President Barack Obama gave a speech early Sunday morning in Prague. It is a city that 20 years ago revolted against its mother government. Through peaceful protest; the Velvet Revolution became a grand stand against communism and birthed a new and free nation.
So, seemingly appropriate it was the first stop of the President's official European tour and in light of the North Korean rocket launch; he proceeded to introduce an anti-nuclear world. (If you missed it, you can view it HERE) But is a world without nuclear weapons and usage possible?
Noble idea, right? He even used his ol' campaign slogan to support his hope, "yes we can." Obama mentioned that countries without the tools to build a nuclear program will not receive them, countries with them will be told to begin disarmament, and all will have ability to access nuclear energy. He said that there would be rules- and that there would be "consequences" for those that broke the rules. He talked about North Korea fatal mistake in launching a rocket amid warnings from the international community. Obama mentioned that the "Cold War mindset" needed to change. He talked about talks and sanctions. Yes, it's true that he said he's not naive to think such a thing could happen quickly, however. But he still thinks "we can."
I don't think it's as possible as we'd like it to be. Why? Because a country w/ nuclear capabilities takes pride in it's sovereignty. And can you really allow a country to have nuclear capability for all use but weapons? North Korea is a prime example of countries that will ignore any international rules laid out for nuclear usage. And Obama did not propose what those punishments would be for ignoring sanctions and resolutions.
Then again, it's not impossible. Of course the question I have for Mr. President is: when will the U.S. start using nuclear energy? France runs it's country on 76% nuclear energy and the research has been shown that it's plausible.
What's your take on all this?
I'm against nuclear energy harnessed for any use, be it weapons or power generation. It creates toxic wast and is not, from what I have read, the most efficient way of generating power. The last thing we need is global radioactive waste disposal issues at a time when we are wrestling with carbon emissions and global warming. Want to render our water supplies around the world useless? Make them radioactive.
ReplyDeleteHow are we, the nation that has the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons on the planet and debates over the use of nuclear power her at home, going to tell North Korea not to do what we are doing? That's the whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing that has never worked. North Korea needs meaningful incentives and deterrents from a multi-national front. As long as they know that China has their backs, they will do what they want with impunity. They need it to be worth their while to turn away from nuclear options. Can we make that happen?
wordsmith, sorry for the delayed response.
ReplyDeletecertainly nuclear energy can pose it's challenges- but being proven to be a better energy source than fuel/coal as well as cheaper i can't be against it. you may ask, how about the waste? well according to what i know about it...nuclear materials already come from the ground. we would be able to recycle the materials/reuse them again ...before putting it back in the ground where it came from. this can be risky and certainly precautions would need be taken, but it's possible. but i won't go into a long explination now.
of course, i'm still for exploring water and solar uses.
and yes i agree, the u.s. should take a look at it's own use before going after nkorea.
thanks for the input?