Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Nuclear treaty signed, but menacing arms issues lurk

World Apr. 09, 2010 - 06:19AM JST ( 15 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

15 Comments

0

HeyLarsApr. 08, 2010 - 10:53PM JST

Oh dear! The backyard bunker builders are going to have a coniption now that more of their MADD courage is taken away. (MADD courage is similar to liquid courage. However I cannot quite understand how one is more chicken that a conventional war might break out over the potentional that all life on Earth could be obliterated!)

Also, we have an opportunity for Obama haters to scream because his pen hand moved.
0

MadvertsApr. 08, 2010 - 11:51PM JST

"The upbeat U.S. president said he was confident that Democrats and Republicans would ratify the treaty in the Senate, where 67 votes will be required."

Crikey, does this mean the party of NO will actually have to reconsider their position since Obama was sworn in?
0

hworta269Apr. 08, 2010 - 11:54PM JST

Why aren't Russia's short range tens of thousands tactical nukes in this deal?
0

tanuki01Apr. 09, 2010 - 12:14AM JST

What a joke, Both contries will still have more nukes than it takes to destroy the world. Obama you are so great, for doing nothing.
0

hworta269Apr. 09, 2010 - 01:04AM JST

except Obama wont ever use them even is millions of Americans die from an attack.

China has a lot of nukes also.

Whats more every beading heart knows America is the most sane nuclear power.
0

tanuki01Apr. 09, 2010 - 01:22AM JST

I agree hworta269.
0

JohnBeckerApr. 09, 2010 - 01:54AM JST

This gesture, while largely symbolic, is still a good thing. Any time anyone cuts down on available nuclear weapons, we're all better off. (If for no other reason than this results in fewer nuclear weapons that could possibly be stolen.)

@HeyLars: the acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction is MAD. MADD is Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
0

MolenirApr. 09, 2010 - 03:26AM JST

@HeyLars: the acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction is MAD. MADD is Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Are you sure he didn't already know that? I laughed when I read his comment, just assumed he was making a joke.
0

HeyLarsApr. 09, 2010 - 07:25AM JST

Haha, yes you are correct JohnBecker. Doh!

So anyway, I see from others that now Obama is at fault for taking this one step at a time rather than leaping the whole staircase in one go. I guess he was supposed to threaten the Russians with nuclear strikes if they did not get rid of all nukes immediately? Sigh.
0

MolenirApr. 09, 2010 - 08:17AM JST

Haha, yes you are correct JohnBecker. Doh!

Don't worry bout that, the reference to MADD and liquid courage was what I found so amusing. Also the reason I thought you were deliberately making a joke. Happens though, even if not deliberate, it was amusing.
0

hworta269Apr. 09, 2010 - 08:52AM JST

Also what this article doesnt say is that America in this treaty is limiting a lot more then just nuclear arms but also our delivery systems that are used for nuclear weapons, personnel and conventional weapons.
0

RomeoRamenIIApr. 09, 2010 - 04:10PM JST

Once again, Obama proves he is clueless when it comes to National Security.

He pledges not to build or improve any nuclear weapons but maintain them as a status quo. Meanwhile, the Russians continues to build and improve their nuclear weapon arsenal as does China.

Fortunately unless Obama can sign up Republican support for his walk softly and carry a Q-Tip policy, the Senate will not ratify this treaty.
0

MadvertsApr. 09, 2010 - 11:06PM JST

ramen,

"He pledges not to build or improve any nuclear weapons but maintain them as a status quo"

You're honestly suggesting he shouldn't?

One might percieve that as a real no-brainer, but then again, you'd rather support Mahmood Ahmadinajad over your own president so who knows what's possible!
0

jruaustraliaApr. 10, 2010 - 11:36AM JST

"The upbeat U.S. president said he was confident that Democrats and Republicans would ratify the treaty in the Senate, where 67 votes will be required."

Crikey, does this mean the party of NO will actually have to reconsider their position since Obama was sworn in?

The Dems' won't evade the issue. It won't go away. But unfortunately for HARRY REID, the Republicans will only exploit the issue much like when the Democrats were in the wilderness. Whose legs are you really pulling by stressing the 'national securitiy' angle when national security itself is supposedly the right's home turf.