Nuclear Warhead

In its inability to signal a true commitment to nuclear disarmament, virtual deterrence is hardly ideal. But it sounds like a step in the right direction, right? Wrong.

In a cruel joke at a time of supposed disarmament, the CMRR promises to be the most expensive construction project in the history of Los Alamos.

The light shining on the safety of nuclear energy as a result of the Japanese nuclear crisis has been of such powerful wattage that it's even flushing safety issues with nuclear weapons labs and manufacturing facilities out of hiding.

We're under the gun: we need to make use of the nuclear taboo as a springboard to disarmament before its expiration date. But there exists another nuclear taboo against discussing the destruction caused by nuclear weapons.

No matter the short term benefits to security, when the West severs the ties that bind disarmament to nonproliferation, it further undermines the trust of the developing world and long-term prospects for international security.

With hawks always willing to poke a stick into the hive of U.S.-Russia relations, it's folly to think that just because the Cold War ended that we've been inoculated against nuclear war with Russia.

The incarnation of "sexy," that is, that cropped up a few years ago: exciting or trendy in a general, not erotic, way. That settled, let's move on to ...

Perhaps bewitched by Tea Party-style incoherence, Republicans guided by Jon Kyl have placed themselves in the unlikely position of bucking the national defense establishment, to which traditionally they've been joined at the hip.

Odds are, with the Cold War consigned to history, you couldn't have imagined that a nuclear weapons facility of such immensity was still on the table.

In their rush to make President Obama look weak, Senate Republicans may, many believe, be weakening national defense.

Remember: how ever pro-nuclear those opposed to New START may appear to be, they're voting against a measure that Secretary Gates and the Pentagon support.

As with almost all mainstream opinion pieces about U.S.-Iran relations, there's no mention of the United States pursuing a policy of nuclear reciprocity -- that is, disarmament.

With its insinuation that they're less invested in the peace process than the United States and Israel, U.S. ambassador to the IAEA Glyn Davies's gloating is an insult to the Arab states.

If threatened with nuclear attack, should a state, especially one that characterizes itself as founded on a respect for human rights, threaten to retaliate, thus ensuring massive loss of life on its own as well as the aggressor's side?

"Nuclear deterrent" is what the good guys retain for emergencies; "nuclear weapons" are what the bad guys wield -- or seek to. Thus 'nonproliferation' has come to invoke nothing but a double standard.

The acclaimed new film Countdown to Zero may serve the purpose of alerting neophytes to the full extent of the danger of nuclear weapons. But for others, it's best viewed while wearing a hazmat suit.

In part, "the rush to sanctions [was] hurried forward to torpedo the Turkish and Brazilian" nuclear fuel swap deal those states brokered with Iran.

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.

As those in the disarmament community are well aware, the International Atomic Energy Agency is wrought with a deep fissure.

At a time when the international spotlight seems trained on North Korea and Iran, a growing tolerance for India's belligerence in building its nuclear capabilities appears to shield it from similar scrutiny.

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.