Nuclear Taboo

Many of us hoped for more from the Nuclear Posture Review. Still, as with the new START treaty, it may not be transformational, but it is transitional.

Between India's elites failing to see expected returns, masses denied energy and sustainable development and U.S. plans thwarted by the Indian legislature, the India-U.S. nuclear deal has been a lose-lose-lose deal.

The Obama administration is making generous concessions to the nuclear industry presumably, to win votes from Republicans on the new START treaty and other disarmament measures.

The elimination of nuclear weapons is actually consistent with conservative Christian theology.

Thus far, the Obama administration's ideas of financial and health-care reform are, at best, tweaks to systems that cry out to be razed to the ground before reconstructing.

Not a difficult concept, nuclear deterrence means what it sounds like: We don't intend to attack anyone with our nukes, but woe unto he who dares attack us. Still there are subtleties.

Since nuclear weapons were developed, the bulk of the reflection has been over the strategy adaptations for a weapon that can't be used, rather than our tendency to resort to mass warfare.

Many of us who'd just like the world to be free of the nuclear weapons have noticed that President Obama seems to have a soft spot for disarmament. Finally, we can take a deep breath and relax. Right? Uh, no.

What good is disarmament when what replaces nuclear weapons doles out a quality of death that's at last as nightmarish as from a nuclear attack? Our overarching mission is clear.

Has the time come to reverse Reagan's saying and declare "Verify, but trust"? Even David Kay, who led inspections in Iraq, believes that for a weapons-inspection program to work, "a prerequisite is trust."

If telling our nuclear stories contributes to committing the world to disarmament, it will embolden us. In turn, we can replicate that success in realms where we're now mired in impotence.