Berlin Wall Anniversary is Time to Rethink Nuclear Arsenal
Commemorating a historic event is one thing - actually fixing its legacy is another. Today, the world's attention is on the Berlin Wall. Twenty years...
Commemorating a historic event is one thing - actually fixing its legacy is another. Today, the world's attention is on the Berlin Wall. Twenty years...
The fall of The Wall signified the fall of the Soviet Union, and an end to the Cold War. And while this was of enormous historical import, I fear that future generations won't really pay much attention to it.
The awareness of mortality in 1980s nuke-pop was amplified by the inescapably bleak Cold War reality. With the fall of the Wall, much of the threat evaporated. The music, however, lives on.
I was in Berlin 20 years ago this week. I saw the impossible first-hand: the people of Germany taking down the Wall. Twenty years after, we are at another historic point. Domestically, we see it in issues like health care.
For real progress to be made in resolving the longest-standing adversarial relationship the United States has with any country in the world, journalists would be well-advised to sit on their hands and keep their mouths shut.
It's become commonplace to say we can't put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. There's a grain of truth to this, but it doesn't mean we can't still make complete nuclear disarmament a reality.
I want to tell a story about three women, a golden dove and the pursuit of peace.
Unless nuclear states can shed the Cold War mentality once and for all, it's hard to be optimistic about the long-terms prospects for disarmament.
"Obama can and probably will convince other nations to defriend Iran," said one foreign policy insider who attended the speech. "Whether or not he can convince them to block Iran remains to be seen."
Why, with so much going for him and his country, should the president of Brazil make such controversial choices in his friends? The logic of the relationship with Iran is perplexing.
The US is entering a season of key international negotiations, during which two arms control treaties that have been languishing for years will hopefully be completed.
The argument: In a world held hostage by nuclear weapons, there are smaller aggregate numbers of war dead; therefore, God bless nukes. Or maybe not.
Say the Pakistani government somehow falls to the Taliban. With a maniac at the button, cities in the Pakistani arsenal's 2,500-kilometer range could get turned into vacant lots.
A Personal 'Nuclear Posture Review' When viewed on film, a nuclear weapons test might strike the discerning eye as a rip in the very fabric of exist...
Make no mistake, despite the somewhat tame Nobel committee description, Ostrom's body of work is inherently radical, demonstrably anti-corporate, and implicitly socialistic.
The vitriol against Obama's peace prize and "those Norwegians" who gave it to him is much deeper than the president's lack of achievements thus far; it is based on a fundamental clash of worldviews.
It's clear that Iran's strongest adversary today remains within its own borders. The current Iranian regime has far more to fear from its own people than it does from any foreign powers.
The world should not just close its eyes to Pakistan and say, 'there is no danger, everything is safe.' There is currently a dangerous vulnerability in officials who still sympathize with Taliban militants.
A small group of conservative Japanese defense officials have spread the view that if the United States reduces its nuclear arsenal, then Japan will build its own nuclear bombs.
Now I know a lot of my friends are going to be very happy about this; a new day has dawned, etc. Personally I found it inexplicable. And disturbing. And vaguely annoying.
Freedom can not be delivered from the front seat of someone else's Humvee. You have to end our involvement in Afghanistan now. If you don't, you'll have no choice but to return the prize to Oslo.