BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should more be done to ensure nuclear security?

13:18 UK time, Tuesday, 13 April 2010

The leaders of almost 50 countries have pledged to safeguard nuclear stocks and keep material out of terrorists' hands. Will this contribute to a safer world?

Earlier, Russia and the US signed an agreement to dispose of 68 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. The combined stockpiles - 34 tonnes from each country - are said to be enough to make 17,000 nuclear warheads.

The summit took place without representatives of Iran and North Korea, who were not invited by the US due to disputes over their nuclear programmes.

Will greater international cooperation help to ensure the security of nuclear material? Is the US and Chinese agreement to pressure Iran over its atomic plans to be welcomed?


This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    This whole summit is little more than a Dog and Pony show to hide Obama's complete inability to deal with Iran.
    A Major General here in America said last week Iran is funding the insurgency in Afghanistan, we know they were supplying Shiite insurgents in Iraq with penetrator plates and rockets to kill US and Brit Troops.
    We should have started sanctions last year when French President Sarcozy wanted to and now one year later under Obama's feckless leadership the will to confront Iran has slipped away, the situation with Israel will give Islamic nations the excuse they need not to help us, and this stupid little conference and Obama's stupid teleprompter speeches are a waste of time meant more to improve Obama's image than anything real to help this world.

  • Comment number 2.

    Of course we need security for materials which can be used by terrorists to inflict massive damage. Already purchasing of large quantitys of suspect materials are highlighted and the much more obvious nuclear and biological materials should be well secured.

    As for comment #1 I would love to see French President Sarcozy do anything. It would be different to see a french president do anything useful or try to impose anything.

  • Comment number 3.

    This summit will have about as much chance of success as last year's UN summit on racism, in which the main culprits either refused to show up or turned the proceedings into a mockery.

  • Comment number 4.

    OneSickPuppy says "A Major General here in America said last week Iran is funding the insurgency in Afghanistan"

    This is highly unlikely as the Taliban regard the Iranian brand of Islam as heretical and prior to 9/11 Iran and the Taliban wer fighting a low level war.

    You say "the situation with Israel will give Islamic nations the excuse they need not to help us" - this is correct. That's the price the West has to pay for favouring one expansionist apartheid nuclear state (Israel) over a non-nuclear, non-expanding signatory to the NPT (Iran).

  • Comment number 5.

    Well, for one thing, Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons so to thwart U.S. and Israeli aggression.

    That would be a benefit for the people of Palestine. How much more do they have to endure?

    As for nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands, regular inspections should be made so that the slightest irregularity is questioned.

  • Comment number 6.

    "This is too little too late, The Djinn {islamic} are allready out of the bottle, no one can put the cork back not even Obama.

  • Comment number 7.

    "Wrong hands" according to who? The US has proven to be the wrong hand by using them twice....

  • Comment number 8.

    'Should more be done to ensure nuclear security?' The wrong materials are falling into the wrong hands?

    THE MOST IGNORED AND INSIDIOUS ASPECT OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION COMES FROM FRENCH GOVERNMENT/FRENCH COMPANIES SUPPLYING SO-CALLED ROGUE STATES WITH: NUCLEAR 'PRODUCTION/ENRICHMENT FACILITIES' EXPORTED BY FRANCE TO FRENCH POST-COLONIAL COUNTRIES INCORPORATED WITH FRENCH/CHINESE MINING COMPANIES?

    France has an ever expanding nuclear industry that requires export sales to fund further research for nuclear power to sell to the highest bidder?

    As for nuclear terrorism - then use, improve and supplement existing technology to scan all 'incoming' to our country and ensure that same technology is used before anyone enters an aircraft OR TRAIN OR FERRY bound for UK - that should include internal flights for homegrown terrorists too?

  • Comment number 9.

    AS long as Israel keeps its nuclear arsenal, it is unnlikely that ther will be any major progress on Nuclear control.

    Then again, updating our (US controlled) nuclear arms doesn't help either

  • Comment number 10.

    What? You mean 65 years of endless blatant hypocrisy, lies, and propaganda, from the nuclear powers has failed to ensure nuclear security?
    Gosh! What a surprise.
    Please try not to confuse a desire for peace, with a desire to reduce the cost of maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
    They are not the same thing.

  • Comment number 11.

    7. At 2:44pm on 13 Apr 2010, ayse44 wrote:

    "Wrong hands" according to who? The US has proven to be the wrong hand by using them twice....

    ---------------------------------------------------

    The US ended the war with Japan quickly by demonstrating the weapon and without that the world would be less careful with them. The US saved countless lives by that action.

  • Comment number 12.

    Ok, so who is the “right” hands? The whole point of these things, if they have a point, is that YOU (the “right” hands) WILL use them. Otherwise they are no more than the Ferrari on the drive, a status symbol!

    To use them, YOU (the “right” hands) must be prepared to kill hundreds of thousands, maim and make ill, often terminally, potentially millions world wide for generations (if there are generations), and make parts of the world uninhabitable for centuries at least! This is, of course unthinkably barbaric to a civilised mind!

    Now I’ve got it the “wrong” hands want to kill YOU, YOU wanting to kill them is completely different! How?

  • Comment number 13.

    When we talk about nuclear threats, I do not think many people actually know what to look for. Nuclear weapons are what would be called “high profile.” A nuclear weapon is an expensive piece of equipment that is created using extensive facilities. Every world power watches to see if a developing country begins to have the capacity to create nuclear weapons and then takes steps to either prevent it, or prevent the use of it. A nuclear weapon is not a weapon as is classically defined but more of a deterrent. The whole point of having a nuclear weapon is that others know you have it. These ‘weapons’ are used as leverage in the political world.
    Terrorist are much more likely to gain irradiated material to create what is called a dirty bomb. There are four major types of radiation: alpha, beta, gamma and neutron. Alpha is a slow moving particle and can’t penetrate your skin. Beta is a fast moving particle and can penetrate your skin, but with some protective gear (e.g. plastic) it can be blocked. Gamma is a wave that goes right through you and requires some metallic shielding. Neutron radiation requires led shielding and will cause particles in your body to become radioactive (e.g. very bad). The reason I bring this up is because a lot of radioactive material is easy protected against unless you get it inside you. A dirty bomb’s aim is to get radioactive material in the air, water and soil. The immediate threat isn’t so horrible, but the cleanup is horrendous. A dirty bomb would be like salting the fields of Carthage. Radioactive material in the soil gets into the plants that the animals eat. The animals die from the water and the food contamination. Etc. Etc.
    The point I’m trying to make is that terrorist are not looking to get their hands on “weapons grade” radioactive material. They are looking to get stuff that puts of massive amounts of neutron radiation and strap some plastic explosive on it.
    Look at it this way. Assume a person is going to bomb a building. Would they try to buy some high explosives, blasting caps and det cord? Or, would they buy some fertilizer, high in nitrates, and mix it with gasoline to create a less impressive but less expected big bang. Terrorists only want to be high profile after they have done the deed. They fly under the radar until then.

  • Comment number 14.

    Summit of nations enquiring nuclear weapons would be more interesting.
    Just to listen to subjective and objective arguments...
    The main issue shouldn't be destruction but construction.
    If it is destruction, than we all, equally failed, regardless to any excuses.


  • Comment number 15.

    By the way, how many times do the military (any) have to count their bombs before some statistician finally agrees that the probability is that they haven’t lost one this time?

    They have been losing these things as they change weight since the USA first had them!

  • Comment number 16.

    What more can be done? Bomb Iran? Bomb N.Korea? I think not.

  • Comment number 17.

    1. At 1:46pm on 13 Apr 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:

    This whole summit is little more than a Dog and Pony show to hide Obama's complete inability to deal with Iran.

    Complete inability? Just how able was the previous administration in "dealing with Iran"? Obama's made some shrewd diplomatic moves regarding Iran, his cordial meeting with Syria's President al Bashar last year was a great example of this. But I guess "dealing with Iran" to you means war, destruction and needless loss of human life to prove your skewed point.

    A Major General here in America said last week Iran is funding the insurgency in Afghanistan

    It's very easy for him to say that, sat in America. or is he on the front line as a Major General? that's commitment. nevertheless, the facts that Iran=shia and Taliban=sunni and and shia+sunni=trouble as proven in Iraq have completely escaped you, and the good Major General. and John McCain, incidentally.

    We should have started sanctions last year when French President Sarcozy wanted to

    Sanctions have only served to bolster the Islamic Republic's resolve and make them strive further for self-reliance. they don't care about their people, so why should sanctions bother them in the slightest. if sanctions actually worked, Iran wouldn't be an issue and certainly wouldn't become a topic on HYS.

    now one year later under Obama's feckless leadership the will to confront Iran has slipped away

    there wasn't a will in the first place, even with the GOP in the white house. you wouldn't even sit at the same table as them. to confront, you must first actually engage. again, you've malapropriated "confront" with "destroy" in your mind and won't be satisfied until you've "dealt with Iran".

    the situation with Israel will give Islamic nations the excuse they need not to help us

    apart from all the oil you get from them, all the private US contracts in Iraq, all the bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Aden etc.

    and this stupid little conference and Obama's stupid teleprompter speeches are a waste of time meant more to improve Obama's image than anything real to help this world.

    I don't know about the rest of the civilised world, but this poster is of the opinion that any measure taken to reduce the world's nuclear weapons stockpile is actually a good thing. I remind you that under the Bush administration, India and Pakistan increased their nuclear weapons capability, and North Korea became a nuclear armed state for the very first time.

    anything real to help this world?

  • Comment number 18.

    ONE-SICK-PUPPY IS QUITE RIGHT .IF THERE IS ANY CULPRITT AXIS OF EVIL THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH PROMPTLY , IT IS INFACT THE SINNISTER DINDICTIVE IRAN ,STIRRING IT & CAUSING PROBLEMS AROUND IT IN THE REGION & IN GENERAL

  • Comment number 19.

    First of all the rogue nations possessing the nuclear technology should be separated and tough scrutiny be made of their every move anywhere around the world, doesn't matter if we have to break the rules.

    If they can give away their life in monumental destruction, triggering off a nuclear blast wouldn't harm them much.

    As for Israel, it serves as deterrent and we all know from the nature of conflict it faces. Israel will not require them if its neighbours changes their views towards that nation and crying foul is one way of showing discontent.

    Obama's talk with China to pursue Iran is like, "leaving the Chicken's in Fox's care. We know it from the poor North Korean ambitions which if China wanted, it could be an over-night issue.

    By now most of us realize the imminent danger that we face comes solely from the cause of "rising religious funadamentalism," funnelled with the misused wealth.

    We need to know, who harbours TERRORISM? Then united efforts be made to outsource them with sanctions and restrictions in their every move anywhere around the world.

    Russia, France and China can show us the real Map.

  • Comment number 20.

    11. At 3:18pm on 13 Apr 2010, in_the_uk wrote:

    7. At 2:44pm on 13 Apr 2010, ayse44 wrote:

    "Wrong hands" according to who? The US has proven to be the wrong hand by using them twice....

    ---------------------------------------------------

    The US ended the war with Japan quickly by demonstrating the weapon and without that the world would be less careful with them. The US saved countless lives by that action.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    They ended the war that quickly, they had to do it twice. with two different weapons designs with differing fissile material. I'd hazard a guess that the lives saved that you so gladly refer to are US soldiers' lives and nobody else's. 300,000+ civilians died in the two bombings, were there even that many US soldiers in the Pacific AO?

  • Comment number 21.

    I would just like to remind the world that America is the only country that has ever used a nuclear bomb on others.

  • Comment number 22.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 23.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 24.

    On MOST issues, on this Site, one should always be concerned about posts from 'ONE-SICK-PUPPY' and 'supporters' of same?

  • Comment number 25.

    This topic has been in the media at least since the Reagan presidency. Each president has spoken on this, and it is distressing that it has to be revisited but it is just as important today as it was then. The idea that nuclear material could find its way into the hands of terrorists or nutters must be taken seriously by everyone.

    But the idea that nuclear weapons could, or should, be eliminated is simplistic and very dangerous. No mechanism exists to guarantee that such weapons have been totally eliminated, and the thought that the various dictators around the world are today developing nuclear weapons in great secrecy would seem to kill the very proposal.

    As China grows in military power and ambition and Russia aspires to regain the super-power status of the Soviet Union, it is obvious that the nuclear umbrella of NATO still functions as a deterrent against these rising powers. Everyone knows NATO is no threat to anyone with peaceful intentions but everyone also knows that NATO is not worth confronting due to its nuclear capability. I wish this was not necessary but it is. The cold-war is not over; the players have only changed their team colors.

  • Comment number 26.

    At 2:08pm on 13 Apr 2010, FletchC wrote:
    OneSickPuppy says "A Major General here in America said last week Iran is funding the insurgency in Afghanistan"

    "This is highly unlikely as the Taliban regard the Iranian brand of Islam as heretical and prior to 9/11 Iran and the Taliban wer fighting a low level war."

    I believe the major general when he says "Iran is funding the insurgency in Afghanistan"

    What you say may have been true prior to 9/11, but since then Iran and the Taliban have become allies of convenience, have you never heard the term "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"


  • Comment number 27.

    Regarding post #17

    Your repeated defense of Obama's failures based on your characterization of previous administration's efforts and failures is not very convincing or interesting. I would be more impressed if you explained exactly how you are going to verify the elimination of nuclear weapons in countries like Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia.

    It would also be interesting for you to explain exactly how my family would be "safer" when the U.S. and U.K. eliminate their nuclear weapons and face these other countries using conventional weapons while they deploy nuclear weapons? What if you are wrong? Really, I want to know.

    Best regards

  • Comment number 28.

    It is amazing that the entire WORLD PRESS is concentrating on poor Iran on whom even the latest US intelligent report last week concluded that they would need at least another Ten years to develop a weapon while they are ignoring the PAKISTAN THREAT .....

    PAKISTAN is a country which has for 60 years :-
    1. Waged 4 Religious wars with India.

    2. Illegally spread Nuclear weapons all around the world including in Iran, Syria, Jordan, North Korea and south africa.

    3. Is constantly black mailing India with a Nuclear attack if India complains about Pakistan-backed terrorists causing havoc on Indian soil.

    I completely agree that the current Government of India in India is a Muslim supporting Congress party but AT LEAST the world and primarily US and UK need to act against Pakistan since I bet you that this nation is not only a threat to India but it is a threat to the world.

    STOP GIVING WEAPONS TO PAKISTAN !

  • Comment number 29.

    Israel invited, but NKorea not: why not go public about the reason for this? Denial? Or were they invited?
    Incidentally: to assert the US saved lives by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki is vacuous. No evidence. Was a good chance to "practice" though, that's simply not deniable.
    Targeting civilians = terrorism.
    Still unclear why NK didn't attend.

  • Comment number 30.

    Another taxpayer subsidized conference, more photo-ops and more worthless documents to be signed. But everyone can say that something was done about this issue.

  • Comment number 31.

    Nuking people to impose your own way: some think it worked for the US 60 yrs ago; might it work for NKorea and/or Iran now? (same logic .....)

  • Comment number 32.

    'ONE-SICK-PUPPY' always has specific slants on issues on HYS?


    As for nuclear security? Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) still applies to all countries with missiles ready to launch?

    Terrorists leaders today and, even before the First World War, are the real cowards - they very carefully target and choose the most vulnerable families and it's vulnerable children to die on behalf of 'the terrorist cause'?

  • Comment number 33.

    23. At 4:32pm on 13 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
    "The B.B.C. wrote: "The summit which aims "to enhance international cooperation to prevent nuclear terrorism" is taking place without representatives of Iran and North Korea, who were not invited by the US due to disputes over their nuclear programmes."

    We must not forget that Israel refused to go too. The reason that they refused to go is because they didn't want to have to explain why they could keep their nuclear arsenal while Iran is being told not to have any.
    Better security is needed to ensure that the existing material does not get into the hands of extremist groups."

    The reason that Israel gave for refusing to go (note: Iran and North Korea didn't refuse; they were not invited) was that they felt Egypt and Turkey planned to use the summit to divert things and draw attention to Israel, in the hope of making it sign up to the NPT. Possibly similar to the tactics used at the 2001 Durban conference in a way.
    On the other hand though, I agree about better security being needed to make sure that existing material doesn't get into the hands of extremist groups. This is why many, including many Middle Eastern countries (not only Israel by the way) are, at best, apprehensive about Iran acquiring nuclear power or nuclear weapons in the future, due to Iran's links with Hezbollah and Hamas. If it's security and prevention of nuclear material getting into the hands of extremists groups that we're concerned about, then the sensible thing to do would be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

  • Comment number 34.

    Whose are the right hands to hold these things?

    The death and destruction by these people who already hold these things; are they the "right people"?

    It is pathetic to read how these paragons of virtue can sit up there on their high thrones casting aspersions on anyone who does not want it their way.

    That some idiot will detonate one? Maybe. They already have. All that testing and re-testing armed to the teeth. Just daring the ravaging hordes to come pouring out of their hidey holes. .......... what a farce.

    It would seem that the sanctity of those who hold this weapon, is now justified.

    Mordor casts it's baleful eye toward the east ............. to be cont'd.

  • Comment number 35.

    Nuclear materials are very well protected. Contrary to Fear-mongering,preparing Nukes is very Dangerous requiring Highly-Specialised handling.

    TERRORISM desperately needs Global DEFINITION,currently it applies to all who Oppose US Fgn Policy. While denying those they don't like, US is offering India Enriched Uranium it doesn't really want. Obama declaring US will only use Nukes against N Korea and Iran is a direct threat of TERROR, and on same level with N Korea's Pres' RANTS.
    Netanyahu decided not to attend for fear Arabs might ask IAEA to Inspect Israel, as is done to Iran and N Korea. Has IAEA Inspected anyone else??

    Why Nuke Countries who REFUSE to sign non-proliferation Treaty are allowed IN makes a MOCKERY of the Organised FARCE.

    No 1 Concern with NUKES, is There's NO-WAY of Holding those with Weapons ACCOUNTABLE, and those who cultivate a Definite Culture of "BOMB First", are most adamant about preventing others from being able to Retaliate.

    History of NUKES to date is:- Those without are All Potential VICTIMS. Countries with Vital Resources are steeped in Poverty, while NUKE Benefactors revel in ADDICTION to EXCESS.

    1. Are NUKE Nations likely to Give-up their Nuke-ADVANTAGE?
    2. Is there any Confidence same Nations will Give-up AGGRESSION?
    3. Are usual PREDATORS ever likely to Have-Their-Fill?
    4. Are Nuke Nations ever likely to Face-Off over a Non-Nuke Victim?

    NO to any of the above means you should persue a Nuke.
    NO to Two or more DEMANDS you get a Nuke by whatever means, or settle for "VICTIM".

    Thats the REALITY.

  • Comment number 36.

    Security from what and who ????????????????????? trust no one that`s the best policy treat them all as mad.

  • Comment number 37.

    A terrorist attack with nuclear weapons in New York, Washington & London or major American or British cities is certainly a distinct possibility from now on. We have alienated the Muslims by our failed & misguided foreign policies: we have stoked their radicalisation. The blame for this state of affairs lies squarely with Bush Jnr. & T.Blair. How can we prevent the nuclear catastrophe? We cannot because we cannot even comprehend the dark forces at work.

  • Comment number 38.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 39.

    >"Wrong hands" according to who? The US has proven
    >to be the wrong hand by using them twice....

    You must be a Japanese Nationalist; the rest of us were
    only too happy to help the US develop the A-Bomb - by 'us'
    I mean the scientists of the UK, Australia, Canada, NZ,
    Germany, et al - in order to obliterate Nazi Germany.

    >300,000+ civilians died in the two bombings

    Far, far less than the millions killed by
    Japanese Imperialism in the 30s and 40s; 300,000 to
    100,000 in the Rape of Nanking alone; possibly as
    many as 10 million Chinese and Phillipinos in toto
    (see 'Statistics Of Japanese Democide' by Prof.
    Rummel). Don't forget the radio mast in Hiroshima
    was still broadcasting orders to the JIA in the
    spring of 1945. Check out "The Manila Holocaust" by
    Jose Escoda ISBN 971-8832-37-8.

    Oh and Hiroshima was a militarised city and had been
    for many, many years - in 1945, even the children of
    Hiroshima were working in weapons factories making
    guns to murder real civilians. Meanwhile, the Japanese
    Imperial Army was bayonetting 800 Indian POWs on
    the Andaman (Aug 14), massacring Burmese villagers at
    Kalagon, throwing children down wells in Loa Kulu,
    throwing European women and children to the sharks
    in the sea off Cheribon, amputating the hands and feet
    of Chinese civililans in Hankow and working
    British POWs to death in Sandakan (1945).

  • Comment number 40.

    The Summit on Nukes By Obama is nice, but realistically, any country with enough money, can get their hands on them. Everyone is worried about Al-Queda having them, when Iran will use them in a heartbeat. The trouble with the US is they never get anywhere with these summits.
    The first Country to use them, will set a chain of events in motion that will wipe everything out. As the great Orator Rodney King said, "why can't We all just get along"?.

  • Comment number 41.

    The danger of stolen nukes or nuclear material was very huge when the Soviet Union dissolved and its economy collapsed, meaning that for the following decade a handful of dollars could then have purchase any weapon available.
    Now that nukes are as safely stored as they have been in a quarter century or more, Mr. Obama suddenly raises nuke safety as the world's #1 issue, seemingly much larger than climate change and environmental destruction.
    Very odd. I wonder why the nukes are now the prime global issue? Does it mean there is something even worse is in the immediate wind and governments need time to sort it out or figure out a way to tell us without throwing the planet into panic?
    Just a thought on PR ploys -- ploys which have a history of disguising more serious and pending issues.
    RUDY HAUGENEDER
    Victoria, BC, Canada

  • Comment number 42.

    The current Summit of showing of a common concern of not seeing such weapons of mass destruction falling into wrong hands is no doubt a correct step on the part of us to show our solidarity on the Subject but it can never stop the undesirable elements procuring it through underground sources or through self labor being the entire Technology known to all but only dependent on securing of its parts to assemble.

    With buying Power of such elements much above normal and who are abundantly available with us, the pilferage is a question of getting of chance only with both sides already willing to conduct or to make operational such Business deals; done under extreme Secrecy with the knowledge of none being more often than not such supply of parts are a common dealings between any two citing alternate use of it, if caught by any chance. Accordingly we require more vigilance to ensure that none is doing that although such elements are sitting together with us to take an oath to act otherwise. Therefore it is a question of convenience on the part of one to earn unaccounted funds onto oneself to live in a Style different than others at the cost of the entire of us.

    (Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD)

  • Comment number 43.

    After the nuclear physicist defected from Iran to the United States something must have been discovered. President Obama has finally taken terrorism, and the fact that several terror organizations have tried repeatedly to gather, or steal information technology regarding nuclear weapons. All the hightened meetings, nuclear summits have taken place since the scientist defected to the U.S. from Iran. I think getting serious about the threat posed by Iran, terrorist groups, North Korea and other unstable regimes with nuclear arms needs to be take very seriously.

  • Comment number 44.

    The irresponsibility lies with the US who created the weapons in the first place.

    Give it a year, we'll be tracked and controlled in new and more sophisticated ways, all in the name of 'freedom'. Classic US politics.

    The act of terrorism isn't just shoe bombers and jihad, it's an act to 'terrorize' the public. That includes this scare mongering coming from Washington they always use to justify illegal wars.

    Nuclear bombs surely aren't just laying around in warehouses waiting to be stolen... are they? please tell me they aren't.

  • Comment number 45.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 46.

    The title of this discussion is: "World leaders at a summit on nuclear security in Washington have heard dire warnings of the danger of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands".

    BBC I have news for you:

    They are already in the wrong hands - Israel has it, India, Pakistan have it. USA has it and already used it against its enemies....

  • Comment number 47.

    I am an alien. I want world peace. I want the people of this world to become active in ending the spilling of blood into the earth. Peace is the only course of action that will save mankind from their own annihilation. What benefit has all the conflicts on the planet contributed to the betterment of mankind? War is evil. War kills. War is destructive to our fellowman. I'm sure there are those who profit from War, and that is shameful. Leaders on the planet need to lay down their weapons that kill: embrace their neighbor and put all their efforts into saving mankind and the planet for the future. We have progressed very quickly to the possibility of ending life on this earth. Muskets to nuclear war heads or the like. Why must we keep killing each other over disagreements, retaliations, misunderstandings, power, real estate and death? Why can't we stop the spilling of blood at home and away from home and live as a peaceful people. The progress we've made as a warring people is about to kill us!!

  • Comment number 48.

    Nuclear-free world is only a wishful thinking. Sitting on the stockpile of nuclear arms, US clamours for others to get rid of their technology. If US is sincere to 0-nuclear world, it has to drastically change its foreign policy and treat all nations of the world alike. There ends arms race, ambition to acquire nuclear technology or weapons of mass destruction. But, will corporates in the US allow its administration to review its traditional biased foreign policy??

  • Comment number 49.

    Saleem, #48
    It's not whether corporates will allow an administration to change, it should matter most, what the people want. Everybody will benefit with peace, everybody suffers with war. The Earth has been forced to accept the blood of millions while mankind has called it his own. If mankind stood up together on the same day and said the same thing, 'no more war, we want peace' the leaders would have to listen. It's up to the inhabitants of this earth to change the outcome for the future of mankind. If we stay the course, we die. If we quit killing each other, we live. We must live in harmony with the earth and our fellow man. No more spilled blood.

  • Comment number 50.

    38. At 6:49pm on 13 Apr 2010, ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:

    "The history of the atomic bomb and atomic energy is so entwined with Jewish interests and their precarious location in this world that they would not and could not exist without it to keep the surrounding regional hostile forces at bay."

    That is so true. Most are unaware of the facts which you just have presented.

  • Comment number 51.

    HYS asks "World leaders at a summit on nuclear security in Washington have heard dire warnings of the danger of nuclear material falling into the wrong hands. What are your concerns?"

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    My main concern is that the humanity is divided on the definition of "wrong hands". I don't think Pakistan and India agree which hands are wrong. I don't think Israel and Palestinians/Lebanese agree which hands are wrong. I don't think USA and Iran agree which hands are wrong. USA is concerned about nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists, Iran/Iraq/Turkey are concerned that nuclear weapons HAVE fallen in the hands of terrorists. The best thing is complete eradication of nuclear weapons, the next best thing is for every nation to be under a nuclear umbrella of either it's own weapons or that of a trusted ally.

    The nuclear weapons are great peace makers if both adversaries have it. During our last standoff I was sleeping 4 miles from a 100000 strong enemy troop concentration and I slept very well, Thanks Dr. AQ Khan.



  • Comment number 52.

    ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:
    we know they were supplying Shiite insurgents in Iraq with penetrator plates and rockets to kill US and Brit Troops.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Over 98% of western casualties were caused by their own former allies, Al-Qaida. Likewise a minuscule portion of Western casualties were caused by this deliberately vague media term called "penetraters". US and Britain have suffered hardly any Armour losses. You don't need penetraters to blow up a foot soldier or a unarmoured vehicle. Just face it, the technology v/s Valor equation turned out to be different than you thought. This "New World Order" is newer than you had planned.

  • Comment number 53.

    What is wrong with Iran producing their own nuclear energy? Any independent country or state should have this right. Iran is an Islamic Republic and Islam STRICTLY prohibits the killing of innocent people, be they Jews or Christians or ANY other religion. The "controlled" media created terrorists and tried to deface Islam. However you look at it, Islam is a religion of peace and that's exactly why I think it doesn't appeal to the 'few". War means business, business means money, money means power. I challenge any person to forget about what the media says about Islam and to research it by themselves. They will come to find that things that are happening currently in the world don't add up to what's written in the Book.

    "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter... But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful... If they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (2:190-193)

    And clearly Islam is all about "self-defense".

    Cheers!

  • Comment number 54.

    brideofchucky wrote:

    The first Country to use them, will set a chain of events in motion that will wipe everything out. As the great Orator Rodney King said, "why can't We all just get along"?.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Wake up sleeping bride, the nuclear weapons have already been used twice.

  • Comment number 55.

    ONE-SICK-PUPPY wrote:

    The atomic bomb secrets themselves were passed on to the Russians by American traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and the Cohen family.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    And the secrets of the Atomic Bomb were transferred to USA by German traitors. Let us face it, whosoever has the bomb today stole it.

  • Comment number 56.

    #12 confusus -
    " ...
    To use them, YOU (the “right” hands) must be prepared to kill hundreds of thousands, maim and make ill, often terminally, potentially millions world wide for generations (if there are generations), and make parts of the world uninhabitable for centuries at least! This is, of course unthinkably barbaric to a civilised mind! .. "


    I'm a liberal, but I'm also a scientist and a rationalist. Nuclear war is horrible, terrible and nuclear bombs are vile and evil but -
    Even a full scale nuclear war would be environmentally neutral in only 10 to 20 years even if there was a nuclear winter because it would reduce the intense human pressure on the environment. Climate change on the other hand...
    A full scale nuclear war would kill hundreds of millions of people, even a billion or more. Oh! climate change is already set to kill 2 to 5 billion in the next 100 years mostly by starvation or heat or drought.
    A nuclear war would disrupt society and kill mostly rich affluent people here in the west. Climate change will kill mostly 'unimportant' poor people in Africa and the third world, people who cannot fight back. In some worst case scenario's we will end up killing millions or even billions in refugee camps simply because we don't have the food to feed them. - On the good side after climate shift England will become a tropical paradise!

    And guess what? a global nuclear war is now very unlikely, the probability of climate change is at least 50% and its already happening! A limited nuclear war in the middle east or between India and Pakistan or North and south Korea is almost inevitable at some point but will have less effect here than Chernobyl did.

    Some waste from the nuclear industry will still be radioactive in 10,000 years or more, but don't worry on current trends there will only be bacteria left to enjoy it - I put that one at 90%

    -----------
    Nuclear bombs kill with a flash and pulse of radiation, this drops away relatively quickly and within a year or two even ground zero is mostly habitable. Life has survived many periods of intense radiation in the past when the magnetosphere has failed, so in short nature is built to survive radiation. - In fact radiation increases the rate of mutation and so is actually beneficial to evolution. (if you want grossly distorted malformed scifi mutants you want waste from the chemical industry not nuclear bombs)

  • Comment number 57.

    Good for President Obama. It would be nice to have a leader with some charisma, competence and world presence. Oh well we have Gordon!

  • Comment number 58.

    In the US we have counseling against divorce, physical abuse, gambling, drinking, obesity, sex addiction, eating disorders, and a host of other negative impacts on mankind. Who counsels against war, the killing of our fellowmen and the destruction of our planet? Where can I go and get counseling on WORLD PEACE and how to make it happen?? I truly believe, if we DON"T quit spilling blood into the Earth it's going to be our undoing. Thou shall not kill. We kill everybody, infants, children, wives, mothers, husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, sisters, soldiers, passerby's, friends, neighbors and anyone else who gets in our way. This is so wrong. I need counseling................Peace is the answer.............where is it??

  • Comment number 59.

    This summit epitomises the idiocy that is Obama. They are holding a summit about restricting terrorist groups' access to nuclear material without talking to the only two states in the world with such material and the inclination to sell to terrorists, namely Iran and North Korea. So the summit is an expensive utterly pointless talking shop and any agreement reached is utterly worthless.

    Obama cannot lead and cannot take decisions. Both these countries need to be receiving an ultimatum backed up by a clear threat of military action for non-compliance in the very near future before it is too late. Instead all that happens is more talk about possible sanctions - meanwhile North Korea designs and fires rockets and Iran puts more centrifuges online. The world will regret Obama's election.

  • Comment number 60.

    If you heard President Obama today describe the great success of this short meeting, you probably noticed the ReVerb or reverberation in his voice. A reverb device is often used by Hollywood Showmen and Sunday Morning Preachers to help them sound important almost like God, Moses or the Wizard of Oz is talking to you. The thing is once the public realizes the Reverb is just an electronic trick, then your voice begins to sound shallow and insignificant almost like a little man yelling for help from the bottom of a cave.
    When real men (or woman) of stature and significance speak they don't need Teleprompters, Amplifiers or Reverb machines to be heard, in fact all they need do is whisper and we will hear them.

  • Comment number 61.

    W E L L !

  • Comment number 62.

    #56 Robert Lucien
    I didn't think I would ever support nuclear war but you make a agood case for it. The problem with the earth is not globel warming but over population to many people using up to few resources. Some say it's just the rich using up them but it's the poor cutting down the Brazilian rain forest, depleting the oceans fish, destrorying African grass lands by over grazing. Large scale conventional war might work better it kills off the stupid,careless and the unprepared first leaving the smarter, careful and prepared to contest to see who is most suited to survive. Evens-so the use of nuclear war might bring the world closer to eliminating those humans desire to over breed

  • Comment number 63.

    Ofcourse,there has to be done much more to ensure Nuclear safty. It is
    Unbelifeable,that it had not been done sience long already. And now all
    they did is to agree to do it within 4years,that gives still much time
    for the wrong hands to get Nuclear-Material. And is it only the
    Terrorist who want this Material?Not possible that some Staates would
    like to have and keep it in Hidingplaces?

  • Comment number 64.

    The nuclear weapons are great peace makers if both adversaries have it. During our last standoff I was sleeping 4 miles from a 100000 strong enemy troop concentration and I slept very well, Thanks Dr. AQ Khan.
    ==============

    ... and with all the unstability and corruption in Pakistan, once it falls in the Taliban hands, we will hear the explosions from far away and witness another nuclear tragedy in the human history where millions an dmillions of women and children will run for their lifes... Thanks to Dr. AQ Khan!

  • Comment number 65.

    So Obama and his cohorts are going to give TERRORISTS four years notice , that this is the time you have to steal Nuclear Material. What is wrong with this Picture. Just like the Operations in Iraq and Afganistan you tell the ENEMY what your intetions are , so they are ready for our TROOPS and cause heavy casualties. KEEP THINGS TO YOURSELF and TELL NO ONE."THE WALLS HAVE EARS",was the quote during the Second World War. Will Politicians Never Learn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Comment number 66.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 67.

    33. At 5:44pm on 13 Apr 2010, Martin1983 wrote:

    "If it's security and prevention of nuclear material getting into the hands of extremists groups that we're concerned about, then the sensible thing to do would be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons."

    Israel is a rogue nation that has been terrorizing the people of Palestine for the past 80 or so years. The Palestinians need some help. If Iran can achieve that kind of aide, then they SHOULD be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

    Remember, Israel is OCCUPYING Palestine. Palestine is NOT occupying Israel.

  • Comment number 68.

    We are one of many planets in our universe. This planet is called Earth. We have no clue about life on the other planets, we live on this one and it's ours. We believe we were selected to live here because of our ability to learn and multiply. We have multiplied. What we have learned as one people is PEACE.

    I believe in one God, we all do, our God. He is known by many names, but still is only One, the Creator and Ruler of this Planet. The Almighty. For the most part we believe in a Higher Power, and we believe with this Higher Power of Intelligence, we can be one with Him, in life or death. We believe he knows us. We believe we have the ability to advance from this world to another, we have the Space Program.

    We also have much violence. We have soaked the dirt of the earth with the blood of our fellowman. We have approved of death in the name of war and crime. We put forth much money and time in our pursuit of war and crime. We should pursue PEACE, it's much more rewarding.

    Our planet is in peril of being destroyed by mankind with their weapons and bombs. We have misused the gifts of intelligence we have been given. We make weapons of war and are afraid someone else may do the same. We kill each other with out a second thought. We kill everybody. Why is it so easy to kill instead of live in Peace one with another. I just don't get it. I must be an Alien. Our prisons are full, our young men are dying in war. They are victims or perpetrators of crime. We let people we don't even trust, lead us like sheep to the slaughter.

    Make peace not war.

    What will it take for the inhabitants of this planet to chose to live out the rest of our days in Peace. We should try it. We all believe it's better than war. I would love to live in Paridise for the time left. The Earth is damaged, we have spilt too much blood. The Earth is flooding, cracking, drowning, burning and being buffeted around every day. We as a whole people should pay attention to our fellow man and do all we can to prepare a place for eachother. The end will come. We will die. We will no longer be at live with the planet. Some will survive the violence of the earth, will the earth be able to surive the violence of mankind?

  • Comment number 69.

    If every country in the world had ten large nuclear warheads and the essential long range delivery systems then how long would it be before there was a first strike? That is the question that tests out not just the deterrent effectiveness (or otherwise) of nuclear weapons, but also the essentials of the NPT.

    Ten weapons each is enough to ensure that there would be little life left after a first strike, if not immediately then certainly within a month of nuclear activity. It may also mean that all nations would think twice about "invasion" in the conventional sense. That gives people real power in their own countries especially if they happen to have something that other countries want badly.

    I do not believe that nuclear weapons have won us a peace, and that their only claim to effectiveness is that they may have delayed an inevitable war. We may all rue the day we delivered payloads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  • Comment number 70.

    Every one of us is entitle to have an opinion, and all of us have one, because we all are blessed with the gift of choice by our Lord. And the only thing each and every one of us relay owns. There are only two way to base our opinions on, Desire with in the limit (obedience) the "truth", True to the Fact, or to the truth. The "limit". summarized a "The La". A word of the original Latin (Truth) mother of all the tongs. Used in all the off shoot languages including math and science, With the essence of truth. And a desire out side the limit " out side The Truth", "Law" (crime) a forgery of the Word La. (The truth) adjudicated (Fabricated) with the essence of a desire justified by a reason by the Hotos, wrongly defined as a homosexual in Spanish language, but having the meanings of, a person who deliberates, confesses and professes out side the true limits, other wise known as Tagoot, considering, himself to be a god, above the limit and his deliberations in subordination to his selfish desires, out side the truth, Tagoon, popularly known in English as, The Goons, the tricksters or fraudsters. Homosexuality and in breading, being the one of the fundamentals of their believes to protect their racial superiority, originating base of racism, by some of us, specially the self invented "Chosen People" by the self proclaimed Israelite, in violation of the human equility. Mention of historical facts may sound out of place, but historically true in deed, They are having a very negative impact on to days humanity, in the age of globalization through the decision making process, One part of the humanity versus the other. Or "reason" versus the Truth. The point of contentions and conflicts with the potential of human inhalation. The nuclear weapons to be the choice of our demise. To days conflict is none other than Biblical conflict at the the time of Master Jesus peace be upon him. biblicaly known a mosaic law or constitutional law versus the Oral law, an innovation of the deviant Israelite in collusion with "tagoots" delibrators, Thinkers or wrongly honored as Philosophers of the Pharaohs at the university of Alexandria Egypt in the form of Greek Torah and birth of modern Judaism at the time of Ptolemy the Savior 2.(rightly pronounced, filasafer) even though they had nothing to do with Philo, Betterment, Sophe, Height, wrongly translated as wisdom, if not within the truth, La. The limit with the essence of truth, known as Halakat in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. Er, path or Ra, God of Pharaoh's and worshiped as God Ram in India. The way. Path to achieve height the in "truth". Sophe being the singular for Sopheen, The soldiers and land named Spain after the conquest of Abria by the Gaul (completely believers of their own desire, The militery tribes of the Pharahos or known as
    kishtorias in India, eventual capitulation of the locals in the north and enslavement of the south of the African decent people and their forced conversion to Hinduism.) Wars of the Maccabees, Their fight in subordination of the truth with Egyptian Israelite, Pharisees (Out laws, or criminals)and eventual destruction of the holy Temple by the Romans with collaboration of the Pharisees. In my view situation is no different to day. Worlds two most dangerous flash points, Philistine and Issue of Kashmir has to be solved according to the will of people. All this war fair of the gorilla nature, termed as terrorism and non state actors by the oppressing forces is the result of their governments and worlds failure to deliver justice, has left no other alternative, but to treat the oppressors in the same fashion as they are treated. Logic of the Historical thinkers to fabricate a reason to justify a desire in crime shell bring nothing but a disaster and can not eliminate the right (limit) of the victim, because right of the victim is paramount in truth.In the absence of remedy victim has the right to defend him self by acquiring or using any means available to him. It would have been beneficial to the humanity had these so called leaders gathered to elevate the causes of this danger than to find a way to continue the illegality of occupation and eliminate the criminal behavior of the occupiers. All those who contribute to the criminal occupation under any reason, not the truth, must not expect any less than what they have contributed to the crime. because it is the essence of all the treaties signed by the world community, including the tyrant occupier and their financiers, It is right of the defendant.This conference is nothing but for the continuity of the same. and protect their interest. It will bare no fruit. It is USA and Europe who proliferated the nuclear weapons by providing Plutonium , reactors and know how to the illegality called Israel, thinking in their reason, it will provide it a safety umbrella to continue its criminality, but I hope hope it does not come back to haunt them. It can not deter Iran or any one else to acquire same for their defense. In my view Iran already has it and is waiting for America or its client state to act foolishly, to legally abrogate all the international agreements to declare her self a nuclear Power, Which, it already is.

  • Comment number 71.

    18. At 3:51pm on 13 Apr 2010, OLAFF LARSON wrote:

    ONE-SICK-PUPPY IS QUITE RIGHT .IF THERE IS ANY CULPRITT AXIS OF EVIL THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH PROMPTLY , IT IS INFACT THE SINNISTER DINDICTIVE IRAN ,STIRRING IT & CAUSING PROBLEMS AROUND IT IN THE REGION & IN GENERAL--------Honest advice. Please you and the sick puppy needs to see the veterinarian to avoid the black plague of desires and lies.

  • Comment number 72.

    62. At 00:16am on 14 Apr 2010, crow531 wrote:

    #56 Robert Lucien
    I didn't think I would ever support nuclear war but you make a agood case for it. The problem with the earth is not globel warming but over population to many people using up to few resources. Some say it's just the rich using up them but it's the poor cutting down the Brazilian rain forest, depleting the oceans fish, destrorying African grass lands by over grazing. Large scale conventional war might work better it kills off the stupid,careless and the unprepared first leaving the smarter, careful and prepared to contest to see who is most suited to survive. Evens-so the use of nuclear war might bring the world closer to eliminating those humans desire to over breed--------------------- When you will be gone, world will have one less to feed. you are too worried abut your worries, are you ready to help, or just talk.

  • Comment number 73.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 74.

    64. At 01:46am on 14 Apr 2010, Ehsan wrote:... and with all the unstability and corruption in Pakistan, once it falls in the Taliban hands, we will hear the explosions from far away and witness another nuclear tragedy in the human history where millions an dmillions of women and children will run for their lifes... Thanks to Dr. AQ Khan!---------------It is exactly India should avoid, by full filing her commitment to the world and the people of Kashmir and stop being arrogant. Thank you Dr. AQ Khan.

  • Comment number 75.

    Nuclear security is the need of the hour. North Korea is dangerous but not so Iran. Iran even if it goes nuclear will not attack another nuclear power read Israel to safeguard its citizens as it may redound on Iran. People like AQ Khan may proliferate to sell nuclear secrets to terrorists at the sound of the lucre. It is said in Russia some worn out scientists shall nuke material in brief cases for a handsome amount. Terrorists profess no religion. Islamist die-hards are bereft of any conscience as they kill even their own co-religionists. International nuke-potent countries should cooperate and evolve methods as to how to safeguard nuclear material with extreme urgency. Climate change may wait but not the terrorists.

  • Comment number 76.

    69. At 02:51am on 14 Apr 2010, Daisy Chained wrote:

    "I do not believe that nuclear weapons have won us a peace, and that their only claim to effectiveness is that they may have delayed an inevitable war. We may all rue the day we delivered payloads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

    So true. Let us not forget too that The U.S. dropped those bombs EIGHT days AFTER Japan surrendered.

  • Comment number 77.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 78.

    #76 4MichaelHoffman
    So true Lets not forget that the U.S. dropped those bombs Eight days after Japan surrendered.

    Not quite so true. Don't let your dislike of the U.S. confuse your history.
    Aug 6th Hiroshima was bombed
    Aug 9th Nagasaki was bombed
    Aug 15th Japan surrendered
    2 Sep 1945 Japan formally signed surrender papers.
    Until that time they were still putting out the popaganda that they would fight to the last man and die like the suicide bombers
    cherry blossums in the wind

  • Comment number 79.

    What's good for the goose,is good for the gander.
    The world has become sophisticated overnight and those who are seeking Nuclear energy for good or evil,will acquire it at any cost to protect their citizens and protect themselves from Rogue Nuclear Nations.
    The summit with a few bad actors concerned only about their own well being cannot guarantee safety to the nations who don't have nuclear capabilities.

  • Comment number 80.

    The desire to acquire nuclear weapons is threatening the world peace. But the world leaders must analyze why the desire to nuclear weapons is increasing day by day when economies are shrinking, unemployment is on the rise and people are not satisfied with the performance of their respective governments.

    If governments cannot feed the people properly, the desire to acquire nuclear weapons is an indication that politically weak governments may become threats for economically stable governments.

    Nuclear technology should be restricted world over to generate power for peaceful purposes and not to attack a third country with nuclear weapons.

  • Comment number 81.

    @OLAFF LARSON:The Axis of Evil exists in the West.
    Iran and other squirrels are merely trying to get by with a nut.
    30 years of sanctions against Iran has probably killed thousands of children while the West gets Bloated with KFC,MCDON'S,BURGER KING,TACO BELL,ETC.
    If the West were to treat everyone equally(Israel)in terms of NPT,this world wouldn't be as dangerous as it is.
    Think about it.

  • Comment number 82.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 83.

    Should more be done to ensure nuclear security?
    No, no, what on earth would THAT achieve?

  • Comment number 84.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 85.

    Is "Dr Strangelove" to be mandatory viewing for all countries who possess the capability to start Armageddon?

  • Comment number 86.

    The leaders of almost 50 countries have pledged to safeguard nuclear stocks and keep material out of terrorists' hands.

    Phew - well that's good to know then. I thought the previous policy of not safeguarding it and giving it to to any terrorist who can along was a bit too liberal.

  • Comment number 87.

    Honesty is missing though. Obama should declare black and white that the US neocons and Israel wants Iran for any price.
    The reason: Hegemony and oil.
    The blah-blah about nuclear Iran is hypocrisy, as all of them are sitting on a pile of nukes and some of them are mad enough to use them as well.
    It is clear that the US needs live enemy image always, so they changed communism to terrorism for that reason.
    The only reasonable leader is Erdogan, the Turkish prime...

  • Comment number 88.

    I would agree that this is indeed a dog and pony show! Even if somebody got thier hands on this material it is extremely unlikely that they would have any clue what to do with it in the first place. Yes they could cause a major disruption but it would hardly be apocalyptic. Also the consequences of such actions would be servere. The bigger question at hand is how do we stop the world's reliance on oil. No oil no problem with US bases all over the middle-east trying to shore up thier supply.

  • Comment number 89.

    "The summit took place without representatives of Iran and North Korea, who were not invited by the US due to disputes over their nuclear programmes.

    Will greater international cooperation help to ensure the security of nuclear material? Is the US and Chinese agreement to pressure Iran over its atomic plans to be welcomed?"



    IF N Korea and Iran are not invited than clearly is the case of not seeking diplomatic channels towards improvements of the NPT but another Iraq scenario of preparation of invasion. In the period of 10 years all the UN inspectors on the Iraq´s soil could not find a single evidence of WMD´s, and although the unanimous UN resolution the US and UK invaded Iraq.

    WHY they were not invited, or could it be because would put straight on the table the question; WHY Israel hasn’t sign the NPT treaty and WHY before the UN watchdog the IAEA DOES NOT deny and neither confirms has a nuclear weapons and program?

    YES we like to respect the efforts of Mr Obama, although Mr Putin has looong ago spoken of nuclear deterrence free world to “GLOBAL ZERO” …which actually was the proposal of Mr Gorbachev at Reykjavik signing the dissolving of the WP vs. NATO, but look what happened instead now the eastern Europe is being turned into a nuclear web networks by the U.S.
    WHY than Mr. Obama has been given this “Nobel Peace Prize” for pretending, in the case, is scraping the nuclear shields in Poland and the Czech Republic but shortly after came clear actually is the exact opposite?
    And isn’t it all this simply a performance to ensure only certain countries would have the right of nuclear weapons but contain others with low level deterrence, despite the naïve “promise” by Mr Obama those who have no nuclear deterrence in case of a war, and if, would be not attacked by the U.S. with nuclear bombs. Regretful to say but is so naïve almost laughable childish game.

    And indeed, all around the world fear that such dangerous weapons may fall into the hands of non-governmental organisations and be used to spark the nuclear war.

    This IS NOT the right path, it cannot be and will never succeed …in my view the right approach and path is the message of Mr Gorbachev and Mr Putin “DOWN TO GLOBAL ZERO”


    Please check the BBC article bellow:
    Group seeks nuclear weapons ban By Gordon Corera
    BBC security correspondent, Paris
    A group of international dignitaries have launched a new campaign in Paris to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    Global Zero consists of 100 leading figures seeking practical steps towards nuclear abolition and gaining public support for that goal.
    They say the risk of nuclear weapons spreading to unstable countries or getting into the hands of extremist groups is too great.
    The group will hold meetings in Moscow and Washington in the coming days.
    In the past, talk of nuclear disarmament was confined to the margins of political debate, but now a chorus of national security officials past and present have joined calls for multi-lateral disarmament.
    In the US, the debate was kick-started by a joint call for "getting to zero" from a group of veterans of the Cold War, including Henry Kissinger and George Schultz.
    Global Zero's aim is to translate this stance to the international arena and into public debate.
    Signatories for Global Zero include former US President Jimmy Carter, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, businessman Sir Richard Branson, Ehsan Ul-Haq, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Pakistan, and Brajesh Mishra, former Indian National Security Advisor.

    Hopes and fears
    Motivating those who attended was a sense that this is a moment pregnant with both possibilities and dangers.
    Possibilities because of new leadership in the US which appears to support the goal of nuclear abolition but dangers because of the fear that if this moment passes without action then the nuclear race could quickly gather pace with many more countries acquiring weapons and the risk increasing that weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists.
    “ We have to work on de-legitimising the status of nuclear weapons ”
    Queen Noor of Jordan

    "It's not about idealism, it is about public safety and security," said former British Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind who attended the conference.
    "If there's to be disarmament, it has to be multilateral," he added.
    A key aim is to build public support for the issue in the way that activists have helped put climate change on the agenda.
    Polling of 21 countries for Global Zero found an average of 76% of the population favouring an agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons within a timetabled agreement.
    But members of Global Zero emphasise the need for more public information, particularly to educate the post-Cold War generation for whom the dangers of nuclear weapons may be more remote.
    "We have to work on de-legitimising the status of nuclear weapons," Queen Noor of Jordan told the BBC.

    'Getting to Zero'
    The conference began on Monday with a presentation on what would happen to Paris in the event of a nuclear detonation before moving towards a discussion of what "Getting to Zero" would mean in practical steps, for instance the need for an intrusive system of inspections to ensure no country was evading its obligations.
    “ It's not about idealism, it is about public safety and security ”
    Malcolm Rifkind former British Defence Secretary

    "That process needs to start with American and Russian leadership," argued Richard Burt who was Washington's Chief Negotiator in the START talks in the early 1990s between the two countries and who chaired the press conference in one of Paris's ornate hotels.
    The Global Zero group believes that reducing the still large US and Russian stockpiles - which make up 96% of all the nuclear weapons in the world - should be amongst the first steps which in turn can then draw in third parties and other nuclear powers into a wider and deeper process.
    Senator Mikhail Margelov, Chairman of the Russian Senate's Foreign Relations Committee spoke of how as a schoolboy he had been convinced that at some point the US would launch a nuclear war on the USSR.
    Whilst he was pleased his sons had not had to live under the same shadow, one negative consequence was that for the last 18 years the issue of nuclear non-proliferation had been 'neglected', not least because the US and Russia had failed to build a sustained partnership on the issue.
    South Asia, the place where many experts fear a nuclear exchange is most likely, was well represented at the conference with retired Foreign Minister Shaharyar Khan from Pakistan pointing to President Zardari's recent offer of a no-first strike agreement to prevent their spread.
    Shankar Bajpai, former Indian Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs, remarked on India's statesmen arguing for nuclear abolition for many decades.

    Many challenges
    If the idea of getting to zero is having any traction, then getting the support of key leaders will be vital.
    During his election campaign, US President-elect Barack Obama expressed his support for the goal of disarmament.
    "This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons," he told a large crown in Berlin in July.
    Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressed similar sentiments in a speech in September when he talked of how it would be better to "close this Pandora's box".
    The challenge for Global Zero is not only that the new President already has a full in-tray domestically and internationally but that even within the narrower confines of nuclear proliferation issues, the immediate challenges of dealing with Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions may consume much of Washington's attention in the short term.
    Iranians were absent from the Paris conference and Richard Burt acknowledged that it would be hard to achieve Global Zero if Iran did acquire nuclear weapons.
    "It's a real showstopper," he acknowledged. Israel with its undeclared nuclear arsenal have to participate in any process, Burt said.
    The conference moved on to Moscow and then on Thursday to Washington DC.
    The aim is to spend the next year working on a plan that could lead to a phased nuclear reduction which would eliminate all nuclear weapons in 20 to 25 years.
    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7774584.stm

    Published: 2008/12/10 01:37:10 GMT

    © BBC MMX

  • Comment number 90.

    A suggestion:- Implement a policy of MAD where a terrorist Nuclear threat exists. There are several sites around the world held sacred by extremist groups who currently threaten to use 'dirty bombs'. Maybe assured destruction of their Holy Sites would deter.
    I will leave the reader to select their target sites.

  • Comment number 91.

    So all these nations are going to make sure that from now on their Nuclear Material will be secure.

    Hopefully it already is..............

  • Comment number 92.

    Re87: Oh! Erdogan! Reasonable leader? Tell me about him? He had the nerve to accuse Israel of genocide! Who? Him, Turkey's prime minister! Prime minister of a country that is the mother of all genocides being the only country that successfully did genocide on the 40% of its own population!!!

    Back in 1910 in Minor Asia (i.e. not counting European Turkey!!!), there were more than 17 million people:
    - about 10 million muslims (out of which 2 million were Alevis, Bektashis, etc.)
    - more than 7 million christians (3 million Greeks, 3 million Armenians and 1 million Assyrians)

    By 1923 almost 4 million christians were massacred (about 1,5 million Greeks, 1,5 million Armenians and nearly 1 million Assyrochaldeans) and other 3,5 were expulsed.

    Turkey went on to massacre the remaining few communities of Greeks of Konstantinople in the 1950s with mobs of Turks circulating mutilating Greeks, killing, raping burning homes etc.. It did the same at islands Imbros and Tenedos (transforming them into open prisons - i.e. prisoners were living among villagers, a proper playground for them!!!). And in 1973 they invaded Cyprus and ethnically cleared all the part they conquered with their usual violence while murdering the 3,000 POWs they had (Srebrenica anyone?...).

    Today Turkey officially has territorial claims over most of its neighbouring countries and pursues aggressively its targets.

    Erdogan is simply following this pattern.

    And has the nerve to accuse Israel? Pppplllleeeease!

  • Comment number 93.

    The talk about nuclear safety is a joke. Even if Iran gets the bomb it does not pose any threat other than the US business plans. I worry much more about unstable countries like Pakistan having the bomb rather than Iran. Iran is a civilised country ruled by a funny, often stupid-violent and funnyily-over-religious regime but not really the worst thing a state has seen. It is not as bad as people think. In any other totalitarian regime throwing eggs on the president would have you in prison and killed, well Ahmadinedjad has eaten a lot of eggs on the head by students and such but there was never any serious repercussion for them. However, indeed people that are into more active political action face dangers because they are suspected of collaborating with the US and (surprise!) with the British. Given the history of the country that is easy to understand.

    As for North Korea, one must be joking... North Korea and the atomic bomb? Ppppllllleeeeasssse. Even if they get it the only place they can use it is on South Korea. Why should I care? Let the South Koreans make war and invade them. Their problem. No I do think of course like that, I am just showing that it is not at all that the problem but North Korea simply serves as a justification for US troops to encircle Russia. That is the whole idea of terrorism. US having a justification to maintain armies around Russia and make sure the global trade is always done with the ficticious US dollar and not by any other means.

  • Comment number 94.

    67. At 02:48am on 14 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
    "Israel is a rogue nation that has been terrorizing the people of Palestine for the past 80 or so years. The Palestinians need some help. If Iran can achieve that kind of aide, then they SHOULD be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Remember, Israel is OCCUPYING Palestine. Palestine is NOT occupying Israel."

    I'm not sure how Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is supposed to help Palestinians. Indeed, Iran's funding and arming of Hamas and Hezbollah appears to be more about destroying and delegitimising Israel than some sort of magnanimous and benevolent gesture towards the Palestinians. Your average Palestinian is probably in most need of food, employment and decent shelter. Iran with nukes isn't going to give them that.

    Technically, Israel is occupying the West Bank, which it captured from Jordan, who relinquished their claim on that land in 1998. There's no Israeli presence in Gaza although they control what goes in and out on their side of the border, but again, as with Jordan and the West Bank, Egypt doesn't want Gaza back. Israel also occupies the Golan, which is Syrian and not Palestinian.

  • Comment number 95.

    #89 Rasputin

    Thank you for your enlightening comment.

    I have a great issue with processes that deliver something less than "Global Zero". The Iran/Iraq war conjures a significant picture of what might have been. What if our "friends" in Iraq had given nuclear weapons to deter Iran from hostile activity in the future? What if, in friendlier times, Iran had driven its nuclear capability (delivered by France) to the ultimate? What if there comes a time when there is a falling out of nations in Eastern Europe complicating the US defence network? What if Zionism digs much deeper into Israeli politics?

    We have much to learn from the current minefield we have created in the Middle East. Terrorism didn't blossom as it has done because of the will of fanatics, it blossomed because the west has used every trick in the book to secure cheap oil. There will always be those for whom obsequious governments are not good enough. Indeed there are growing numbers in the UK who are becoming disaffected with our failure to stand up to the US over Iraq and Afghanistan. Weapons cost money not just to assemble but to maintain, monitor, and keep alert. Just how much of that money is really good value when there are wars on almost every continent? Wars cost money and the money is running out.

    There is a clock ticking down the seconds to the next global conflict and we are running out of time. Isn't it time someone actually earned a Nobel Peace prize instead of it being thrown around like a discarded newspaper?

  • Comment number 96.

    Yes - end the trident project and limit the number of Nuclear power stations.

  • Comment number 97.

    66. At 02:39am on 14 Apr 2010, 4MichaelHoffman wrote:
    "Secondly, just who are you calling a "terrorist"?
    I do hope it's not directed at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Let me ask you this: How would you feel if someone went onto YOUR property, murdered thousands of innocent people, tortured thousands more, raped thousands, and created general havoc? That is what Israel did to the Palestinians. WHO are the terrorists?"


    That's a very, very simplified and inaccurate 'history' you've depicted there. Don't forget, it was the Arabs that were the first to start the violence in the early 20th century, in riots such as in Hebron and Safed where virtually all the Jewish population were killed or fled.
    I don't dispute that Israel has wrongfully killed innocent non-combatants and used torture to extract information from Palestinians (although the Israel Supreme Court outlawed this in principle in the early 2000s), but you've conveniently and completely ignored the fact that Palestinians have done more than their fair share of murdering thousands of innocent people and creating general havoc. And that's just to the Israelis. Not to mention murdering and torturing their own people.
    Can you verify your claims that Israel "raped thousands?" If it's Deir Yassin that you're referring to, the allegations of rape were ENTIRELY fabricated.

    From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre):
    "The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.[78] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."[77]
    "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."[77][79] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[80] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[71]"

  • Comment number 98.

    Yes, but what a ridiculous question.

  • Comment number 99.

    The conference was very important. I think excluding Iran and NK was a stupid decision, both are sovereign and responsible countries just like the US or France, both have something to say and both are concerned of nuclear security on a worldwide scale. Obama's hostile policies will not yield him any political or popular gains.
    I see it is absolutely unlikely that any terrorist gang in the world have the means to handle atomic weapons, the real danger comes from advanced terrorist States known of genocide and aggrerssion and ethnic cleansing practices. The only example of such States is the so-called Israel which was invited to the conference but abstained to attend knowing that it will face the criticism of the entire world for its clandestine atomic arsenal and its absolute rejection to sign any treaty that would disclose its vicious intentions. The Israeli atomic stockpiles are real potential danger. As long as that danger is unleashed, all Western propaganda of nuclear security is merely a bluff and a sort of deceit. Once the West addresses the nuclear capabilities of both Iran and the illegitimate Zionist entity on Palestine by the same vigour, only then Obama and his Western allies can claim any credibility. Fix the villain and nail him, that's the main job of any honest policeman or of any honest politician.

  • Comment number 100.

    20. At 4:20pm on 13 Apr 2010, LuftHamza wrote:

    They ended the war that quickly, they had to do it twice. with two different weapons designs with differing fissile material. I'd hazard a guess that the lives saved that you so gladly refer to are US soldiers' lives and nobody else's. 300,000+ civilians died in the two bombings, were there even that many US soldiers in the Pacific AO?

    -------------------------------------------

    Since japan had attacked the US directly (pearl harbour) then yes many lives were saved. Yes those lives were american but since it was a WORLD WAR it struck fear into the whole enemy not just japan. Yes civilians died but how many jews (civilian) were murdered by hitler and japan was supporting hitler. Nukes are overkill in a country to country war, but they changed the battlefield in the world war! The actions of the US saved civilian lives all over the world

 

Page 1 of 4

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.