U.N. OKs resolution to rid world of nukes

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
188
Location
Sanger CA
U.N. OKs resolution to rid world of nukes
Security Council unanimously OKs initiative on nonproliferation, nuke terror
msnbc EXCERPT:
updated 3:13 p.m. PT, Thurs., Sept . 24, 2009

UNITED NATIONS - With President Barack Obama presiding, the U.N. Security Council on Thursday unanimously endorsed a sweeping strategy aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminating them, to usher in a world with "undiminished security for all."

"That can be our destiny," Obama declared after the 15-nation body adopted the historic, U.S.-initiated resolution at an unprecedented summit session. "We will leave this meeting with a renewed determination to achieve this shared goal."

The lengthy document was aimed, in part, at the widely denounced nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, although they were not named. It also reflected Obama's ambitious agenda to embrace treaties and other agreements leading toward a nuclear weapon-free world, some of which is expected to encounter political opposition in Washington.

On both counts, Thursday's 15-0 vote delivered a global consensus — countries ranging from Britain to China to Burkina Faso — that may add political impetus to dealing with nuclear violators, advancing arms control in international forums and winning support in the U.S. Congress.

"This is a historic moment, a moment offering a fresh start toward a new future," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, saluting the first such Security Council gathering of presidents and premiers to deal with nuclear nonproliferation.

No concrete actions
The 2,300-word document did not authorize any concrete actions, but it urged action on a long list of proposals before the international community.

It called for negotiation of a treaty banning production of fissile material for nuclear bombs and establishment of internationally supervised nuclear fuel banks, to keep potential bomb material out of more hands — both items on Obama's agenda.

It also urged states to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the 1996 pact banning all nuclear bomb tests, another Obama goal.

The United States is among nine nations with nuclear weapons or technology whose approval is required for that treaty to take effect, but which have not ratified the CTBT.

Republican opposition defeated the test-ban pact in the U.S. Senate in 1999, and Obama is expected to face similar GOP opposition in pushing for ratification next year. The Senate objected to the measure because the U.S. might need to test its weapons to assure reliability, and there were concerns international monitoring might fail to detect cheaters
END EXCERPT
A UN Resolution? Oh Happy Day! World Peace at last!
Oh, wait, it's a UN resolution, that means it is worth almost as much as used toilet paper.
 
Last edited:

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
129
Location
Guelph
Hollow and meaningless. Its a political ploy to try and make it look like their doing something about N. Korea and Iran.

Nukes are here to stay as its a relatively inexpensive deterrent, (MAD). When youre a little guy and you feel threatened a nuke will stop the bigger guy from coming over and knocking you on your ***. The world is actually safer with nukes, then without.

Its like an old Colt revolver, a great equalizer.
 

yorkshirelad

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
1,435
Reaction score
50
Location
Huntington Beach
Well they had better do something about Iran. If Iran are even seen to have a reactor online, Israel will pre-emptively strike. Then the **** WILL hit the fan.

The UN is a joke. Their resolutions are meaningless. It really is quite dangerous because they truly believe that they have done something. In reality they've done jackshit and all the while Netanyahu is waiting on the edge of his seat to give the order. What else is he to do when Ahmadinejad has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
Bah... it might mean something if the UN were actually a legitimate entity that could/would actually back up their resolutions.

This announcement is about as serious as "Micky Mouse OKs Resolution to Rid World of Nukes."
 

chrispillertkd

Senior Master
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
106
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Well they had better do something about Iran. If Iran are even seen to have a reactor online, Israel will pre-emptively strike. Then the **** WILL hit the fan.

I don't know. If Israel does a pre-emptive strike against Iran the only thing they would have to worry about would be Obama following Zbigniew Brzezinsk's advice. The former Carter adviser suggested that the U.S. shoot down the planes of our own ally. (I really don't know why Carter didn't have a more successful presidency given the kind of advisors he had :rolleyes:)

Israel could probably handle Iran unless there's pressure (or threats) from the U.S. to continue to do nothing while Iran continues to develop nukes. If they are allowed to develop missiles then you're going to see some serious trouble as Ahmadinejad gets ready to start the apocalypse in order to bring about the return of the twelfth Imam. Israel would have to have no interest in self-preservation if they do nothing.

Pax,

Chris
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
481
Location
Michigan
I agree that it is hollow in that no real meat or action was taken only suggesting and urging.

But the article state "President Barak Obama Presiding". I am confused. I know he can send an Ambassador. I know he can address and speak to those present. I know he can make requests or even demands, but I did not think he could Preside over the body.

Was it poor choice in words from the author of the article?
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
182
Location
Olathe, KS
Son of a gun, the answer was there all the time. Why didn't we think of this earlier? I propose a new resolution: everybody gets three hot meals a day and a pet unicorn.
 

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
It's a recipe for destruction. The world cannot build up its nuclear stockpile and grow it into the hands of many without a few of them to go off. Without some meaningful action, we WILL have a nuclear war sometime in the future. Maybe not the dreaded WWIII of Mad Max, but somewhere someone is going to get wiped out, and then it will happen again and again.

That is the real future of proliferation.

If the UN OKs a resolution to rid the world of nukes, I say its a good thing. Now, lets do something more then just talk about it.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
188
Location
Sanger CA
If the UN OKs a resolution to rid the world of nukes, I say its a good thing. Now, lets do something more then just talk about it.
That is the problem. The UN is NOTHING but talk. It is weaker than a paper tiger.
 

chrispillertkd

Senior Master
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,096
Reaction score
106
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
I agree that it is hollow in that no real meat or action was taken only suggesting and urging.

But the article state "President Barak Obama Presiding". I am confused. I know he can send an Ambassador. I know he can address and speak to those present. I know he can make requests or even demands, but I did not think he could Preside over the body.

Was it poor choice in words from the author of the article?

Obama is the first U.S. president to be the chair of the UN Security Council. That might be why the author of the article chose the wording he did.

Pax,

Chris
 

Andy Moynihan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
174
Location
People's Banana Republic of Massachusettstan, Disu
U.N. OKs resolution to rid world of nukes


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ( pause for breath )AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ( pause for breath ) ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha............


And if you believe that, I'll tell you another one.
 

Ken Morgan

Senior Master
MT Mentor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
129
Location
Guelph
Actually the UN has done a lot of good in the world in terms of world health, (small pox, polo), education, small scale economics and in helping settle various small scale squabbles. (The UN doesnt give a **** about what you do inside your borders, just as long as it stays there, and doesnt affect your neighbours). The task it was charged with back in the 1940s was to make sure the world did not get into another world war. In that sense it has also succeeded. War between nation states are very rare these days.

However, it is inefficient, somewhat corrupt, has no real power (thank the FSM for that!!), to do anything militarily. (I and everyone here would not want our countries troops under UN command to settle some pet issue of some moron who got a resolution passed. Canadian and other NATO troops are put under the command of other NATO allies from time to time, that works because we have the same values.)

You cant throw the baby out with the bath water, the UN does accomplish a great deal of good in the world, we only hear about the hollow and stupid resolutions that come out of it. If we didnt have the UN, we would have to form an organization like it.
 

Rich Parsons

A Student of Martial Arts
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
15,912
Reaction score
481
Location
Michigan
Obama is the first U.S. president to be the chair of the UN Security Council. That might be why the author of the article chose the wording he did.

Pax,

Chris


Chris,

Thanks for the infomration, but I am still confused.


http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart_en.pdf
The above is a link to the organization of the UN chart. The chart is the chart I guess.

But if you follow it to the security council you see their wab page and from there the schedule of presidency of the security council. The USA has the presidency in September. See link just below.
http://www.un.org/sc/presidency.asp

So how can the Head of a Soveriegn Nation also be the Chariman or President of the Security Council even if it is just for one month?

Did the President of the US of A appoint himself the Ambassdor to the UN and thereby to the security council?

The US Constitution allows for the US President to appoint Ambassadors but it requires 2/3 of the senators present to concur.

So did the Senate also suppor this action?

I must be missing something.
 

CoryKS

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
4,403
Reaction score
182
Location
Olathe, KS
Its a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog feces and mix em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former. Thats the problem with the U.N.
- Mark Steyn
 
Top