"Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons" (Yahoo News -decent read)

Yahoo News with TIME moniker ^ | 10/11/2009 | David Von Drehle

[austinaero]

"President Barack Obama's Nobel peace surprise was given "primarily for his work on and commitment to nuclear disarmament," according to Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician who served on the award committee. Valle told the Wall Street Journal that the stewards of the prize wanted to "support" Obama's goal, as expressed recently at the United Nations, "of a world without nuclear weapons."

It's tough to think of a goal more widely espoused than the dream of an H-bomb-free planet. Ronald Reagan and Jane Fonda, political opposites, came together on this one - in his second term, Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to "zero."

[austinaero]

I find the perspective interesting and well, common-sense really. Nuclear weapons are the biggest deterrent to war, imho. This article touches on how 'industrialized killing' is, and historically has been, a very, very scary reality. Yet, industrialized killing does not deter. The author comments that there is no less temptation to start wars since the nuclear bomb, yet, the escalations of such are tempered by the presence of the ultimate weapon. I thought it was an interesting, if a bit light, read on the subject.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

“An armed society is a polite society.” — Robert Heinlein

The principle can be extended to a nuclear world, provided that the weapons remain in the hands of the sane.

[rbg81]

They system works as long as nukes are in the hands of responsible adults. As much as we hated the Politbureau, they were not reckless idiots. The same can’t be said of the Jihadists who lust after nuclear weapons or people with a messiah complex. The real way to deal with that is not though endless negotiations, but with an iron fist. You have to let these pissant countries know that we will not let them possess and proliferate nukes. Sadly, even W did not understand this.

[Will88]

I agree, and have often quipped in the past that people who really love peace should have shrines to nuclear weapons in their home, and big posters of mushroom clouds. It was the invention of nuclear weapons that ended wars between industrialized nations, and not much else, really.

The wars since WWII have been with conventional weapons, and no wars between the most advanced nations as we had in the past.

[genghis]

well i tell my students that japan was terrible until we dropped a big bomb up there arse, and since then they have been a model citizen.

[Vendome]

Trust but Verify is a little different Hope and Change.

[Titus-Maximus]

Si Vis Pacem, para bellum

[rockrr]

Nuclear weapons, and the willingness to use them, are the biggest deterrent to war, imho.

I made a small, but critical amendment to your statement. No one seriously thought carter would use the bomb. He was considered a joke in the international community and treated with contempt by the iranians.

There was none of that with regards to Bush. Cowards and tyrants hated him, but from a respectful distance.

With Obamination we have a return to the "prostrate yourself before your enemies" policies of carter that guarantee global strife and an uptick in dictatorial accumulation of power.

What better way to insure your own misery than to telegraph to your enemies your unwillingness to defend yourself?

[Reeses]

This article is a variation on the foolish idea that only the police should have guns. Israel is a nuclear armed socialist utopia with a sophisticated propaganda network and eyes on territorial expansion. Iran is an ultra-conservative republic with no history of expansion. To keep the peace, maybe even kooky Iran should have nuclear weapons.