Comments on Purnendra Jain “Japan’s nuclear pact with India”, 7/09/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/09/07/japans-nuclear-pact-with-india/
The issue involving Australia has just become a little more complicated following effective alliance of the Labor and the Greens with the support of three independents to form the federal government early this week. The Greens is likely to oppose any escalation of uranium in the parliament with its balance of power in the senate, especially from first July 2011.
It is clear from the article that two main factors played the decisive role in Japan’s decision, namely commercial and security out of concerns of the rising power of China.
The commercial reason just makes a mockery of any moral standard by members of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. If issues as serious as nuclear can be compromised, is there any moral ground for any involved to criticise China or any other countries such as Russia to develop conventional resources in Africa countries or in Iran for that matter?
For security, what do any of such agreements in obvious violation of the NNPT mean really? Does it promote peace and stability or does it facilitate regional and possibly global arms race?
The real question is whether the current superpower accepts the inevitable trend that there will be power shift around the world and some of the existing interests are unlikely to be maintained forever and will change accordingly.
Bad decisions by some may only act as distractions to some inevitable and big world trends. That is unlikely to produce the results wished by them probably.
Showing posts with label nuclear non-proliferation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear non-proliferation. Show all posts
2010-09-10
2010-04-15
The US can and should lead in achieving a nuclear weapons free world
Comments on Ralph A. Cossa “The 2010 NPR: Toward a nuclear weapons free world”, 14/04/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/04/14/the-2010-npr-toward-a-nuclear-weapons-free-world/
The NPR represents a significant progress on the nuclear weapons issue from the US and should be applauded and supported by all nations.
However, there are some issues that are equally important and should ideally be progressed further as quickly as possible.
For example, it is confusing or at least unclear what the fourth objective really means. This is especially when considering "‘strengthening regional deterrence and reassurance of US allies and partners.’ Again dashing some hopes, the NPR states that forward-deployed nuclear weapons will remain in Europe and that US extended deterrence in Asia will remain ‘credible and effective.’ The bottom line: ‘As long as regional nuclear threats to our forces, allies, and partners remain, deterrence will require a nuclear component.’"
Given that the US has so many advanced nuclear weapons and the means to launch them from the US that can achieve deterrence and security for its allies, what is the purpose to have them deployed in other parts of the world for deterrence?
More importantly, while it has a long term goal to eliminate all nuclear weapons, it lacks an ambitious, effective and practical strategy to do it.
Why can't the US, together with Russia as well as other nuclear powers, make that step faster and more tangible? For example, one option is to have the UN to control a small and limited nuclear weapons and a mechanism to deter any nuclear threat from any state and then eliminate all other weapons in all countries?
I think if the US is serious in eliminating all nuclear weapons, it can and should take big steps to do so. It has the ability to get the world behind it if it really wishes to do so.
Let's all work together to have a effectively nuclear weapons free world as early as possible!
The NPR represents a significant progress on the nuclear weapons issue from the US and should be applauded and supported by all nations.
However, there are some issues that are equally important and should ideally be progressed further as quickly as possible.
For example, it is confusing or at least unclear what the fourth objective really means. This is especially when considering "‘strengthening regional deterrence and reassurance of US allies and partners.’ Again dashing some hopes, the NPR states that forward-deployed nuclear weapons will remain in Europe and that US extended deterrence in Asia will remain ‘credible and effective.’ The bottom line: ‘As long as regional nuclear threats to our forces, allies, and partners remain, deterrence will require a nuclear component.’"
Given that the US has so many advanced nuclear weapons and the means to launch them from the US that can achieve deterrence and security for its allies, what is the purpose to have them deployed in other parts of the world for deterrence?
More importantly, while it has a long term goal to eliminate all nuclear weapons, it lacks an ambitious, effective and practical strategy to do it.
Why can't the US, together with Russia as well as other nuclear powers, make that step faster and more tangible? For example, one option is to have the UN to control a small and limited nuclear weapons and a mechanism to deter any nuclear threat from any state and then eliminate all other weapons in all countries?
I think if the US is serious in eliminating all nuclear weapons, it can and should take big steps to do so. It has the ability to get the world behind it if it really wishes to do so.
Let's all work together to have a effectively nuclear weapons free world as early as possible!
2009-12-17
Mr Sheridan is talking about nuke security!
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Report on nuke threat is a dud”, 17/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/report-on-nuke-threat-is-a-dud/story-e6frg6zo-1225811144890
Sheridan is out with full his usual nonsense again.
Just look at what he says here:
"A widespread campaign against the possession of nuclear weapons, such as Evans seems to envisage, could at most lead to a re-creation of the politics of the 1980s and a mass movement for unilateral Western nuclear disarmament (though of course Evans is arguing for universal disarmament). Such a movement will have zero effect on the sentiment towards nuclear weapons in Moscow, Beijing, Islamabad or Tehran. Such dynamics could well make the world more dangerous, not safer."
Why Sheridan did not dare mention about India's Nuke weapons? Does he really think that India, as one of the violators of non-proliferation treaty, will voluntarily disarm its nukes? Or is he kidding himself and other people alike?
In the article Sheridan mentioned the phrase "brilliant fool". That phrase may be very suitable for someone here.
What a brilliant xxxx dud have we got!
Sheridan is out with full his usual nonsense again.
Just look at what he says here:
"A widespread campaign against the possession of nuclear weapons, such as Evans seems to envisage, could at most lead to a re-creation of the politics of the 1980s and a mass movement for unilateral Western nuclear disarmament (though of course Evans is arguing for universal disarmament). Such a movement will have zero effect on the sentiment towards nuclear weapons in Moscow, Beijing, Islamabad or Tehran. Such dynamics could well make the world more dangerous, not safer."
Why Sheridan did not dare mention about India's Nuke weapons? Does he really think that India, as one of the violators of non-proliferation treaty, will voluntarily disarm its nukes? Or is he kidding himself and other people alike?
In the article Sheridan mentioned the phrase "brilliant fool". That phrase may be very suitable for someone here.
What a brilliant xxxx dud have we got!
2009-09-27
Important progresses of world peace
Comments on “Breaking the Iran stalemate”, Stratfor.com 26/09/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Breaking-the-Iran-stalemate-pd20090925-W84JT?OpenDocument&src=sph
The world needs a sensible compromise and real progress in nuclear non-proliferation.
Both the Americans and the Russians have made some sensible steps recently, starting with the Americans’ decisions not to build missile defence system in East Europe and Russia’s decision not to deploy missiles in its western territory.
It is an important start. The world is expecting more solid development to consolidate the progress on world peace in general and the Iran nuclear issue in particular.
Once there is progress in that front, we need to make similar progress on the North Korea nuclear issue. Both the US and China, the two most important key players, need to make the right and courageous decisions to ensure the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsular.
Let’s hope we are moving to a more peaceful world from now on.
The world needs a sensible compromise and real progress in nuclear non-proliferation.
Both the Americans and the Russians have made some sensible steps recently, starting with the Americans’ decisions not to build missile defence system in East Europe and Russia’s decision not to deploy missiles in its western territory.
It is an important start. The world is expecting more solid development to consolidate the progress on world peace in general and the Iran nuclear issue in particular.
Once there is progress in that front, we need to make similar progress on the North Korea nuclear issue. Both the US and China, the two most important key players, need to make the right and courageous decisions to ensure the denuclearisation of the Korea peninsular.
Let’s hope we are moving to a more peaceful world from now on.
2009-08-31
Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
Comments on Ron Huisken “The DPRK wants a new venue, a new game” and comments by Leonid Petrov, 28/08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/28/the-dprk-wants-a-new-venue-a-new-game/
The two issues, namely, the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons (nuclear disarmament by existing owners, especially the US and Russia) and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation, should go hand by hand.
But the latter should be effectively enforced, so there is no escalation in the number of nuclear weapons, or an increase in new nuclear weapons. In this regard, it is important for the international community to denuclearise the Korea peninsular.
The current state of play does not have any effective means in controlling proliferation and that is dangerous and a pity.
The two issues, namely, the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons (nuclear disarmament by existing owners, especially the US and Russia) and the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation, should go hand by hand.
But the latter should be effectively enforced, so there is no escalation in the number of nuclear weapons, or an increase in new nuclear weapons. In this regard, it is important for the international community to denuclearise the Korea peninsular.
The current state of play does not have any effective means in controlling proliferation and that is dangerous and a pity.
2009-07-16
Whatever they are from, no nuclear weapons should be in Japan
Comments on Tobias Harris “Who’s afraid of the conservatives in Japan?” 15/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/15/whos-afraid-of-the-conservatives-in-japan/
While North Korea's nuclear program poses a threat to every country in the East Asia region, why does it improve Japan's security by having US nuclear weapons in Japan, given that Japan has been under the US nuclear umbrella?
It should be noted that the 1960 secret agreement was made during the cold war era, obviously. It reminds people of the Cuba missiles crisis in 1962, not too long after 1960. If it were not a secret agreement, the Cuba missiles crisis may have had been different.
How did the US take the missiles in Cuba then? Why didn't it allow them to stay there? What are the implications of having US nuclear weapons in Japan for other countries in the region? How China and Russia will react, given that the way the US reacted to the Cuba missiles? Will it be a stabilising or destabilising to the regional security?
While it is important to prevent nuclear proliferation, to have US nuclear weapons in Japan would hardly contribute to that cause.
It would be a much more serious regional security issue than just that of a reaction to the North Korea’s nuclear program and would have much wider implications. If that happens, it would have the potential to shift the focus away from North Korea to a whole new issue.
While North Korea's nuclear program poses a threat to every country in the East Asia region, why does it improve Japan's security by having US nuclear weapons in Japan, given that Japan has been under the US nuclear umbrella?
It should be noted that the 1960 secret agreement was made during the cold war era, obviously. It reminds people of the Cuba missiles crisis in 1962, not too long after 1960. If it were not a secret agreement, the Cuba missiles crisis may have had been different.
How did the US take the missiles in Cuba then? Why didn't it allow them to stay there? What are the implications of having US nuclear weapons in Japan for other countries in the region? How China and Russia will react, given that the way the US reacted to the Cuba missiles? Will it be a stabilising or destabilising to the regional security?
While it is important to prevent nuclear proliferation, to have US nuclear weapons in Japan would hardly contribute to that cause.
It would be a much more serious regional security issue than just that of a reaction to the North Korea’s nuclear program and would have much wider implications. If that happens, it would have the potential to shift the focus away from North Korea to a whole new issue.
2009-07-12
North Korea and US policies for the Northeast Asia region
Comments on Scott Snyder “What’s driving Pyongyang?” 11/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/11/whats-driving-pyongyang/
I agree that a positive vision for the future of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia that would clarify US expectations and intentions toward the region is extremely important not only to the North Korea nuclear and missiles issues in the short to media term, but also for the long term regional security and stability.
Ultimately, any products of cold war era should be and need to be dismantled. They include US troops in South Korea, for example.
The US president commented on Russia Prime Minister’s possible outdated thinking in terms of cold war era. The US needs to set the example in doing so and also needs to rid of cold war era thinking and doing. Otherwise, the president would not look credible when asking others to move away from cold war thinking.
The world has changed. So both former cold war foes need to change. This is especially the case for the US, given that the former USSR has long collapsed.
It seems a permanent solution to the Korea peninsular security and stability may need a collective security guarantee of the two Koreas security, and leave the door open for an eventual unification of the Koreas on their own terms, with no external pressures.
If a collective security guarantee is worked out, then there will not be any need for the US troops to stay in South Korea, because otherwise it would send wrong messages to the region and will not be in the interests of the region.
North Korea is smaller than the South in both the economy and population. If security is guaranteed, the North should reduce its military forces. That will eliminate the needs for the stay of US troops in the peninsular. One would ask what the purpose of their stay would be for.
I agree that a positive vision for the future of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia that would clarify US expectations and intentions toward the region is extremely important not only to the North Korea nuclear and missiles issues in the short to media term, but also for the long term regional security and stability.
Ultimately, any products of cold war era should be and need to be dismantled. They include US troops in South Korea, for example.
The US president commented on Russia Prime Minister’s possible outdated thinking in terms of cold war era. The US needs to set the example in doing so and also needs to rid of cold war era thinking and doing. Otherwise, the president would not look credible when asking others to move away from cold war thinking.
The world has changed. So both former cold war foes need to change. This is especially the case for the US, given that the former USSR has long collapsed.
It seems a permanent solution to the Korea peninsular security and stability may need a collective security guarantee of the two Koreas security, and leave the door open for an eventual unification of the Koreas on their own terms, with no external pressures.
If a collective security guarantee is worked out, then there will not be any need for the US troops to stay in South Korea, because otherwise it would send wrong messages to the region and will not be in the interests of the region.
North Korea is smaller than the South in both the economy and population. If security is guaranteed, the North should reduce its military forces. That will eliminate the needs for the stay of US troops in the peninsular. One would ask what the purpose of their stay would be for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
