No single march, of course, will alter the tide of history, but you have to begin somewhere (and then not stop). And to do so, you have to believe that the human ability to destroy isn't the best we have to offer and to remind yourself of our ability to protest, to hope, to dream, to act, and to say no to the criminals of history and yes to the children to come.
The United States simply cannot return to the Cold War days of nuclear tests. We have not carried out any tests since 1992. We need to keep it that way. The alternative is downright scary.
The truth is, as long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not safe. The human and environmental devastation caused by nuclear weapons -- whether by testing, mistake or malice -- is the very reason we need to eliminate them altogether.
At present the U.S. and Russia have the majority of the world's nuclear weapons and also have the deepest experience in verification. However, that reality has limited the world's capacity for reducing the nuclear threat.
Despite the ability we now possess to destroy ourselves and most life on this planet, we have barely begun to question our reflexive violence. Doing so requires looking courageously inward.
"Ban the bomb" is seen today as a leftist cause, with conservatives tending to resist any attempt to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal or otherwise change our dependence on these weapons of mass destruction. Thus, Stanford Prof. Barton Bernstein's op-ed in yesterday's San Jose Mercury News is likely to come as a surprise.
Seventy years ago, the possibility of the apocalypse passed out of the hands of God or the gods and into human hands, which meant a new kind of history had begun whose endpoint is unknowable.
The nuclear weapons era opened on August 6, 1945, the first day of the countdown to what may be the inglorious end of this strange species, which attained the intelligence to discover the effective means to destroy itself, but -- so the evidence suggests -- not the moral and intellectual capacity to control its worst instincts.
This year's RIMPAC (Rim of the Pacific) maritime military exercises have ended, and any attention we've given the biennial war games will quickly turn elsewhere. But before we let RIMPAC drop from view, it's worth pausing to consider what we've just witnessed (or not witnessed, since most of the RIMPAC takes place out of sight).
We must remember the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the clearest illustration of the human costs of nuclear weapons.
For congressional hawks claiming to take a tough line against Iran's nuclear program, cutting off funding for enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency inspections over that program seems like an odd approach. Yet a new bill introduced by the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would threaten to do just that.
This question originally appeared on Quora. ...
The government has determined that Russia is in violation of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. This violated raises the obvious question of what is to be done. In considering its options, the Obama administration has at least two historical models to follow.
The ability to predict outcomes decreases as a system's complexity increases. If we have a gas in a container and remove 10 percent of its molecules, it is likely that we will observe little change: it will still remain gas in a container.
It appears that the key hurdle to a diplomatic breakthrough is a surmountable one: defining the size and scale of Iran's enrichment program throughout the course of an agreement.
The building of new, immensely costly, nuclear-armed submarines by the U.S. government and others may soon raise the level of earlier anxiety to a nuclear nightmare.