Submitted by Vilen Khachatryan, Nov 9, 2007 18:09

What is better: nuclear—free world, or political calculations? We passionately teach other nations how to live, while ready to reduce to almost nothing any decent politician who dares to speak up the "inconvenient"truth. Barack Obama may not be the best nuclear specialist, but on the issues of nuclear proliferation he does not play politics, as some politicians do.

What can be better than a world free of all nuclear weapons? My answer is: almost nothing. Unfortunately, there are some journalists who believe that a politician who aims to abolish nuclear weapons from the earth is at least insane. Also, the same people believe that some nations are better than others although they have come up with different terms to cover up their flawed ideology. All of a sudden, some states become "predictable," or "strategically important," and others not so "predictable," or not so important ones.

The presidential elections of 2008 is the best opportunity to unify our efforts and choose a president who will use the presidential powers to rid the world of all nuclear weapons because yesterday's nuclear threat is nothing compared with tomorrow's, as nuclear technology and materials continue to advance and rapidly spread around the world.

Preventing ecological genocide is a fundamental moral obligation of ours, thus it is a totally wrong to discredit the candidates who merely raise their voices in favor of abolishing the nuclear weapons once and forever.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.