Maybe Gordon Brown should reconsider the UK’s role in US Missile Defence and seek to develop a strategy with our allies in Europe (the political parties and the public) to prevent the US starting a new arms race?

http://compassyouth.blogspot.com/2007/12/should-we-reconsider-our-role-in-us.html

They share the goal…. but what are they actually doing about it?

Its an impressive goal, no doubt. and I’m glad Obama is taking the lead on it. Can’t see it coming from our own political leaders frankly.

Obama’s played this very cleverly. The big headline rhetoric is a world without nuclear weapons. This may appeal to a lot of people on the left and in Europe but is something I don’t agree with and I doubt would win him support in the centre ground in America.

However his actual policy proposals are perfectly sensible. Reducing nuclear proliferation, securing loose nuclear material and reducing (but not removing) existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons are things which most people will agree with even in America.

Shariq,

How can you say that a speech that explicity says:

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

is some sort of rhetoric?

It either means what it says, or Barak Obama is a liar. And I’ve never seen him lie.

You cannot hide behind policy when you have a clear cut statement like that.,Whatever your personal attraction is to nuclear bombs. What is it with folk like you? My ability to blow you to bits is my moral right, or something?

Douglas, note that it is only a ‘goal’ and therefore not as clearcut a promise as you seem to be interpreting it.

No serious politician will take sweeping unilateral action, so it is clever use of language by Obama to plot a course between either extreme, although it remains to be seen whether it is empty rhetoric or backed up by something more meaningful.

It is undeniable that he is a skillful orator, so it would be interesting to find out if his verbal dexterity is matched by tactical fluency as well as knowledge and acceptance of his personal limitations.

He has shown the ability to think on his feet and condense his use of words in a way which hasn’t created any hostages to fortune yet. In getting to this position so young he has shown far-sightedness and in getting to this position now he betrays his qualification of a certain ruthlessness. So far, so impressive, but the exponential risk for him grows in that the requirement to conciliate is removed from him as he rises in popularity with every small success.

thomas,

I never imagined that the US was going to go unilateral. What kind of idiot do you think I am? It is, though, objective setting. And, as an objective, or more importantly as a pursued policy, it is completely admirable. Especially as it is coming from the next POTUS. If anyone on this planet can set an agenda it is the President of the USA,

We’ll need to see what transpires from this, but shariq’s negativism, and to some extent your own, should cause you both to question what you stand for. I think Barak Obama has outlined a sensible course for humanity. Any arguement there?

DC, don’t think youre an idiot, just over-hasty sometimes. Maybe it is possible to admire the intended purpose, but some restraint should sensibly be shown in linking intents and purposes.

Where I stand is opposed to duopolistic politics represented by the Rep/Dem split which creates forced choices that never truly satisfies anyone – particularly when defining questions like nuclear weapons are not a simple two-way matter of either/or peace or war.

What Barack Obama has done in this case is to reaffirm previous intentions in a way that hints at a new method of productive bargaining without making any promises, so I remain to be convinced that these words can or will be followed up in any meaningful way.