As it seeks to modernize its nuclear arsenal, the United States faces a big choice, one which Barack Obama should ponder before his upcoming Hiroshima speech. Should we spend a trillion dollars to replace each of our thousands of nuclear warheads with a more sophisticated substitute attached to a more lethal delivery system?
With no treaty in effect, nations could resume testing nukes at any time. This would cause a major arms race. The risk of nuclear terrorism or accidental launch make nuclear disarmament a very crucial goal for all nations. Japan wants to work with the United States on ending nuclear testing and building a world with no nukes.
President Obama will become the first sitting American president to visit the city this coming May 27. The president is expected to deliver a speech on nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the speech he should give.
President Obama is going to Hiroshima. He could start to save history during his historic visit. Nuclear weapons disarmament commitments and aspirat...
As the first US president to visit Hiroshima, ground zero, you will make history for your nation. But you will also make history for humanity.
Unfortunately, as the president ponders the past, his policies are increasing the risk that nuclear weapons may be used again in the future.
Preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb has been a key goal of Ploughshares Fund and many other security experts for decades. To suggest otherwise -- as David Samuels did -- is absurd.
The reason establishment, conservative Republicans have swallowed their pride, eaten their words, and have held their noses at the prospect of a Donal...
Like his non-barrier breaking visit to Cuba (his "handshake" with Raul Castro says it all), Obama's "historic" visit to Hiroshima will be yet another meaningless photo op that will give new meaning to meaningless photo ops.
The scale of risk is quite different from home to planet, but the frame of mind is identical. A safer home is an armed home. A safer world is an armed world. Neither assertion is true. In both cases, tragic collateral damage is inevitable - a question of when, not if.
We know that nuclear weapons are scary, but we must be much louder in defining them as unacceptable, as illegitimate. By following the money, we can cut it off, and while this isn't the only thing necessary to make nuclear weapons extinct, it will help.
Armed with research and feeling a healthy amount of fear, I dove into the conversation with my colleagues, not knowing quite what to expect. I know I did not expect it to be one of the most satisfying conversations I'd had in some time. In fact, I walked away with several "aha's."
If the U.S. and Russia were successful in cooperating in this important area, they might be encouraged to cooperate in other areas of mutual interest, and, in time, even begin to work to resolve other differences. The security of the whole world would be improved if they could do so.
The president must do more than give another passionate speech about nuclear disarmament. The world needs -- indeed, is desperate for -- concrete action.
Obama got us moving in the right direction, but when you are fleeing a forest fire, it is not just a question of direction but also of speed. Can we get to safety before catastrophe engulfs us?
There has been intense interest on both sides of the Pacific in the possibility of a presidential visit to Hiroshima -- the first by a sitting U.S. President -- so I wanted to share some details on what the purpose of the visit is, and what the President will do.