War of words

Obama rallies against nuclear proliferation

US president speaks against nuclear terrorism as well as posturing by North Korea and Iran ahead of a summit in Seoul.k

Obama spoke sternly against North Korean and Iranian foreign relations regarding nuclear technology development [Reuters]

Speaking at a university in Seoul, US President Barack Obama has said that he is committed to deterring nuclear proliferation, ahead of a two-day summit that will focus on reducing access by terror groups to radioactive material and build a nuclear bomb. "The danger of nuclear terrorism remains one of the greatest threats to global security. That is why in Seoul we need to keep at it," he said in a speech in the South Korean capital ahead of the 53-nation summit on Monday. Obama also assured that the United States can further reduce its nuclear weapons stockpile while maintaining its strategic deterrent and international commitments. Obama told students that he is confident the United States and Russia can jointly reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, building on the successful extension of arms control agreements known as START. The White House said nuclear weapons reduction continues to be a priority in US relations with Russia, and that Obama will raise it with President-elect Vladimir Putin when they meet in May. Obama will see outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev later Monday, on the sidelines of a major Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul. With Medvedev, he signed the current START treaty two years ago. North Korea warning But Obama's strongest terms were directed toward North Korea: "By now it should be clear: Your provocations and pursuit of nuclear weapons have not achieved the respect you seek, but undermined it. "instead of earning the respect of the world, you've been met with sanctions and condemnation. There will be no rewards for provocations. Those days are over. "To the leaders of Pyonyang, I say, this is the choice before you: Have the courage to pursue peace and give a better life to the people of North Korea." Iran warning Obama echoed similar sentiments toward Iran. "There is time to solve this diplomatically. It is always my preference to solve these issues diplomatically," he said. "But time is short... Iran must act with the seriousness and sense of urgency that this demands. Iran must meet its obligations." Obama ended his speech by praising South Korea's handling of nuclear technology in a peaceful and productive way. Neither Iran or North Korea are participating in the 53-nation summit. Obama flew on Sunday by helicopter to a US base on the edge of the Korean Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) to meet troops and take a first-hand look at one of the world's most heavily fortified frontiers. Obama's visit to the DMZ also coincided with the end of the 100-day mourning period for the North's long-time leader, Kim Jong-il, who died in December. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/03/201232621827972261.html 1.      What is the link to Crisis Management? It seems that whenever the term "nuclear" is involved crisis will inevitably follow. In this article the crisis of a world-scale war is alluded toward. Therefore the link here to crisis management is how a clear risk can tip over and become a full-blown crisis or allow cooler heads to prevail and reduce itself to a mere issue and not anymore. The actions taken by North Korea, Iran, and especially America will determine which face this risk will move towards. 2.      What stage of Crisis Management does the system appear to be at? Presently, in my opinion, the stage of this appears to be risk. It is clearly not an issue because it is on the brink on the point of world-wide warfare but is not a full-blown crisis because no country has committed aggressions upon another country. As long as aggressive movements aren't committed hopefully it will not move over to the crisis stage.  3.      How well does the system appear to be handling the situation? The key players seem to be handling it in unique ways. Both Iran and North Korea have allowed UN nuclear inspectors into their respective countries to analyze their nuclear facilities, this shows commitment to peace, but America is not satisfied until both countries eliminate all potential nuclear proliferation abilities. Iran's claim to nuclear power is that it wants to use it as an energy resource, as America presently does.  In recent news Israel has become a part of this trio by illustrating solidarity with America on its mission regarding Iran. Sanctions have been put upon Iran and as a result oil prices continue to increase. Also, through the Strait of Hormuz Iran has been flexing its military power to show the world.  North Korea has thought about eliminating their nuclear ability in trade for food from America, but this effort seems to have gone sour since North Korea wants to launch practice missiles with long-range abilities. America is taking a step in the right direction by illustrating its commitment to losing its nuclear military power by reducing their warheads as Russia will. 4.      What level of crisis preparedness does the system appear to have? It seems that Israel and America have the only crisis preparedness in this situation. Both have anti-missile technology that could destroy nuclear missiles in the air, defending their respective countries. North Korea and Iran on the other hand do not have this capability and would suffer great casualties if a war were to erupt, especially a nuclear war. 5.      What personal reactions/feelings does the description trigger in you? My personal reaction to this situation is that it should be resolved in a diplomatic, peaceful manner, and none other. I would panic at the idea of this situation escalating in the wrong direction. Nuclear power is a very sensitive topic no matter who the nation(s) involved is/are. 6.      What advice would you offer to those involved? My advice would be to let calmer/cooler heads prevail and not feed into the media frenzy of any information regarding this sensitive topic. All the countries involved should show transparency to their country and others to promote peace and illustrate their commitment to it.  To Iran and North Korea, I would suggest to not act in any manner that can be deemed aggressive by any other nation. To America, I would suggest the same and to continue in its own dis-arment of nuclear warheads.