Tim Blair

Clap, clap, clap!

Happy?

This is a great proposal. I just hope it includes every country that has, in the past, refused close international inspection of its nuclear facilities.

Every country.

Every country.

EVERY country.

What is the sound of no hands clapping?

Vaara makes a point.

Countries that already have time-tested control mechanisms over the use and dissemination of nuclear technology need and can benefit from the supervision of countries who suffer from a lack of, or have, insufficient control mechanisms. Much as Seymour Skinner could benefit from the supervision of Edna Krabapple's class.

Hey, I didn't say Vaara makes a good point...

good point

GOOD point

Now, now, the EU wants the UN to handle this. Sorry for the long posting, Tim, and comments added at rantburg.

Some European countries are of the opinion that Pakistan’s position with regard to its nuclear capability must be discussed at length at the UN Security Council.

That should take years. Maybe centuries...

According to a report in The News, these European members of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) apex board wanted to raise in the UN Security Council what they described as the core question: "Whether a country incapable of guarding nuclear secrets can be trusted with nuclear weapons".

Now there’s a hot potato if I ever saw one.

Eleven EU countries represented at the 35-member IAEA board are - Denmark, Germany, France, the UK, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain (full members) and Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland (EU accession countries). Quoting a diplomatic source, the report said that the EU members were against Washington’s paradigm of unilateralism in handling the sensitive issue like nuclear proliferation, and pleaded that the UNSC should play a key role in such problems.

They’ve done such a stellar job in the past.

According to the report, even European countries, including the UK and France, that had applauded the Pakistan government’s handling of the nuclear scientists, were raising the above mentioned question.

Visualizing their own cities glowing in the dark.

They pleaded that multi-lateralism, which was the cardinal principle of the "EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)", should be put to practice with its full force in the context of Pakistan’s nuclear programme.

I’d laugh if it wasn’t so serious.

Presently, the report added, Europeans were engaged in such consultations surreptitiously.

---

Don't worry, Vaara, the UN and EU are looking out for you. Sleep well.

I'd say that italics are fine for emphasis, bold lettering makes it stand out, and all caps is written shouting - all dangerous but conventional emphasis mechanisms. But italized, bold and capitalized words are the NUCLEAR BOMB of emphasization. Better prepare to get your "facilities inspected"! We'll send over Helen Caldicott and Mohammed El-Baradei with "inspection equipment" and "party drugs".

Good idea, Mr. Bush! We'll disarm all these other rascals and then we can continue with our warmongering, imperialistic empire building. By the way, when it comes to empire building, we're going to have to do better than Guam and Puerto Rico, okay?

Good idea, Mr. Bush! We'll disarm all these other rascals and then we can continue with our warmongering, imperialistic empire building. By the way, when it comes to empire building, we're going to have to do better than Guam and Puerto Rico, okay?

Sorry, folks, I keep accidently hitting that post reply key!

hmm, the anti-nuke crowd seems to screech more about Israel's nuclear capabilities more than any other.

Its just unfair of us you know, to deny our enemies the exact same weapons we have. In order for the left's honour to be upheld, a fight must be fair, no matter what cost to the armed forces.

There was no outrage from the Left at the fact that Pakistan's top scientists and government officials were selling Pakistan's nuclear know-how to all comers (eg. Libya confessed as much). I think there will actually be a negative reaction to GW's proposal. The spin will be that others (i.e. nutters like Iran and North Korea) must have nukes to stop the West's hegemony.

Nukes don't kill people, people do.

So Bush plans to bust the booming black market before one of the bombs goes, er, boom, right?
This could win him a few more supporters. Like Colin Keay, a retired Newcastle Uni. Professor, who is strongly critical of Helen Caldicott and her knee-jerk response to nuclear energy, but who feels uncomfortable about the use of nuclear weapons industry.
(I meant to put a link to Colin's website in, but for some reason the website admin. wouldn't let me. Just type 'Colin Keay' into Google to find his website)

Well Bush needs to get this organized. That’s why he was elected. The next 9/11 might not seem like the movies.

This wont get the support of any lefties as most lefties thought America deserved 9/11. They moan on about root causes, poverty, global warming and globalization. If 4,000 people die or 100,000 or 1,000,000 it doesn’t matter its just statistics and they deserved it anyway.

So far Bush has got it right you don’t try and reach out or negotiate with a dog with rabies you simply shoot it.

surely the best remedy to stopping proliferation is to scale back [or gasp! even stop] building new nuclear devices?
How much is the administartion putting into bunker buster research as opposed to the non-proliferation policy?
I typed that while applauding the sentiment...

Nuclear weapons are undeniably evil.
Isn't that a sentiment shared by all of us?? No matter if you're a lefto wacko or right-on righty.
Shouldn't the natural extension of that sentiment be that we should not only aim to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but that they should be removed from existence totally?
Also typed while applauding the announcement....

Why should we think nuclear weapons are undeniably evil? They are incredibly dangerous, but then so is a US Marine.

Sincerity

A bomb is neither good nor evil.

Its just a bomb.

Nuclear weapons are undeniably evil.

No, people who use nuclear weapons to kill people are "evil". A bomb is an inanimate object. Its is no more evil than a piece of cheese.

Bill O'Reilly's Iraq Mea Culpa

(AP) Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly says he was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that's made him more skeptical of the Bush administration as a result.

------

Find the URL's yourself... it's all over the web,
Now that's what I call fair and balanced... always happy to keep my friends on the fatuous blogmire updated

Careful, Quentin. With comments like that you're bound to be thrown off the Spleenville Glee Club.

I'm not sure there are plenty of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who would agree that an atomic weapon is "just a bomb" or as "dangerous" as a US Marine. Wouldn't they have been happier if a water bomb or a US Marine (with parachute!) had have been dropped on them.

And what is the non-evil use for an atomic weapon? It isn't too difficult to find non-evil uses for marines.....
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/9BEF5FD1BF09DAD985256E3700453D97?opendocument

In your experience Quentin, does black rain feel just like fetta or is it more like brie?

I understand your point Sincerity, but I doubt that the people who died in the London Blitz were enthusiastic about death via high explosives, fire, and rockets, but that doesn't make explosives, fire, or rockets inherently evil.

BTW, there were actually lots of suggestions for peacetime use of nuclear bombs, including large-scale excavation and space propulsion. I'm not qualified to say if they were good suggestions or not, but unfortunately the general hysteria around anything to do with the technology prevented any kind of rational assessment.

I'm all for universal nuclear disarmament but Sincerity et al have the order backwards. FIRST you disarm your enemies, then put down your own weapons. Unless you harbor a secret suicide wish of course.

The problem with proliferation is not a problem as long as those with the weapons have no intent to use them.

The Islamic countries have the Intent to use, they just don't have the capability yet. They have told us (and Israel before us) repeatedly that they will, in-fact, use nuclear weapons against us if they get them.

Get your priorities straight or go home.