A New President and a New Generation Seek a Nuclear Weapons Free Future

An important article appeared today in the Washington Post. It lays out the "philosophical shift" from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration on nuclear weapons policy. Last month in Prague, Barack Obama committed to seek a "world without nuclear weapons" in a historic shift from many previous administrations. In that vision, the new president is now joined by prominent voices from some of those past administrations. A group of prominent former officials -- Republicans George Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger, and Democrats William J. Perry and Sam Nunn -- have written two pieces in the Wall Street Journal urging "setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the action required to achieve that goal... ." Shultz is quoted in the Post as saying, "The subject kind of fell off the table ... Now it's back up in front, because people see the dangers."

There are four upcoming policy decisions where the new Obama commitment could be felt: the U.S.-Russian strategic-arms treaty, an international treaty banning nuclear testing, an agreement on halting production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, and strengthening the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty.

At the same time, a new project was launched last week, led by a new generation of Evangelical Christians, called The Two Futures Project. Its mission is "a movement of American Christians for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. We believe that we face two futures and one choice: a world without nuclear weapons or a world ruined by them. The initiator of this most hopeful effort is Tyler Wigg-Stevenson, who said in the press launch last week, "It's not about conservatives becoming in favor of a liberal issues. It's about evangelicals raising an authentically Christian voice about a nonpartisan issue,"

George Shultz was on the call with the young Evangelicals and said ""What human being thinks that he or she should have that kind of power to unleash that kind of destruction?" I was happy to be one of the early endorsers of this project -- when Tyler first called me about his exciting new idea, I almost wept. The experience of having worked so hard for so many years on the issue of the nuclear arms race, and then having a new generation take up the mantle of that mission is a source of great delight for me, and of thankfulness to God. And having nothing to do with the initiation of it, except just to endorse it, is even a greater delight. The Spirit is indeed at work in this new generation of Christians who refuse to separate their faith from justice and peace.

The juxtaposition of a new president's and a new generation of believer's commitment to freeing the world from the danger, tyranny, and idolatry of nuclear weapons couldn't be more timely. To reverse the habits of the heart, the assumptions, and policies that have dominated U.S. national security policy for more than 60 years will be a monumental achievement. And the pressures against that happening will be enormous. This is indeed a job for faith, and the energetic commitment of the faith community to accomplish this magnificent goal will be absolutely crucial. Perhaps after all the years of struggle on the huge theological and political issues surrounding nuclear weapons, the time for new beginning has finally come to eventually end their threat to our world, our humanity, and our faith.

Comments

[hoosier96]

Yes, great idea. Now for the implementation.

First, we must go back in time and kill everyone who had any hand in bringing nuclear weapon or nuclear science technology to the world. Then, we destroy anyone else going forward who comes up with the idea again.

Then, we will have no more nuclear weapons.

Yep, that should work.

[wallyone]

Amen. I have thought for some time that our government should be made to give us the rationale for having even a single nuclear weapon. Why do we need them? Could any military objective be accomplished with them that could not be accomplished by conventional forces? Under what scenario would they be used? How much is it costing us to keep our nuclear arsenal and what other pressing uses could this money be put toward?

[RoseMerry]

It has been Christians in my life that have justified my countries mad obsession with stockpile enough nukes to make the rubble of the whole world bounce and bounce and bounce beyond belief.

I am sooooo thankful that there are new generation of Christians that take the word of the one who preached the Sermon on the Mount to heart.

There is no such thing as a Christian weapon.

[Zanti]

I'm assuming you mean that, since the U.S. population has consistently voted for war-minded leaders and policies, and given the fact that most Americans are Christians, it follows that Christians are to blame for all of this.

Yes, and most Americans drive cars, watch TV, drink, and own pets. Why not blame those factors for the nuke situation?

[queotic]

Zanti, I think you're ignoring the fact that Fundamentalist Christians are in control of the Republican party and GOPers are the biggest warhawks in the country.

[rich misty]

"There is no such thing as a Christian weapon."

But the cross is a tor/ure instrument.

[ranchomerced]

Unfortunatly wars are now fought by election fraud and the main stream media.

[Tim McAfee]

Although I agree with the concept, anytime I see it's Evangelical Christians quoted, I know it's wrong 100% of the time.

[Tom Fandre]

Too bad. You could have learned something new - from someone with great insight and integrity.

[tnlcallen]

Obviously Bigotry has many faces

[larry278]

You Copulating Christians, aka -ing Jesus Freaks, are a strange lot. Do you not remember the story of R Oppenheimer, aided in developing the US A-bomb, telling Gen L Groves, head of Manhattan Project & head honcho of building of the Pentagon Building, who was concerned about keeping the US A-bomb secret, "You can't keep a law of nature secret.". That was during WW II. The USSR got their own A-bomb in the later 1940's, thanks to Klaus Fuchs & others. Cut to the chase, Pakistan developed an A-bomb. A Pakistani top scientist shared Pakistan's A-Bomb secrets with N Korea & other formerly non-nuke nations. There may have been an exchange of money, technology & other considerations. As another commenter said, "The gini is out of the bottle [lamp or ?]". That was a while ago.
Who knows; Iceland & Venezuala, in addition to Iran, now have access to Pakistan's A-Bomb secrets? Are you all going to hold hands while singing inspiring, simple, but catchy, songs too? That could help. You might as well burn incense too. Sing loudly to drown out nay sayers grumbling, "Too little, too late.". or "Useful idiots.".
We skeptics can get nasty.

[Zanti]

Don't know how to break this to you, but skepticism isn't a form of bigotry--it's more like using the logical method, approaching things objectively. Stuff like that. As opposed to penning invective on a comment board. And I wonder if Huff-Po would approve a post against atheists that began with a first sentence like yours? Probably not.

Speaking of skepticism, you're telling us that Jim's peaceful solution is foolish, given that anyone can (and will) develop the A-bomb--secrets of nature can't be kept under wraps. In which case, there's no "too little, too late." If Jim's idea is a bad one from the start, as you insist, then the "too little, too late" critique does not follow. A skeptic would have spotted that right away (and this one did). And I don't know in what circles skeptics (even as you define them) are regarded as macho tough guys. Well, except in your own, probably.

[camper65]

Dumbest idea in history! The Genie is out of the bottle, and you ain't gonna force him back in. Adjust to reality! If it weren't for nuclear weapons, Europe would now be speaking Russian and Southeast Asia would be speaking Chinese.

[Peacefullstop]

Jim, you're the best, but be very careful here. I fear that suddenly a lot of very well-meaning young evangelicals are going to feel pressure to support military aggression against Iran as the "first step" in their newfound quest against nuclear weapons. I fear they will hear, "Let's go after Iran first, then we'll really get to work on Russian and U.S. stockpiles."

We absolutely need to work towards nuclear disarmament. Just be careful of the message and the means. After all, these were opinion pieces from the Wall Street Journal, the home page of the Machiavellian.

[Ish11]

That time will come, I believe with a passion. I can't wait for the day when war will be fought by robots against robots. Better yet fought by words. Yeah! One prsident will yell at the other F you! The other says no F you! Oh how about when we fight the Canadians one day with yo Momma war!

[GardenerNorCal]

I pray for the day when there is no such thing as war. What exactly do they accomplish, who gets rich from them? Who suffers from them? Yet century after century they go on with each side swearing a justification. My little local area just held a civil war reenactment with much hullabaloo. Why was that? Why are some adults still glorifying the destruction of life?