billions live under a dollar a day...


Tim Redfern (581)
Sunday April 4, 2010, 2:03 pm
The NATO five put NATO's nuclear policy on the agenda for an April strategy meeting in Estonia. They have neither been dissuaded by Obama's cautionary note that the goal of a nuclear-weapons-free world "will not be reached quickly perhaps not in my lifetime," nor discouraged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's mistaken qualification of Obama's remarks when she said that "we might not achieve the ambition of a world without nuclear weapons in our lifetime or successive lifetimes" (emphasis added).

Here we have one of those stories in which
I hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
"Successive lifetimes", says Madame Secretary.
Well, she's probably right.
This is a Pandora's Box that's been open for 65 years,
and I seriously doubt it will ever be closed and contained.
If humanity was able to construct the first nuclear weapons
65 and 67 years ago, WITHOUT the availability of computers,
what makes us think they could not be "re-invented"?


Elm Morrison (357)
Tuesday April 6, 2010, 7:51 am
As long as there are mad rulers nucleur disarmament is a fiction. No one in their right mind would destroy their own arsenal while jack sprat next door is trigger happy. These talks are pie in the sky....

SuS NoMail Plez P (244)
Sunday April 11, 2010, 11:52 am
Noted with much Thanks Kit.

Harry Schneider (43)
Sunday April 11, 2010, 12:49 pm
An interstage might be a solution, that I personally believe we will be facing in the future. The exploding costs could leave to a solution, that the major nations install one common armed task force, conducted and financed by these nations to protect all. All would have the same voice and and all would pay their tribute, resulting in one strong army that no single nation can afford. This is not nuclear-free, but a at least under control of a majority and would be threatening less stable nations from any dangerous experiments. Thank you Kit.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.