Nuclear Tipping Point

Thank you for ripping and sharing this. I am looking forward to watching it.

This is not a crticism, just a tip. You might get better results by ripping the source directly to mp4 rather than first DVDShrinking it.

"Nuclear Tipping Point is a conversation with four men intimately involved in American diplomacy and national security over the last four decades. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write two Wall Street Journal op-eds, in support of a world free of nuclear weapons and the steps needed to get there. Their efforts have reframed the global debate on nuclear issues and, according to the New York Times, "sent waves through the global policy establishment."

No offense, but any program in which American government officials like the ones listed above, who are all part of the bureaucracy and machinery of imperial operations that sanctions and implements American state violence, especially the likes of mass-murderers and war-criminals like Henry Kissinger, pontificate on threats of nuclear weapons, sounds like pure pro-American drivel and American state propaganda.

Not to mention there is the sheer chutzpah and gall of government officials of a country that has been the only one insane, barbaric and racist enough to use nuclear weapons, and that on a civilian population, and one with the biggest nuclear arsenal on the planet and one that continues to develop monstrous nuclear weapons, of blathering on about the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.

ROFl

Just another thing to take away the attention of the real problem.

Al Qaeda is not the real problem on this planet but US/EU militarism is.

I haven't seen this piece, so don't know how good it is. But my natural response when I see names like Kissinger and the funding sources (Hoover, Carnegie etc) the piece has, is extreme scepticism. Just as the recent PR event has shown, the convention was basically another tool to put pressure on Iran.

I too would be horrified if nuclear weapons were used again, either by terrorists or state-terrorists. So surely the goal should be a world FREE of nuclear weapons, not a world where nuclear weapons are only possessed by the major powers.

It seems the US now wants to get other countries to store highly-enriched uranium and other left-over pieces of nuclear weapons and enrichment in the United States. I detest nuclear weapons, but in light of recent development where Russia is trying to create a deal where enrichment uranium is sent to Iran instead of them producing it themselves, this should have people's alarmbells going off.

A solution where the US have 'monopoly' on nuclear technology is hardly going to promote peace or energy security.

And as to Obama's 'vision' of a nuclear-free world: It is simply a lie. He has no such goal, whatsoever. Even this deal with Russia allows 1,550 nuclear weapons. Enough to destroy the world many, many times over. The reason they do this is simply due to costs. It's very costly to maintain 10,000+ nuclear warheads, some with ageing technology, so it makes sense to reduce it to more manageable numbers.

This has nothing - nothing - to do with removing nuclear weapons from the military's arsenal.

Just as a small token of evidence.. If the US were interested in a world free of nuclear weapons, why are they voting against UN resolutions trying to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East?

Thanks for the film and the comments.

I pretty much agree on the hypocricy. Didn't Obama just promise not to use nukes as a first strike weapons against non-nuclear states, of course except Iran. Others are still valid targets for a first strike. I wish Russia or China would be crazy enough to use similar language. lol

Sure it is important to try to make sure that they are not used and to try to limit the number and availability etc. But there is so much BS going on. One could do something other than help India or Israel to maintain and develope nuclear weapons.

Didn't mrs Clinton announce that 3 billion dollars is budgeted to modernize nuclear weapons while Obama was bullshitting about limiting the arsenal.

Haven't heard numbers, but that wouldn't surprise me. Same with the UK last year or so. Developing new NWs for the subs I think it was. This at the same time as pressure is brought upon Iran, who we have ZERO evidence is actually developing nuclear weapons. No wonder Ahmadinejad, as crazy as he is, says the West talks with two tongues.

Just imagine if Pakistan or China said something similar.

"We won't use nuclear weapons against other states, except India."

"We won't use nuclear weapons against others, except Hong Kong or Tibet."

Even if a cure for cancer and AIDS was developed tomorrow, the media outcry would smother it.

When the US says it, there is silence. Nobody even points out the dual standards, let alone problematizes it.

As mentioned I haven't seen this film, but a documentary that talks about nuclear issues that doesn't focus on this double standard is pretty much worthless in my opinion. It's the huge pink elephant in the middle of the room that nobody are allowed to talk about.

I can for example note that an organization Alyn Ware, winner of the 2009 Right Livelihood Award (an *actual* peace prize), is involved with are circulating a letter to garner support for getting US tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe.

Earlier they also wanted Obama to state the US would only use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, not a threat. Obama did not comply, still insisting on threatening other states with the use of nuclear weapons.

http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/

If Obama was serious about this, he should have no problem whatsoever with implementing such a policy. Sadly, as we have learned more frequently lately, Obama is a great speaker, but his policy is at least as bad as Bush's.

They both had a lot of goodwill to build on after 9/11 and the election victory, but both are wasting it away with wars and threats of war.

The idea that Obama's little nuclear summit was designed in any way to remove nuclear weapons, and especially American nuclear weapons, is of course laughable. It just isn't factually true, as Pangaea has elaborated on above.

Sadly, it also goes against everything we know about history, human nature and the operation and logic of power-systems: no power-system will voluntarily relinquish its power and advantages. So this isn't about being "anti-American": if any other country was in the same position as the US, i.e., the top-dog in international affairs and whose military technology and destructive capacity dwarfs all nations on the planet combined, I don't see it behaving any differently.

Secondly, it is important to understand that notwithstanding the PR exercise that was the Great Messiah Obama's nuclear summit and the treaty between Russia to reduce their nuclear stockpiles to a more cost-manageable level, this does not preclude the US from continuing to develop nuclear weapon technology, as it has done so continuously since first using nuclear weapons against Japan. Nor does it preclude the US from threatening to use nuclear weapons against countries like Iran as Americans do often with that disgusting, oft-repeated phrase "all options are on the table", which liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton - who is, might I add, another American State department official of the likes that seem to be in this wonderful "documentary" of yours - put her own spin on with her ghoulish utterance: "we will be able to totally obliterate" Iran.

See the piece below, for one example, on the long-held desire and plans by the American government to use bunker-busting "tactical nukes" on Iran. These are newer types of horrific nuclear weapons that the US has developed and which it was actually considering for use against Iran, and possibly still might be; and if not at the moment, I guarantee the next Republican adminstration will put that agenda back on on the table. The cute names like "bunker busters" and "tactical nukes" are propagandistic terms that are used to hide the fact that these are indeed nuclear weapons, and have all the destructive capacity and horrific results as any conventional nuclear weapon:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12363.htm

For a more humorous take on the America's hypocrisy, see this collage by IOZ:

http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2010/02/tsar-bomba.html

Sorry, but the US let the nuclear genie out of the bottle when it decided to drop a nuclear bomb, not once but twice, and explicitly target civilians. It continues to behave belligerently by threatening countries like Iran with nuclear annihilation if they don't bow down and kiss the robes of the current Western Imperial power, i.e, itself. If American government officials in this propaganda piece blather on about nuclear proliferation and don't deal with these issues, this "documentary" is indeed worthless and serves as nothing more than American state propaganda.

I fully agree with you it's a very important issue, and it's good something is finally being done. Leftover nukes from the Soviet era is indeed a big issue. As is nukes attached to US planes who happen to fly about here and there, and many other issues.

But you just can't be as gullible as you come across here. People have been government officials because they have supported state and corporate power throughout their whole lives. Technically some of these people aren't in government anymore, but their views have not changed, and some will surely be in government again in the (near) future.

The goal of these people and the government they (used to) represent is NOT a world free of nuclear weapons. If it is true as you claim that government, especially in the West, these days look disfavourable towards nuclear weapons, why do they keep on threatening other countries with their use?

That para-quote by Kissinger said nothing btw. He is known to be pretty strange in the head, and that quote doesn't exactly deflate the impression of a madman. It's simply something to scare people with. Government people often use that technique to force through whatever policy they want enforced.

Furthermore, if it was true that Russia and China wanted nuclear non-proliferation, full stop, they would ACT in trying to achieve this. This goal of 1,550 nuclear warheads will be the number for years, maybe decades, to come. They could have really stepped up to the plate, and shown the world where their money is, and proclaimed they would destroy ALL nuclear warheads, as is their obligation per the NPT. Instead they, especially the US, are trying to come across as some kind of peace-loving nuclear weapons hater, doing their best to achieve peace in the world, but coming up against the likes of Iran who just don't want peace.

The truth, as often, is the complete opposite.

Just to repeat: Yes, I agree NWs is a terrible threat and they should be removed. But we should also be very aware that this is NOT the goal of the major powers, they have been fighting it for decades, and acknowledge that this move have different goals and motivations than normal human beings would have. They are state managers, and their prime goal in life is to increase state power for the states they represent.

RobF,

that's nitpicking. You know very well that these ex-government officials are part of the same American elite establishment as current government officials, and for all intents and purposes, continue to shill for the American state and amplify government propaganda, whether they're in government or out. They all share the same belief in Ameican Exceptionalism, and the belief in the right of America to dominate the world, militarily and otherwise. They share the same underlying assumptions about the "benevolence" of the American state and of policy planners, and share the same narrow spectrum of ideological doctrines. It's just ahistorical, ignorant, and shockingly naive to not understand this basic fact.

"Much of your argument revolves around the belief that nuclear weapons are desirable to own and are of some use to states. I don't think this belief is shared in high government policy circles anymore, at least not in the West."

This is just rubbish. Of course nuclear weapons are desirable by states. I don't see the West giving up its nuclear weapons in any meaning way. The West knows its nuclear weapons and scientific and technological ability are a source of power, and something to use to threaten countries that don't fall in line, e.g., Iran. The West has dominated world affairs for the last 500 years largely because it won the race to scientific and technological discovery, and then subsequently used that scientific and technlogical superiority to slaughter the "darkies" and conquer the rest of the world in bloody colonial conquest, clambering to the top perch in the hierarchy of world affairs, where the West remains, with the full intention of staying there by beating down any independent state that tries to achieve the same level of scientific and technological advances and that might threaten American and Western hegemony.

"The goal is indeed a world completely free of nuclear weapons and of the technology needed to highly enrich uranium for weapons, beyond the point necessary for making fuel for nuclear power plants. The deal offered by the US and Russia to other nations of providing the fuel needed by them for their nuclear power plants if they forego developing their own enrichment technology (which can easily be expanded to make weapons-grade plutonium) seems an eminently reasonable solution to me."

That's because you're some smug white Westerner living in the comfort and security of the West, and most likely, the US. There is nothing "eminently reasonable" about this solution. No Western state would ever accept such as arrangement if the tables were turned so why do you think countries like Iran should? It's giving up sovereignity and putting the security of your state in the hands of an outside state that doesn't share your interests and the welfare of your people. Why would any state agree to that? You're not the one getting threatened constantly by the US, as is Iran. You're not a state sitting in a region of the world, i.e, the Middle-East, that the West has geo-poltically dominated for at least the last century, and continues to do so, causing great death, destruction and slaughter as a result of geo-political manuevering, power-politics, military internventions, covert-ops, etc. It's just a way to prevent other states from developing the same knowledge and technological capability that nuclear-capable states already have, and a means to keep other states in a subordinate position, and allow the states who currently monopolize nuclear technology to cling to that monopoly, so that, I repeat, these states can then threaten to use nuclear first strikes against countries, e.g., Iran.

The US or Russia don't have a nuclear monopoly anymore, and they know full well that any desire to maintain such a thing will only lead to further proliferation.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the US or Russia know their desire to maintain a nuclear monopoly will only lead to further proliferation. In fact, the evidence is quite the contrary as these states are donig precisely the opposite, which is to try to ensure only they, and favourable client states, e.g., Israel, India, etc, develop nuclear technology, while other states are denied the same rights.

"I don't think it's very intelligent to be cynical and raise the untenable argument that the real objective behind these initiatives is simply a desire by the US for continued superpower domination."

Actually, it's a very tenable, realistic argument based on the actual evidence and track record of the US, and based on how power works, and how imperial states behave. What is stupid, childish and naive is believing the US has somehow changed its spots just because Obama and the Democrats are in power for the moment. Or that imperial states are suddenly going to behave in a different way than they have always behaved in throughout history, which is always to continue their domination at all costs. The American goals of global dominance and hegemony and the belief by American elites in their God-given right to dominate the planet by military means and to slaughter hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of brown people in the pursuit of those goals are bipartisan. Again, it's just ahistorical, childish and naive to not understand that basic fact. It's not "cynical" but realistic to understand the essential continuity of American foreign policy and goals, notwithstanding certain stylistic changes and small differences between one political party versus the other.

"Perhaps Mumbai will be first, with Punjabi officers in the Pakistani army or ISI passing a nuclear device to their Punjabi Muslim brothers, nephews or uncles who are affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (who were behind the horrific 2008 Mumbai attacks). Or Moscow getting hit with one of their own poorly secured devices, acquired by Chechnyans. Or New York, courtesy of Al Qaeda or the Taliban and their Pakistani sympathizers."

This is just fear-mongering. I won't speak about the Chechnyan case because I don't know exactly how secure or unsecure Russian nuclear weapons are, but every serious policy analyst I've read and heard from agrees that Pakistani nuclear weapons are incredibly secure, and that the Pakistani army is a secular institution, and a very professional, and capable army. The chances of "Pakistani sympathizers" or the Taliban getting access to Pakistani nuclear weapons is really miniscule. And Pakistan isn't stupid. They know India won't hesitate to nuke Pakistan if India ever suffers a nuclear attack that can be traced to Pakistan. The same logic applies to the stupid fear-mongering by American officials and the American establishment about Iran. Even if Iran did develop nuclear weapons, it would simply be used a deterrent against US and Israeli desire to attack their country. Iran is not stupid. Contrary to the propaganda, Iran's leaders are quite rational and savvy. They would never attack Israel.. at least, not be the ones to initiate an attack on Israel because they're well aware Israel possess nukes and won't hesitate to vapourize their country, as would Israel's God-father, the US.

"Regrettably, the tenor of the commentators here has been one of complete cynicism and whole scale rejection of the initiatives discussed in the movie. I find it impossible to believe that any intelligent person wouldn't agree that the issue of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is one of the most pressing of our times. Finally, something is being done to move in the right direction. Most of the commentators here talk as though we're still stuck in the Bush years. "

Again, not cynicism but realism, and an understanding of America's track-record and behaviour. I do agree that nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is a pressing issue. I just think if the US was actually serious about nuclear proliferation it wouldn't for example.. be helping India to develop nuclear technology! Or allowing Israel to have a monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle-East, and helping to cover for Israel's barbaric treatment of the Palestinians. Or threatening Iran with nuclear first strikes and "obliteration".

As far as being "stuck in the Bush years", there is very little difference between Obama and Bush. You seem to be suffering from the deep delusion that Obama or the Democrats for that matter are substantially different from the Republicans and from Bush. Again, there is no evidence whatsoever to back up that belief, and in fact, there is plenty of evidence, from civil liberties, to Obama's embrace of the Bush adminstration's most extreme veiws on executive power, to even domestic policy and the rewarding of the financial industry and health insurance industries, to suggest the opposite. When it comes to foreign policy, surely you can't be as gullible and naive to believe that Obama and the Democrats are in any way substantially different from their predecessors, Republican or Democrat. The American goal to domiinate the Middle-East and control oil reserves there through military interventions if necessary, to pick just one foreign policy objective, is one that has a long history. Bush and company and their motivations and actions were not particularly anomalous in the long, bloody and brutal track-record of US foreign policy in the Middle-East or elsewhere..it's only their level of clumsiness, belligerence and arrogance that has allowed the ugly underbelly of US imperialism to become obvious. You seem to be a good liberal Democrat .. that's the only explanation I have for your gullibility and shockingly naive assertions.

damn.. seems Pangaea beat me to it...sorry for making the same points as Pangaea made above (and more concisely) but I was typing up my response just as he was typing his.

RobF,

please watch this Bill Moyers interview with Juan Cole about Pakistan, which I hope will allay your misplace fears about Pakistan becoming a failed state anytime soon, and about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05152009/watch.html

Juan Cole is a highly respected expert on the Muslim world and knows what he's talking about. He's actually lived in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan, and he doesn't have a particular ideological agenda, which cannot be said for the ex-government officials, ghouls and American war-criminals that feature in this documentary. Please note also that this interview was conducted in 2009 when the American media and American establishment, from government officials to right-wing think tank "experts", were blathering on about the incipient collapse of the Pakistani state just because the Taliban had won some minor victory and temporarily taken over some Pakistani town. All that fear-mongering by the American media and think-tank "experts" turned out to be completely wrong, which is not surprising, considering most of them have no idea what they're talking about. They're just interested in advocating for more war, more slaughter of Muslims, and to provide justifications for the American occupation of Afghanistan and even an expansion of American military intervention in Pakistan.

The point is that I don't understand how any non right-winger would trust American ex-government officials or American establishment figures, such as the ones in this documentary. Even if they're not trying to be deliberately deceptive, they view the world through a very limited ideological lens, which is one that seeks to defend American power and dominance first and foremost. They are either incapable of, or just not particularly interested in understanding the root causes of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. What they want is security for themselves but none for the people outside the American empire and the West. They want the US to have its cake and eat it too, i.e, be able to control the world for the benefit of the US, be able to slaughter Muslims and Arabs with impunity, and not face any consequences. Like you, they only care about the security of their own countrymen and state but don't want other states to have the same security and ability to deter American and Israel attacks. This doesn't seem like a real solution to nuclear proliferation and terrorism to me. That is why I wouldn't trust anything these American establishment fucks have to say.

RobF,

first I apologize for my tone and if I got personal with some of my comments. I appreciate your substantial, thoughtful points and I'll try to do my best to respond to them.

you seem like a fairly reasonable person.. but citing some minor Guardian article whose main source is Harvard University really doesn't prove anything about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. You seem intelligent enough to realize that I hope. Even that Guardian article says that both the American and British government are quite satisfied with Pakistan's security measures for its nuclear weapons.

And that's before we even get into Harvard University, that bastion of the American establishment from which many American war-criminals, mass-murderers and imperial managers have graduated, including Obama. Give me a break, please. That Guardian article is hardly definitive proof of anything. The American academia is quite notorious for its ideological biases and rigidity, for serving American state and corporate power and for serving as training grounds for mandarins of American power, i.e., liberal and conservative intelligentsia who provide intellectual rationalizations and ideological cover for American imperialism, aggression and mass-murder. In fact, if Harvard University says something, you should believe the exact opposite.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that based on Harvard University's track-record, one should be very skeptical of any claims it makes. Who are the people behind this report? What is their ideological agenda? Who funds this "Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs" and what the credentials and backgrounds of the alleged "experts" on Pakistan who wrote this report? Have any of them lived in the Muslim world, and in Pakistan? As I said already above, why in the world would any intelligent person trust anything by these American foreign policy "experts" and by the American elite establishment considering their track-record for supporting military aggression, for rationalizing American and Israeli barbarism (see Alan Dershowitz for a prime example of these Harvard luminaries), for providing ideological cover for American imperialism, and for being almost always completely wrong about the regions of the world, such as the Middle-East and the Muslim world, they profess to be "experts" on?

"The US couldn't possibly use nuclear weapons, and therefore any threat of using them is empty and will be seen as such. Do you really think the US could or would use nuclear weapons against Iran? Under what circumstances? I'm not talking about bunker busters; lets focus here on the real menace, i.e. high yield nuclear bombs."

really? You really think US would never use nuclear weapons against Iran, or some other country in the future? Why are you so sure about that? It's easy for you as a white Westerner living in the US to be so sure about that..but one should ask people on the other side of the American empire who have their countries bombed and their people slaughtered by American bombs, missiles and robot-drones if they share your certainty. As I said already, your country is the only one insane, racist and barbaric enough to use nuclear weapons.. and one that continues to develop even more nuclear weapons. Given that track record, why would any reasonable person think it wouldn't use nuclear weapons against some other country in the future? You seem to dismiss the whole bunker buster issue as if it's some minor thing..but they're still nuclear weapons and have all the attendant dangers of nuclear radiation and fallout. Sorry, but no, you don't get to dismiss bunker busters that easily. As I've already said, the Bush administration was seriously considering using those weapons against Iran. A country like Iran should take such information seriously, as they should the constant threats by the US and Israel to attack their country.

"If instead of merely providing training, weaponry and logistics to Lashkar-e-Taiba, these rogue elements in the Pakistani army were to provide a nuclear device to be detonated in an Indian city, how could India respond to this effectively? It would be as difficult to identify the culprit as it was in the case of the Mumbai attacks, and in the absence of instantaneous definitive identification there would be no justification for a whole scale retaliatory nuclear attack of Pakistan by India - if there ever were such a justification. It's simply absurd to envision such a scenario. I.e. Pakistani nuclear terrorists would get away unscathed. Deterrence doesn't work anymore in such a situation."

Look, everybody knows the Pakistani intelligence has contacts with the Taliban and with groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. But make no mistake about this: these fundamentalists are an asset to the Pakistani army, and the army and ISI decide how to use them, not the other way around. The Pakistani army and ISI use them against India in the conflict over Kashmir, for one, and more recently, in the Mumbai attacks. Now, do they have full control of these terrorist groups? Of course not. That doesn't mean though the highest levels of the Pakistani army would ever allow extremist elements access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. As I said already, by all accounts, the Pakistani army is a secular and highly capable and professional institution.

It is one thing for the Pakistani army to use these religious fanatics against India, and it is a whole another thing to provide them with nuclear weapons. As I have said already, every serious policy analyst, including those in the US and British government, are quite satisfied about the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. The idea that the Taliban are going to get access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is insane. I suggest you try and think this through rationally and look at the facts instead of succumbing to propaganda and fear-mongering.

Your second fallacy is equating the Mumbai attacks with a possible nuclear attack against India. From everything I have read and seen, India was quite tempted to attack Pakistan in retaliation for the Mumbai attacks.. It felt quite justified to do so as it had evidence of Pakistani intelligence connections to the Mumbai terrorists. The only reasons it refrained from doing so was because the Indian government realized it would probably be counter-productive in the long run so they exercised wise self-restraint. However, a nuclear attack is a whole other thing. Under those circumstance, it seems likely all bets would be off, and the rage of its nationalist Hindu movement and its citizens would be so great that it would probably find it quite justifiable to launch a whole-scale nuclear attack on Pakistan. And if I understand this, I don't see why Pakistani intelligence and the Pakistani army wouldn't understand it either. As I said, the Pakistani army isn't stupid. So I disagree with you that deterrence would not definitely work in this situation.

RobF,

"Aside from that one dumb remark Hilary Clinton made about obliterating Iran which she made while she was campaigning as a presidential candidate, trying to appear tough and appealing to the Jewish and redneck vote and NOT SPEAKING as a government official which she wasn't at that time, I'm not aware of any nuclear threats made by the US to Iran. Since you claim they exist, please provide the source. Where and when did Obama or Clinton (as secretary of state) threaten Iran with nuclear attack, and under what conditions?"

All I had to do was google "nuclear first strikes iran" and I came up with so many articles about Obama's recent nuclear summit about which you seem so sanguine and celebratory about. Here's just one article from the WSJ:

U.S. Keeps First-Strike Strategy

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304620304575166263632513790.html

Here's just the first paragraph. I suggest you read the whole article to understand what the US is really upto with that nuclear summit. Here' a hint: it's not to give up its own nuclear weapons but rather to prevent other countries like Iran from developing nuclear technology so that the US can continue to threaten Iran with nuclear-first strikes, and prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology and a deterrent to US and Israeli threats and plans to attack their country.

"WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations."

Here's another article from the Globe and Mail:

Obama’s new nuclear strategy maintains first-strike option

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/obamas-new-nuclear-strategy-maintains-first-strike-option/article1525600/

"Under the policy, the U.S. will not launch a nuclear attack against any country that signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and abides by it, a loophole leaving both North Korea and Iran on any potential target list. It also pledges not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries, officials said, in contrast to previous administrations, which reserved the right to retaliate for a biological or chemical attack by a non-nuclear state. But Mr. Obama included a major caveat: The countries must be in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations under international treaties. That means Iran would remain on the potential target list.
...
"Mr. Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review says the U.S. won’t launch a nuclear attack against any country that signs the Non-Proliferation Treaty and abides by it, leaving North Korea and Iran on any potential target list.

“All options are on the table when it comes to countries in that category,” Defence Secretary Robert Gates said, referring to Iran and North Korea."


Notice the phrase "all options are on the table" by Robert Gates above. As I said already in one of my earlier comments, when the US says "all options are on the table" regarding Iran, it is a threat of nuclear-first strikes against Iran. You are just ignoring facts by pretending otherwise.

I haven't read all the comments yet, but I just want to post this interview from DemocracyNow! yesterday.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/14/was_obama_nuke_summit_necessary_or

He pretty much confirmed my view above. The Kissinger quote is ridiculous and only intended to raise fears about (non-state)terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons. The reality is very different. It's nigh on impossible to get their hands on them (even in Pakistan), and even if they somehow did, it would be virtually impossible to assemble them, let alone actually making it explode in a mushroom form.

Thanks for the discussion with Cole and Mufti. Was very interesting. And again it highlights the absurd image the Western press and people like Kissinger are trying to paint of Pakistan and the Taliban.

They're always trying to create Satans and Good Guys. The world isn't that black and white. There is of course the issue of the US often being the Satan, but also that you can't pin all kinds of movements in the world on these two extreme ends of the spectrum.

Also, Taliban is not a homogeneous group only filled with extremists who want to implement a strict form of Sharia law. There are moderates and there are extremists, just as in any kind of social group or movement.

RobF,

are you seriously saying that the US see no use in nuclear weapons any more, and are therefore trying to get rid of them all?

If they see no use in nuclear weapons, why do they keep up this sharade about preventing Iran of getting nuclear weapons?

As already mentioned above by Temptation, the US constantly threatens other countries with the use of nuclear weapons by the "all options are on the table" phrase, so I won't address that any further.

And btw, if Obama's position is that the US can use nuclear weapons against non-signatories of the NPT, even if they currently don't have nuclear weapons that would ELIMINATE Iran from the category, and it would INCLUDE Israel.

So that is clearly not the qualification for inclusion or exclusion. I am increasingly believing Chomsky's notion that world affairs work much like the Mafia. Do as we say and you're fine, go against our will and suffer the consequences.

At the end of the day, this is why Iraq was attacked, and this is why the US are threatening Iran with attack.

Personally I don't think the US will attack Iran in the near future. US troops are too busy running 3 wars in the region, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. But more importantly, Iran can actually put up a bit of a defence. The last thing the US wants is a war that will inevitably kill thousands upon thousands of soldiers. We know the US public would quickly turn against the war then, even though they've been submitted to massive amounts of anti-Iran propaganda over the last few years. I think the US are pursuing the same path as they did with Iraq. First smother the country and its economy with sanctions, then see where that leads. If the leadership finally succumb to the dictats of Washington, fine, we may allow them to breath again. If they don't, there is the option of invading them further down the line, when they're virtually incapable of defending themselves.

If, and this is a massive if as we have no evidence to support it, Iran are trying to assemble nuclear weapons, you can be 100% sure it will be as a deterrent against a US or Israeli attack. You are quite correct, I think, that nuclear weapons of the 'normal' form will not be used, not even by the US. But you are very mistaken if you believe nuclear weapons have no role to play. There is no way Iran or anybody else can KNOW the US will not use nuclear weapons again. They are not dumb people, they saw that Iraq was just a sitting duck and was eventually attacked. If Iran were able to get a massive deterrent in the form of a nuclear bomb, the US would think twice about attacking them, as a nuclear bomb just might drop on Tel Aviv.

As mentioned, there is no evidence to support US propaganda about Iran trying to acquire the bomb, but if they are, this will be the reason - as a deterrent against US attack.

Lifting the eyes a bit further, I think the mention above of Western technology dominating world affairs is very apt. What scares the West the most is not the fact that Iran are not following orders, but that they are developing technologically. Yet again, it's the "threat of a good example". If countries in the region see that Iran are able to defy the Don and develop their technology and economy along the way, others may want to stake out an independent path as well. Nobody likes to be a slave to foreign interests.

Leaving the other discussion behind (been done to death anyway I guess), what programs can do this in Windows?

It's been years since I did this and can't remember what I used. Can DVDShrink do this directly from .VOB to any kind of format, like avi, mpg, mp4?

Can both Handbrake and DVDShrink do this from mounted DVDs? I assume so, and seem to remember that working with DVDShrink back in the day when I did this.

I also prefer to watch on a big screen. Unfortunately the TV-in stuff on my old TV (must be 10 years old now) doesn't work any more. But I bought a 24 inch widescreen a couple of months ago, so it's great to watch on the PC now. Can't sit in a comfy sofa, but still..

so, do away with the nukes that have cost trillions to make,-will cost trillions to decommission- that kept the peace allegedly, and they can start costly wars again.