America's military and civilian leaders believe we have many more nuclear weapons than we need, regardless of Russia's arsenal. Why should we maintain an oversized force just because Russia's conventional forces are weaker than our own?
The high cost of nukes should motivate us to do what we should be doing anyway -- getting rid of weapons that serve no useful purpose and do far more harm than good to U.S. and global security.
The Obama administration has a lot on its plate at the moment, from North Korea to gun control to immigration to ongoing budget battles with the Congress. But despite these challenges, it can and must vigorously pursue the president's stated goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.
The last thing we should be doing at this point in our history is indulging Turner's "proliferation posse." At a time when our safety depends on reducing global nuclear arsenals, their ideas are dangerous, unnecessary and unaffordable.
It has been interesting to hear just about every Republican presidential contender claim that he or she is the true Reagan heir.
If you're not terrified by the statistics of military error (and there are plenty of close encounters) you should be in awe of the fact that world leaders will spend $1 trillion in the next 10 years on nuclear weapons.
The Republican-controlled House is hell-bent on crafting the perfect predator state, one that can wage war without the least need to entertain doubt or acknowledge conscience.
Less than a month after Obama got Osama, House Republicans still don't trust the president to safeguard U.S. national security.
If there is a problem with New START, it is that both sides will still have too many warheads, not too few. New START makes sense as a first step towards deeper reductions in nuclear arsenals, not as an end in itself.
There's one less threat to America this week, but there are 21,000 others waiting to explode. That's the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia.
One of Ronald Reagan's most powerful and living legacies was his dream of a world free of nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering this upcoming sixth of February, the centennial of his birth.
Creative writers and artists who spend their lives crafting narratives have long understood that we do not so much create a story as discover it. As President Obama demonstrated over the last month, the narrative of politics is not very different.
Given the title of this essay, perhaps you expected a commentary on North Korea or another vilified U.S. adversary and violator of all human decency. Actually, I was referring to Jon Kyl.
The New START agreement was a victory for Obama, key members of Congress, the arms control and disarmament movement, and ultimately, all of us. But that was then, and this is now.
President Obama's move to the political middle, by extending Bush tax cuts and unemployment insurance for millions of out of work Americans, offers his best hope for re-election in 2012.
You'll excuse me now if I'm not buying the sudden increased interest the GOP has in listening to the American people. They never for one second respected the results of the 2008 election.