The following are editorial opinions from newspapers from around the world which may be of interest to Royal Gazette readers.

The Sydney Morning Herald

on US nuclear weapons posturing

The shifts in the American nuclear "posture" just announced by President Barack Obama are more nuances than dramatic change, but they are important and head in the right direction. For some time Washington's wise grey heads have seen nuclear weapons as less of a security guarantee, more of a risk, once the technology gets within reach of small and unstable powers.

This is still a step too far for the Pentagon. Obama has barred nuclear weapons as a response to attacks with chemical and biological weapons, and for the first time US doctrine has ruled out using nuclear weapons in conflicts with non-nuclear states. But this still leaves North Korea on America's potential target list, and an exception is made for states in breach of their non-proliferation treaty obligations, which means Iran. Nor has Washington embraced a no-first-use policy. According to the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, there has not been enough progress in halting the spread of nuclear weapons for Washington to "limit ourselves so explicitly." ...

It is on our side of the world that nuclear competition is being renewed. China is renewing a minimal force at risk of obsolescence and ineffectiveness against missile defences. India and Pakistan have now been overtly nuclear for 12 years. North Korea has tested a bomb. Iran is creeping towards capability, inviting either a disabling strike or an Israeli declaration of nuclear status, with others in the Middle East scrambling to follow suit.

Obama's nuclear security summit of some 40 world leaders in Washington, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in May, need to come up with ideas to halt Asia's slide into multiple nuclear arms races. Insisting nuclear weapons are reserved for some countries, forever, is not the most persuasive starting point. Obama, if not all his countrymen, has seen that.

The Denver Post

on the US Supreme Court nominee

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who has served commendably for 35 years and is the leader of the court's liberal wing, probably won't change the ideological balance of the court.

But his departure sets in motion a political battle that will last for months. The timing, with the run-up to midterm elections, ensures the process of nominating his successor will be politically charged.

Senators need to keep in mind that their job is to determine whether President Barack Obama's choice is qualified to serve ...

Whatever calculus the president employs to choose a nominee, it is imperative that he select someone who is thoroughly qualified to serve on the nation's highest court. That, of course, will be a topic for the Senate to explore, and we expect its members will fully scrutinise the president's nominee.

We hope the president gives great consideration to the many qualified female jurists out there, given there are only two women on the nine-person bench. ...