Elbaradei: U.S. Should Set Nuclear Disarm Example

Reuters ^ | 8/26/03 | Louis Charbonneau

[TastyManatees]

Elbaradei: U.S. Should Set Nuclear Disarm Example
Tue August 26, 2003 11:52 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog called on the United States Tuesday to set an example to the rest of the world by cutting its nuclear arsenal and halting research programs. "The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside."

"In truth there are no good or bad nuclear weapons. If we do not stop applying double standards we will end up with more nuclear weapons. We are at a turning point," ElBaradei told Stern in the interview released ahead of publication.

The IAEA director, who has overseen inspections of nuclear sites in Iraq, North Korea and Iran over the past year for half a decade said the world's five original nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -- should send a clear message to the world that they were disarming.

"Otherwise, we must live with the consequences. At the moment we are, at best acting, like the fire brigade. Today Iraq, tomorrow North Korea, the day after Iran. And then?" ElBaradei said.

Under the terms of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact aimed at stopping the spread of atomic weapons, the five original nuclear powers were permitted to keep their nuclear arsenals but agreed to negotiate terms for full global disarmament in good faith.

Nuclear nonproliferation experts have complained that Washington is undermining the goal of global disarmament with statements about its interest in exploring smaller scale atomic weapons, like nuclear "bunker-busters."

(Additional reporting by Louis Charbonneau in Vienna)

[kinghorse]

That missile shield's going to be worthless when the attack comes in the form of a few chinese made cruise missiles fired off the deck of some dilapidated freighter that makes it close enough to US land.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So not building it makeus safer?

[mil-vet]

There's only one thing to say: What a @#$%*& idiot!

[kinghorse]

I'd rather see us bankrupt ourselves on the power grid :). There are no easy solutions and Elwhathisname is prescient to see this.

[dead]

We need to keep all our options open in the coming conflicts. We are not France, and we will do what it takes to defend our nation.

I can't even believe that you would try to argue that unilaterally disarming our nuclear capabilities would make our country, or the world, a safer place. Talk about illogical...

[Traffic_Can]

Criticizing President Bush's plan for a national missile defense shield, he said: "Then a small number of privileged countries will be under a nuclear protective shield, with the rest of the world outside.

You pay, you play!

[Guillermo]

Wackos do not see a difference between weapons in the hands of democratically elected governments and weapons in the hands of brutal tyrants.

The Left's reliance on moral equivocation has reached new heights.

[Traffic_Can]

Yeah, but they have California Drivers Licenses.

[Dutch Boy]

It couldn't have been said any clearer. What a loon this guy is.

[RonHolzwarth]

Here's what needs to happen, I think. There HAS to be a way to use the energy contained within nuclear weapons to generate a different form of USEFUL energy.

Electricty may be only an example. And this might even be done on the far side of the moon (by future generations), to eliminate the radioactive problem.

Maybe not today, maybe not in the next decade, but someday, all that energy could be used constructively, like in:

Isaiah chapter 2 verse 4 (excerpted)

"they shall beat their swords into plowshares"

Or hell, just use them for terror weapons against the Arabs, before they do the same to us!

[kinghorse]

I can't even believe you would try to argue that rampant nuclear proliferation would make our country, or the world, a safer place. Talk about illogical.

The spooks are probably working out a short term solution to proliferation. It's not a pretty solution but it'll prolly do the trick. Iran might meet with an unfortunate "accident" and a great many people might sicken and die from the resultant radiation poisoning. It'll serve to rally the world against nuclear proliferation and it'll buy some time. Iran can't be allowed to go nuclear. Ditto Brazil. Ditto Libya. Ditto ditto ditto.

[dead]

I can't even believe you would try to argue that rampant nuclear proliferation would make our country, or the world, a safer place. Talk about illogical.

What the hell are you even talking about?!

Can you show me where I advocated "rampant nuclear proliferation"?

No, you can't. Because you made that up when you couldn't address my actual point.

You favor our unilateral disarmament in a world where a dozen or more nations have nuclear weapons. That's an insane position, and you know it. That's why you feel obligated to make up other people's positions that are as utterly insipid as your own.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

If your gun fight is a nuke fight then what exactly is the point? The destruction of the world? I doubt we will respond with Nukes if and when the challenge is made in the form of a nuke detonated here. Therefore, what is the deterrent when the opponent is illogical.

There are worse things than world destruction. Being slaves to a bunch of gooks pops immediately to mind. "Better dead than red" is a slogan worth holding on to.

[BunnySlippers]

"The U.S. government demands that other nations not possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, it is arming itself," Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Germany's Stern weekly.

The fact that this guy's name is Mohammed ElBaradei is laughable!

[kinghorse]

I never said anything about unilateral disarmament. I advocate abolition of nuclear weapons. Everywhere. It's not going to happen so I'll go back to watching the clock tick down.

[kinghorse]

And because you are apparently in favor of the status quo, by logical extension you advocate nuclear proliferation. Maintaining the status quo guarantees this.

[dead]

I advocate abolition of nuclear weapons. Everywhere.

I advocate universal niceness and ponies for all the children.

[kinghorse]

How about deep caverns to wait out the fallout dissapation for children?

The status quo may end up getting a lot of Americans killed. Your either in denial or too dense to see that the enemy lies in wait, patiently acquiring the assets to bring us down.

[dead]

You must have some super secret plan, that only you can understand, whereby giving up our nuclear weapons will somehow reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of our enemies.

Your constant emotionalizing of the issue ("what about the children!") does nothing to further enlighten us as to your plan to save the world.

I would also support the elimination of our nuclear weapons, following some completely verifiable and enforceable assurances that all other nuclear weapons on earth will be similarly eliminated.

Until such a plan is presented (and it won’t be), your disarmament fantasies are the silly and meaningless wishes of a naïve child. Thankfully, more mature minds than yours are in charge.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Dead,

Unfortunately, naïvete is a prerequisite for admission into most elite circles. That, and a willingness to promote tolerance of anything counter to Judeo-Christian principles.