USMilitary.com Blogs

US and Japan Seek Nuclear Reduction

Jonathan Formby — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:30:59 +0000

On Friday Obama and the Japanese Prime Minister met to discuss a plan for global denuclearization. The statement was called the US – Japan joint initiative for a nuclear free world. The first step in this plan is to take action and develop key treaties which support arms reduction. These treaties will be enacted and they will continually call for less and less nuclear weapons. However I see one major problem in this equation – what will happen when Obama is out of office. The truth is that Obama has one of the worst approval ratings of any President in the past fifty years. If things don’t change, history tells us that when the nation is dissatisfied with one President, they tend to vote for the opposing party the next year. That is why Obama won this election, because everyone was tired of Republican leadership and President Bush. In my opinion it is likely that Obama will not receive a second term. If this is the case, a Republican will probably be in office. Whatever Obama accomplishes here with nuclear reduction will likely be undone by a Republican leader who wants to stockpile weapons to ensure that we maintain powerful and the global leader. I am not even offering a commentary on this, I am just stating that I think it will play out as listed above.

I suppose every visionary was rejected and the spectacle of doubt in his or her day. Perhaps Obama sees something that I don’t see. However in my opinion the world is composed of power hungry nations that will do anything for power. Giving up the greatest weapons ever developed in pursuit of global equality does not fit in with the pattern of history.

The Future with No Nukes

Jonathan Formby — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:30:10 +0000

Yesterday I discussed how Obama has been improving ties with Russia as part of his over arching plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Interestingly, the plan to get rid of the nukes is coming from the superpower with the most nuclear weapons and facilities. I think that this is a great plan but the only way for it to work is if something else can become the primary bargaining chip. Countries can’t muscle each other any more if we get rid of nuclear weapons. This means that economic pressures will be the weapons of choice and the means of muscling another country into action in a world with no nuclear weapons. For as long as there has been civilization there have been wars and power struggles. Unfortunately this is the nature of man. If we take away the greatest and most powerful weapons, that will be a great step forward. However human nature will still remain unchanged. We will be left to fight war with new devices. In my opinion cyber attacks and economic pressures would become paramount in this world with no nuclear weapons. I suppose that in this scenario missiles and other such weapons would still be in effect. If that is the case, there is no doubt that these weapons would be utilized. However if no one has a huge advantage in terms of weapons, new devices will have to be utilized. What do you think will happen with the plan for denuclearization? Is it possible to get every nation to agree to this and to eventually monitor such an arrangement? Should we work towards this or take a more realistic goal of arms reduction?

Russia and US Nuclear Discussions

Jonathan Formby — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:28:51 +0000

The race is on to develop and sign a new nuclear treaty between Russia and the United States. The START or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is set to expire next month and is currently without a signed successor. The treaty was beneficial for the US and Russia as it ordained that both parties would not utilize nuclear weapons. A treaty of this accord is vital to ensure that Nuclear weapons are not utilized and more importantly that clear terms for the weapons are spelled out and adhered to. Obviously it is unlikely that either party will use a nuclear weapon. However a treaty of this accord mandates the necessary provisions for both parties.

The START treaty was originally signed in 1991 and was an important ending point for the Cold War with Russia. I think it’s safe to say that we all want to avoid anything like that again.

I am pleased to report that Russia and US relations seem to be improving based on actions taken by President Obama. I’ll shoot strait with you, I’m not an Obama fan. However I was happy to read the comments by the President of Russia which stated that he believes relations between the US and Russia are improving. Sometimes a change of scenery can be a good thing. While I don’t support everything that Obama stands for, I think he is doing a satisfactory job in dealing with Russia. His dealings with Russia are part of his overall goal for denuclearization. I for one don’t think it is possible but it is a great thought.

North Korea Runs Mouth Again

Jonathan Formby — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:43:11 +0000

North Korea stated that South Korea will be in trouble because of the naval issues that South Korea is responsible for. On Tuesday there was a naval exchange of fire between North and South Korea around the Yellow Sea border. The Yellow Sea border is a commonly disputed area where tensions run high. As usual North Korea made threatening statements about South Korea stating, “The South Korean forces will be forced to pay dearly for the grave armed provocation perpetrated by them.” Additionally, Rodong Sinmun of North Korea stated, “The artillery pieces of the KPA (Korean People’s Army), convinced of justice and afire with hatred, are now leveled at the provokers.” Rodong went on to state that this dispute between South Korea and North was purposeful and not accidental. Furthermore he stated that it was premeditated on the part of South Korea.

Conversely we look at the statements from South Korea which state that North Korea was out of line as they crossed over the border into South Korean territory and then fired on a South Korean ship.

Both North and South Korea are now demanding that the other side apologize for their actions.

It seems as though North Korea is always the subject of some sort of problem. The government and military has a way of complicating issues and creating problems instead of solving them. North Korea is notorious for being unreasonable in negations. That is why the US and North Korea are still in a stalemate over their nuclear program.

Civilian Casualties of War – Acceptable?

Jonathan Formby — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:05:23 +0000

The US prides itself on our humanitarian efforts with regard to global issues and war. However we don’t have a perfect rap sheet with civilian casualties. I think that it comes to a point where an army, air force, ect could never get much done if no civilian casualties were acceptable. Look at the current battles in the Middle East. There were several times where a group of militants and Taliban member were killed along with a few innocent bystanders. One time several months ago we bombed an area which had insurgents hiding. After the bombing we found that about 70 dangerous / nefarious individuals were killed while 2 innocent civilians died in the process. Is this acceptable? By what moral reasoning do you say yes or no?

To me it is acceptable so long as the military did not know that they were going to kill 2 people. If there was a possibility but not a knowledge that two innocents would die, I find that still acceptable. However if it was a case was that the military knew that they would kill at least a few innocents, I don’t know if I can agree that this would be acceptable. Grey areas are always difficult.

One way that people like to look at this is a life to life comparison. For example those 70 nefarious individuals who were killed likely would have taken the lives of at least 10 people before all of them died. Many of them also would have helped continue drug businesses and other horrible ventures. So the fact that they would have done so much evil and many would have died by their influence and hands, could justify the death of the two innocents during that attack. I am not sure that I subscribe to this argument but it is rather convincing. The only problem is when you start to place a value on each persons life.

Moral Dilemma – Atomic Weapons

Jonathan Formby — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:04:27 +0000

Should the United States or anyone else be trusted with nuclear weapons? Lets face it, as we look at history we can see that man is basically evil. Throughout history man has never failed to attack his neighbor in search of more power. This leads me to believe that it is a scary concept that so many countries have nuclear weapons. There is however a treaty in place between these countries which states that none of them will use the nuclear weapons. However a treaty is only good if members abide by that treaty. I am not fearful for any sane person to have nuclear weapons because a chemically and mentally sane person would never utilize a nuclear weapon because it would be suicide. The use of one modern nuclear weapon which is thousands of times more powerful than the atomic weapons used on Japan would be the end of the world as we know it. It would ignite a chain reaction of nuclear war. Therefore I am not fearful of Russia having nuclear weapons. However countries like North Korea and Iran make me fearful because they are unstable and extreme. Can anyone argue in favor of Kim Jong Ils mental sanity? I’ve never heard it done before. How does that make you feel to think about Kim Jong Il with nuclear capabilities. As I said, this would not be a problem if he was sane, but he is not. I suppose in the end the best thing to do is to trust that nuclear war will not come.

Critics of the US and Atomic Weapons

Jonathan Formby — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:03:45 +0000

So I have a question for you. Can the United States be trusted with atomic weapons? I have heard this argument before many times, even on this blog I have received posts stating that the US can’t be trusted with atomic weapons. Basically the argument is that the US spends so much time patrolling the weapons development of the world when we are the only ones that have utilized atomic weapons to attack our enemies. Is there really any defense against these accusations? I have heard before that WWII may not have ended had the US not utilized the atomic bomb to attack Japan. Do you believe that commentary to be true? I know that the war would have ended in some way or another but what I don’t know is if the US still would have suppressed the Japanese had we not utilized the atomic bomb. I find that this is one of the most difficult moral dilemmas for people of all walks of life. Should we have used the atomic bomb? Thousands of innocents were killed. These were people who had no influence on their government or the actions taken by Japan against the US. Basically they were innocent by standards. However the argument also goes that US citizens would have likely suffered both economically and many more would have been killed had the war gone on. I don’t know if anyone can say conclusively. My only hope is that we will not use an atomic bomb again in the future. Hopefully we will be able to find a better way. Who knows.

Iranian Conflict

Jonathan Formby — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:57:48 +0000

How did the Iranian conflict become so cluttered and difficult? One of the major game changers occurred in September when the US announced that there is a nuclear facility hidden in a mountain near Qom. Qom is a city in Iran which is about 97 miles away from Tehran. This is simply another example of the nuclear ambitions held by Iran. This facility was not announced by Iran until September after they had already been constructing it for quite some time. What does this tell us? It says that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear capabilities. Their agendas are far too dangerous to let that nation get a hold of atomic weapons.

Is there any situation where it would be ok to allow Iran to have a nuclear facility? As I consider the implications I can’t imagine a case where this would be ok. Can Iran really be trusted with such delicate and dangerous materials? If they are truly only after power generation why won’t they simply accept the deal given by the United States to outsource the nuclear power development to other European nations?

The truth is that Iran will never cooperate with the United States, no matter how hard we try. They will continue to take as much leeway as we will give them. What options does this leave us? Should we attack Iran? Would anyone support Obama in this? What if diplomacy fails? Where do we end up then? What other options do we have if Iran rejects this offer? After all they were supposed to make a decision two weeks ago but they still have not answered back yet. This is a group that never has cooperated and never will cooperate.

Iran Prompted to Take US Offer – Clinton

Jonathan Formby — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:56:01 +0000

On Thursday Clinton spoke about the current situation with Iran and noted that Iran should cooperate with the US instead of making unreasonable requests. Clinton stated, “As I have said, this is a pivotal moment for Iran, and we urge Iran to accept the agreement as proposed.” Clinton spoke with some spine as she stated, “We will not alter it (the proposal), and we will not wait forever.”

All I can say is that it is about time someone spoke up and told Iran how it will be. We have been letting Iran get away with their foolish attempts to grab more and more rope from us.

The proposed plan would call for Iran to send its enriched uranium to Russia so that a nuclear reactor in Tehran will be fueled which will generate medical isotopes. Then France would develop these materials further for the reactor.

Basically this deal would mean the exporting of most of the known nuclear materials from Iran so that they could not develop nuclear weapons.

In my opinion this is an excellent plan, and one that Iran would be very interested in if they were not bent on developing atomic weapons. If there plan was truly to use the enriched uranium for power this plan would be acceptable. However my prediction is that Iran WILL NOT accept this deal. They will make excuses in order to buy more time during which they will further develop their program. I have watched it happen over and over again. The end goal is that they will have enough time to develop finished atomic weapons at which point they will have far more control than ever before.

Russia and US Nuke Treaty

Jonathan Formby — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:35:27 +0000

On Thursday Russia stated that they would like to discuss a nuclear disarmament treaty with the United States, something that Obama has been trying to accomplish since his term began. The new treaty would be aimed at replacing or extending the current treaty between the US and Russia which is set to expire within the next month. The treaty that is set to expire is the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or START. Russia stated, “we hope the constructive proposal that US National Security Adviser James Jones made in Moscow last week will let us bring our positions together and arrive at a balanced document.” From these comments we can gather that Russia is optimistically seeking to renew the treaty with new clauses and purposes.

The benefits of such a treaty with Russia are too many to count. Chief among these benefits is an agreement which will help to discourage any repeat of the Cold War. At the very least, the START treaty has been an integral deterrent for nuclear war or an arms race between the US and Russia. Arms races are expensive and scary so the avoidance of these is paramount.

Formerly the US and Russia tried to renew the START treaty with amendments while President Bush was still in command. However there was never any headway made because of the US plan for a missile shield which Russia opposed. However since the US has agreed to forgo the shield, Russia has become much more cooperative.