There is a complex interplay between issues revolving around global warming and issues that revolve around nuclear proliferation. The more global warming is taken seriously and addressed, the less instability there will be in the world and the less nuclear weapons become an urgent issue. On the other, the nations who do not take global warming seriously are the nations that will contribute to increasing chaos and tensions, and consequently greater concerns around nuclear weapons. The areas of greatest concern are the areas already being dramatically affected by global warming (in the Middle East, for example). The more inaction there is on global warming, or less speed there is in addressing global warming, the more the areas will grow that are seriously disrupted by global warming. There are complex interplays that can't be described in one paragraph.
I give Obama and his administration some credit for seeing these issues more clearly than many nations, and more clearly than many right wing conservatives in Washington.
Spyguy, your second comment makes a comment about nuclear war being suicidal. Although not usually suicidal, even conventional wars of aggression are no longer particularly successful — too many complications get in the way.
These days, only conventional defensive wars seem to have a chance of being reasonably successful. This is a point often missed by today's neocons and their right wing Republican allies (though they still delude themselves that word games can make a war more acceptable).
There is a complex interplay between issues revolving around global warming and issues that revolve around nuclear proliferation. The more global warming is taken seriously and addressed, the less instability there will be in the world and the less nuclear weapons become an urgent issue. On the other, the nations who do not take global warming seriously are the nations that will contribute to increasing chaos and tensions, and consequently greater concerns around nuclear weapons. The areas of greatest concern are the areas already being dramatically affected by global warming (in the Middle East, for example). The more inaction there is on global warming, or less speed there is in addressing global warming, the more the areas will grow that are seriously disrupted by global warming. There are complex interplays that can't be described in one paragraph.
I give Obama and his administration some credit for seeing these issues more clearly than many nations, and more clearly than many right wing conservatives in Washington.
Spyguy, your second comment makes a comment about nuclear war being suicidal. Although not usually suicidal, even conventional wars of aggression are no longer particularly successful — too many complications get in the way.
These days, only conventional defensive wars seem to have a chance of being reasonably successful. This is a point often missed by today's neocons and their right wing Republican allies (though they still delude themselves that word games can make a war more acceptable).