In a nuclear war involving as few as 100 weapons anywhere in the world, the global climate and agricultural production would be affected so severely that the lives of more than 2 billion people would be in jeopardy.
From our provincial position, 'evil' nations like North Korea should not have dangerous weapons. From their provincial position, our possession of nuclear weapons provides a practical and moral imperative that they have equally deadly capabilities.
Is there an emotional connection between the oceans and the pursuit of peace? For whatever reason, peace ships have been increasing in number over the past century.
There's no debating we would all be better off if there were less and better-guarded highly enriched uranium and plutonium. But the summit missed an essential point: "Nuclear security" is an absurd proposition in a world bristling with more than 17,000 nuclear weapons.
Some have suggested that if Ukraine had retained their nuclear weapons, Russia would not have invaded and captured Crimea. This is absurd.
The idea that the world we create at a personal level can influence if not determine the sort of world we create at the national and international level seems naïve, perhaps, unless one looks at the default alternative, consigned to us by the media: that our role is to be a spectator in the global wrestling arena.
Apocalyptic imagery has again lost its attraction through repetition over the past several decades. The use of a post-apocalyptic setting has now become fairly well-established in fiction.
I don't advocate armaments, but the Ukrainian and global community's impotence to release Russia's grip highlights the practical value of nuclear energy and weapon-based deterrence. This lesson is not lost to foreign policy and military strategists around the world.
Much depends on Russia's motives, in particular whether it is seeking to keep the peace, as it claims, or if it has an aggressive, expansionist objective.
Two decades since the end of the Cold War and more than a dozen years since September 11th, our outdated nuclear weapons policy is an anchor dragging down our military -- wasting money on yesterday's Cold War threats while ignoring today's 21st century security needs.
If psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, the current status of nuclear disarmament can best be described as psychotic. U.S. policy on nuclear disarmament is at best a mixed bag; that of the other eight nuclear armed powers is not much better.
After the Cold War, the American self-image became that of the "sole superpower." We were the only 800-pound gorilla in the world, and therefore we could do what we pleased without having to worry about any other country's ability to stop us. Russia, under Putin, is reasserting itself as the second weighty gorilla in the room.
As costs for our nation grow, there are areas where we can cut spending. The first place we should start is with our unnecessary and expensive spending on nuclear weapons that are more suited for the Cold War than the strategic challenges we face today.
Why does American culture use the A-word so promiscuously? Perhaps we've been living so long under a cloud of doom that every danger now readily takes on the same lethal hue.
The scary thing is that this could still happen today.
The letter will be a blow to efforts to advance a rumored non-binding resolution in the House that would attempt to derail the negotiations with Iran set to begin again on February 18.