Can we be allies again?
The Herald reports:
President Barack Obama last night launched a drive to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
Sounds good. Let me known when you have Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and France to agree.
But in the meantime, if the policy of the Unied States is now to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons, then it makes no sense to continue with sanctions against New Zealand for having banned ships with nuclear weapons.
So will President Obama upgrade New Zealand from friend status back to ally, and end the stupid ban on troops exercising together?
1 Total TweetBacks: (Tweet this post)
Tags: Barack Obama, nuclear weapons, United States
April 6th, 2009 at 5:40 am
“So will President Obama upgrade New Zealand from friend status back to ally”
Obama – please consult your autocue and give us an answer
April 6th, 2009 at 7:16 am
My guess is No, he won’t, it seems unlikely that a leftist like Obama would want to be seen rewarding any conservative government on the planet…except Saudi Arabia.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:33 am
My guess is that if you asked Obama directly, he would welcome a return of ally status. However, the underlying reason behind the status quo remains, and that is the military do not want potential adversaries to know which ships are carrying nuclear weapons, and will neither confirm nor deny.
[DPF: That excuse stopped decades ago. It is publicly know no ships except subs now have nuclear weapons]
April 6th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Labour will take credit (On Helens behalf) if there is any improvement in our relationship with the US. “Helen has been working with the US in NY blah blah blah”
April 6th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Well, well said David. It’s posts like this that differentiate your centre-right pragmatic views from those of the further right. And that you don’t pick favourites here emphasises my point: “Let me known when you have Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and France to agree.”
April 6th, 2009 at 8:15 am
The only way Obama is going to rid the world of Nuclear weapons is to make them obsolete. Can we make a more destructive weapon? YES WE CAN!
April 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am
“Let me known when you have Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel and France to agree.”
I assume that means Russia is still on board with that sort of thing…
April 6th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Its ok, the sheep have voted to ban wolves.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Key has summed it up quite nicely:
“It is an ambitious goal and it is not to be under-estimated how difficult it would be to achieve but nevertheless a positive move.”
Now, if a lay person was to say the same thing it could go like:
There is no way that genie is going back in the bottle. It is a warm fuzzy statement that will make headlines around the world and make people feel good about Obama, but honestly, it isn’t going to happen and he knows it.
Besides, would you trust the mental midget from North Korea if he told you all his toys had been destroyed? I sure as hell hope not.
Political points scoring at it’s worst….giving idiots around the world hope.
Next week he will announce the end of all racism in the world and lead a group hug whilst singing kumbai ah…
April 6th, 2009 at 8:23 am
It’s 24 years since NZ announced to the world that it had the most stupid people on the planet, and the most deluded or gutless politicians.. what’s changed?
It’s that enduring streak of stupidity that any other country must examine when it comes to joint defence plans and preferential trade access. And don’t we say there shouldn’t be any preferential trade access?
Have we publicly apologised for our stupidity? Have we admitted that our foreign policy was made around the kitchen tables of the various green and peacenik organisations of Brussells and a dozen other foreign capitals back in the 1980s?
I’m buggered if I can see why the US should treat us as an ally when we remain mired in the nuclear folklore of the past.
JC
April 6th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Great stuff friends with the Yanks again, oh dam will the New Zealand government have to ok that with the Chinese first?
April 6th, 2009 at 8:26 am
As soon as National ends the stupid ban on nuclear propelled ships – then we can talk business. Believe it or not the Americans will be here to help out in a shot as soon as this backwards cold war era policy is dropped.
[DPF: The ban is stupid, but so is the US position. None of their ships are nuclear powered except some subs (won't visit as they have nukes) and carriers (too big)]
April 6th, 2009 at 9:46 am
It seems that the US is unable to afford the nukes. Good
April 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Have to question Obama’s timing on this announcement: in response to a missile launch by North Korea. ANY other time, Mr President…
April 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Have to question Obama’s timing on this announcement: in response to a missile launch by North Korea. ANY other time, Mr President…
Dosen’t matter, the US already has thousands of nukes.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Why is france on your list?
I assume you are only including countries that are not part of the “5 nuclear states”, as per the non-proliferation treaty – which are the US, Russia, China, Uk…and france
April 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
DPF commented on a Clintheine post at 8.26: The (nuclear ship) ban is stupid, but so is the US position. None of their ships are nuclear powered except some subs (won’t visit as they have nukes) and carriers (too big)]
It may of interest that the US Coastguard is at present considering whether its possible new polar icebreakers should be nuclear powered. Russia already uses nuclear icebreakers, and this makes a lot of sense when these vessels may take long periods to break out of ice.
Given NZ reliance on US icebreakers as backup to get fuel and heavy materials to NZ’s Scott Base in Antarctica, this raises the question of whether NZ would be hypocritical enough to refuse US nuclear icebreakers entry to NZ ports while relying on them for Scott Base.
NZ’s opposition to nuclear-powered ships is an ignorant digression from campaigns against nuclear weapons. It’s like banning the use of TNT in construction projects if it is used in aircraft bombs. Nuclear power for ships is safe.
There is hysteria about nuclear energy that even has idiots in at least one NZ city expression concern about a new radiation unit to treat cancer. Let’s hope they don’t start screaming about the very, very mild isotopes said to be used in some fire alarms.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Whops in my 10.30am I should have said smoke detectors rather than fire alarms. Radiation powers them, I understand.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:34 am
This is just an American President making a grand policy statement of unattainable difficulty. Soon any blame it on Bush momentum will be gone from this administration and he needs a higher purpose with which to motivate his supporters. Obama will be doing all the things American Presidents do – making war and raising the size of the national debt – that compromise campaign pledges and he needs to generate passionate support amoung Democrats.
It has been done before. LBJ declared a war on poverty, Nixon declared a war on drugs and GWBush declared a war on terror (after the compassionate. Poverty, drugs and terrorism are all still with us – nuclear weapons are equally assured of a longterm existance.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Well SAID, JC at 8.23.
The longer NZ persists with this antinuke law, the more stupid we look and the more wrongheaded we look.
Who thinks our glorious, noble stand has made a scrap of difference to Pakistan or North Korea or Iran and their approach to the nuclear weapons issue? We are just an example of someone too irrelevant and miniscule to make any difference, posturing as though we are big and relevant enough and have made a moral choice having weighed up the options. Bunk. If we were big and relevant enough, we would have the maturity that goes along with size and relevance, to think clearly about the issues.
Who thinks our stand has made a scrap of difference to France, Sweden, Japan, et al; and their approach to meeting the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol? (By building lots and lots of nuclear power plants).
DUH. DUH. DUH.
This issue and the “iconic” nature of it is one of the most glaring indictments of our national psyche. As Professor Paul Callaghan, (possibly NZ’s most-awarded living scientist) says, we can’t call ourselves a “knowledge economy” and go on with this costly sophistry.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Oh, Libya abandoned its Nuke program, I wonder why? Did Jeannette Fitzsimons go and talk nicely to them? Or did the Bush administration wave a big stick at them?
April 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Jack5:
“……There is hysteria about nuclear energy that even has idiots in at least one NZ city expression concern about a new radiation unit to treat cancer. Let’s hope they don’t start screaming about the very, very mild isotopes said to be used in some fire alarms…..”
Jack5, the NZ Fire Service actually sued Greenpeace back in the 1980′s over their use of scare tactics about radiation from fire alarms.
The way NZ-ers have been duped and dragged around by the nose by the propaganda of what are basically nihilistic commie agitators on the whole nuclear issue, is just sickening. We should give Prof. Paul Callaghan and a few of NZ’s other brightest minds a few hour-long slots on primetime TV to put this completely straight. The role of the media in not simply letting facts be known, is an indictment on their true agenda.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
That was an interesting case, but it was notable that they did not make regime change part of their demands.
April 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
# goodgod (1165) Vote: Add rating 7 Subtract rating 0 Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 8:15 am
The only way Obama is going to rid the world of Nuclear weapons is to make them obsolete. Can we make a more destructive weapon? YES WE CAN!
”
Speaking of making nuclear weapons obsolete, or at least obsolescent, the US has been working on the anti-ballistic missile system , combined with research into weaponised lasers, for a reason. It is this research that Russia but most importantly the likes of China, Iran and N Korea loath because it makes their only effective deterrence useless except on those nations without it such defences, and puts them at a stark disadvantage when faced with the fact that their conventional forces, although large, are in no way capable of large scale offensive operations beyond their own borders.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Oh, Libya abandoned its Nuke program, I wonder why? Did Jeannette Fitzsimons go and talk nicely to them? Or did the Bush administration wave a big stick at them?
North Korea? Pakistan? I ndia?
April 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I can’t recall OBAMA making this sort of commitment during his election campaign. (though maybe he did). I wonder how the morale of the USA armed forces and the army vets has been impacted.(again I don’t know). I did note that he qualified his speech near the end by saying “It might not happen in my lifetime” which reduces the whole speech to meaningless waffle.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Actually, Stuart Mackey, I believe (and am glad if it is true) that the USA already has the technology to deal with ballistic missiles, they just have kept mum about it, sucking everyone into thinking they are “still working on it”.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The US doesn’t have to change its policy for little old NZ – we are not more special than anybody else. NZ just needs to pull its head out of the sand if it is really serious about re-engagement with the Americans.
April 6th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
THe socialists totally ripped us off with the nuclear ban
We probably lost close to billions over the yearsa from allied servicemens pockets
If people knew how much Liarbour wouldn’t see the treaury seats for 100 years.
THey would have the gall to say security is more priority than money, but lets point to the billions they’ve stolen off Kiwis’s over the years.