An Early Victory for Obama Leadership
Every era creates its own legacy. The least worthwhile legacy of the Cold War is nuclear arsenals. They provide no meaningful deterrence to terrorists. No war plans envision their use. They serve no military or diplomatic purpose.
Very soon, against the backdrop of international banking crises and restructuring of soaring social safety net obligations, the new Obama administration must look for meaningful victories that are affordable and that increase security. Of the achievable goals, none could come closer to making the world safer than the reduction and possible eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals.
Arms reduction negotiations were not vigorously pursued during recent years. Strangely, the end of the Cold War made getting rid of nuclear weapons less, rather than more, important. To the skeptics who question whether elimination of the worst weapons of mass destruction can be accomplished, the question has to be asked: Why not?
Within the first Obama term, the U.S. and Russia could readily agree to overall ceilings of 1000 nuclear weapons each. Military commanders on both sides clearly understand this is more than enough to obliterate each other and still have plenty left over to destroy most of the rest of the world. As verification of the destruction of excessive weapons takes place, both sides then have political and moral authority to call upon the Chinese, the French, and the British, and other nuclear states, to begin dismantling their arsenals, and negotiations can continue to reduce overall numbers, step by step, even more drastically.
This is not a military problem. Even the most hard-line strategist admits we don't have any use for our current nuclear arsenals. It is a problem of political will and determination, and leaders who wake up one day and say: Let's do it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Having said what I just said, one word should have been "than" rather than "then."
Also nuclear waste and its containment and disposal is a far far more dangerous concept
to us all than the weaponry. As a species, we seem far more tolerant of gradual erosion of
our health and liberties than we are to accept drastic changes. Unfortunately the usurpers
are aware of this and have used threats, fear mongering and other NLP techniques to
change our society and commerce, without having to actually create physical damage.
That is, unless one subscribes to "false flag operation theories." There is a great possibility
that some or many of these have actually occurred but investigations have been suppressed.
The "than" was understood, at least by me.
I am amazed that people think that somehow the nature of the human species has changed.
Just because we can get to places fast in airplaines and broadcast propaganda globally via
satellite, does not mean that we have become a more peaceful species. We are fortunate that the
only two A-bombs used on populated areas were dropped in 1945, when the destructive power was lower than the megatonnage that is available today. I believe that, as horrible as nukes are, they have
prevented the aggregation of troops and massive invasions of nations. They have changed the nature
of warfare from physical and destructive to economic and psychological warfare. Besides, there is no
need for invasion to exploit people, when there is a system of commerce which allows virtual domination
without the mayhem, for the most part. If nukes are eliminated there will be "ether" weapons, sonic weapons, laser weapons, weather manipulation, biological weapon increases and all other manner
of destructive things, which come forth in the name of "defense."
This is not said to justify retention of the massive overkill numbers of these atomic tools. I am a peaceful person who supports peaceful coexistence. I just do not feel the nature of our species
supports the contention that the world will be better off without vast unused stockpiles of weapons in
caves, warehouses and submarines, then if they were all destroyed. Prove my premise wrong. I don't need to be accused of sporting a new style foil cap.
I support your reasoning, and I think it's unfortunate that humanity is in the position its in, but the reality is as you say: "the nature of our species" precludes the elimination, any time soon, of nuclear weapons, but who says we can't work towards that goal? Amazing things can happen when we get together and seriously try (e.g. the presidency of Barack H. Obama).
Yes. Let's get rid of that garbage before someone makes a spill.
We have to get away from partison talk such as calling a piece of legislation a victory for Obama. Or for the GOP. Needed legislation is a victory for everyone. Calling a piece of legislation a "victory" for anyone will give the opposition an incentive to oppose the next legislation.
Well, you know, of course, that would deprive a huge percentage of the population of the
adrenaline rush they get when they wax as righteously indignant, spew hatred and/or benefit economically from the controvercies.
To actually look at something as a "You AND Me" or a "Win/Win" proposition actually implies there are solutions to be had. Why, that requires compromise...a word being viciously battered
day in and day out by both sides of the human abyss. Where would some of the crusaders and
organizations be if the big issues were looked at through egalitarian eyes? They'd be stirring up
some other pot, any pot–just to be able to cut the bone of contention on their own meat saws.
Also, there is no regression from knowledge. All the nations with the knowledge to create a nuclear weapon can do so whether or not they have them now. What do you do about that? How do you control that? I don't think you can control it, short of a more enlightened humanity, and God knows were a long way off from that now. I think the best we can hope for today is a much more limited arsenal in the various nations.
Nuclear weapons are a curse. Once we saw firsthand what they could do, the idea of using them has been thereafter relegated to the province of despots (if they could get them) and the ultimate saber-rattling--never to be used by any civilized society. The world knows that America, Britain, France and others who have the technology are severely restrained from using it, except perhaps under the most dire of circumstances. This means that the various stockpiles represent nothing more than candles on the military cake, inedible and useless for anything other than show.
This also means that those less civilized nations, like North Korea, Libya, and such are more likely to use it tactically, thus the urgency for prohibition. Call me a skeptic, but I think it's a matter of looking at the situation realistically. America and all the more civilized nuclear powers can get rid of their entire inventory of warheads, but I believe it is inevitable that countries like Iran and Syria will eventually gain access to the nuclear club, just as India and Pakistan have, and North Korea soon enough. For them instead of a curse it will be a bargaining chip that they may have little compunction about playing.
It simply doesn't serve the purpose, in my opinion, to rid ourselves entirely of the weapons, not yet. Drawbacks to just a hundred warheads is not unreasonable, but going to zero is impractical and imprudent in the world we live in today.
Until the US gives up its nukes, we're in no moral position to tell the North Koreans that they shouldn't have them, or to tell India to get rid of their Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Nukes, or to tell Pakistan to get rid of their Easily Stolen Ego-boosting Nukes. If we've got them, we're still a rogue state, just one that's too big to mess with. And until we get rid of chemical weapons, we're in no position to complain that Saddam has them and should be invaded because of it.
And even if we're still scared of the Russians being scared of us, we can still reduce tensions by getting rid of ICBMs - either destroy the things entirely or destroy the warheads and use the rockets for launching satellites or whatever.
Being "too big to mess with" is the point... these aren't going anywhere and to even think about the US giving up ours is beyond crazy...
You need to read the article to which you are responding more closely. Hart calls for a reduction of weapons to 1,000 not to zero (or a hundred, which you state as "not unreasonable"). Why not just say you agree with Hart's reduction suggestion, since it is ten times greater than the point you consider "not unreasonable"?
Also, I question your usage of antiquated phrases such as "less civilized nations". The United States is the only nation on earth that has used nuclear weapons on live targets, two cities full of civilians at that. I don't think U.S. citizens have the moral standing to say which country is more or less civilized.
Conversely, we have a larger moral obligation than anyone to limit the spread of nuclear weapons because we brought them into the field of warfare.
Purchasing new nuclear weapons systems is pointless and expensive and paying to maintain an arsenal of thousands of them is equally wasteful. Hart is correct, the one-time expense of shrinking our arsenal concurrently with the Russians and using that as diplomatic pressure for others to disarm is both financially and militarily practical.
What would you call a nation that forbids its women from education, employment, even dancing in public? What about a nation whose inflation is so high they're printing up trillion-unit bills? What about a nation whose people are forced to starve from time to time but who still treat their leader-for-life as if he were a near deity? What about a nation that supports terrorists in their endeavors against another or other nations? There is nothing antiquated, unfortunately, about the term "less civilized nations."
Mr. Hart wrote:
"To the skeptics who question whether elimination of the worst weapons of mass destruction can be accomplished, the question has to be asked: Why not?"
I understand him as suggesting that nuclear weapons can be eliminated, in our time, by his use of the word "elimination." He goes on to say that, to start with, we can reduce our weapons count to 1,000, and then, through negotiation, reduce it "even more drastically." This is consistent with his statement earlier about "the reduction and possible eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals."
I made no statement supporting the purchase of new nuclear weapons systems, nor did I disagree with the notion that it would be financially and militarily practical to reduce our arsenal along with the Russians.
My only real point of disagreement with Mr. Hart is on reducing the arsenal to zero, but I do not believe we ought not work towards that perhaps fleeting goal.
Just to be clear, I believe we should try to work towards Mr. Hart's goal of zero nuclear weapons, even though I think it's an effort in vain.
under o we;ll be the only country with out em
how is that tinfoil hat working out for you?
Wake-up Lanny and the rest of you... there is no putting the genie back in the bottle... Nukes have kept us all from having a WW3 and no-one is going to get rid of them. The world can't agree on anything, why would anyone think this is different?
It is an understatement to say that having over 3000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal is useless. No point.
Good point.
Sen. Hart,
I don't know if you read comments to your blog, but I did comment once on Paul Reickhoff and received a response.
Are you still teaching that class at the University of Colorado?
Starting in June, I'll be attending grad school for International Studies at the University of Denver, and I was wondering how I could get into one of your classes at the CU Auraria campus.
Cordially of course,
Anderson
Few seem to care much about any of this right now. We've all just got too much on our plates. Our governments only seem able to respond to what are perceived as really pressing needs, and this issue doesn't qualify. Our greatest fear, that there would be a sudden, massive, exchange of everyone's nuclear stockpiles, resulting in total world-wide destruction, is so terrible we avoid thinking about it at all. Consequently, we fail to take some common sense measures that would mitigate the danger. This scenario, however, is quite unlikely. What is really likely, however, is the release of a few bombs between bitter enemies, such as India and Pakistan. Even more probable, a near certainty in fact, is the eventual use of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group. The resultant loss of millions of lives will definitely get everyone's attention, and then this issue will be quickly moved to the front of the line where it belongs.
we should care because we have to cut spending to counterbalance all these financial stimulus plans that are being bandied about. the cost of maintaining a massive nuclear arsenal is a waste of precious tax dollars that can be better spent elsewhere.
Like many, I remember Sen Hart's unquestionable profiency with internation affairs and his long list of contributions towards making this country more secure. Though some unfortunate circumstances ended a presidential run awhile back, I wonder why it is that so brilliant and dedicated a mind is not taking a much more active and public role in the highest levels of consulting and guidance to the new executive. I can think of very few former politicians with the saavy if Sen Hart who could provide the level of sober, calculated direction to an administration which faces so many unpresedented challenges. President Obama should push for Sen Hart and a handful of others...former SecDef Cohen and General C Powell are two other obvious choices... whose post-government careers could be asked to take a temporary back seat to helping guide the Obama team through rough waters. I for one would love to see brilliant men like Hart, Cohen, Powell and others creating a circle of advisors to add to the already formidable team Obama has assembled.
"Though some unfortunate circumstances ended a presidential run awhile back..." Funny... he's a politician and a lawyer... nuff said.
Here's one citizen, Senator Hart, that also finds far greater comfort again having REAL leadership in OUR country that's 'really' working to prevent proliferation and seeking to reduce arsenals, rather than just paying lip service to the subject and pretending it's important. Without continuous serious efforts to track every one of these doomsday weapons and reduce their excessive numbers to something a lot closer to zero, the more likely it will find a way to bite all of us, and OUR world, in the near future's butt. While so many members of Congress believe though that re-election only happens to those bringing home the lucrative defense projects, regardless of porcine odors, the spending priorities mind-set may be very difficult to 'change'. Like most of the green technologies currently, the number of 'industry-backed' lobbyists petitioning to destroy weapons instead of building more is probably few ...to none.
I read yesterday that Russia is now seeking cooperation with the US to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan. I believe President Obama would be wise to take advantage of this overture and begin to work with the Russians. While total elimination of the nuclear threat is not possible, no country can afford to continue the insanity of an arms race, considering the state of the world-wide economic downturn.
The idea of the missile defense system in eastern Europe, a pet project of the Bush administration, only caused Russia to once again take on an aggressive stance. All of their recent sabre rattling could have been avoided by a change in policy. While our new President certainly has enough on his plate, this is one subject that should never be put on the back burner.
Reducing nukes is admirable however, who in the world believes anything our govt. says right now..Obama is going to have to earn everyones trust again.........
Have you noticed that Russia IS EXPANDING their nuclear arsenal once again? China, the same.
Maybe they are just following Cheney's lead;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliable_Replacement_Warhead
Britain is also waiting to upgrade to RRW.
the new arms race ratcheted up when we started talking about putting a missle shield in place in eastern europe.
people figure if you want a shield, you must be planning on becoming aggressive
kind of why certain states ban bulletproof vests. they figure if you want to be bulletproof, you might be up to doing something that might get you shot. ha.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
