Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Breakthrough on Nuke Reduction?
The Obama administration is considering a major reduction in nuclear weapons to as little as 1,000 warheads each for Russia and the U.S., according to a recent article in The Times of London. Surprisingly, this story has received almost no attention in the U.S. media, although it may represent the most important progress in non-proliferation in many years.
The Obama team will reconsider the Bush administration's plan for a missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe -- a deployment the Russians have strongly opposed, according to the article. Obama pledged during his campaign to open talks with Moscow on the Start treaty, which expires at the end of the year. That agreement calls for both countries to reduce their stockpiles from about 10,000 to about 5,000.
But going to 1,000 would mark a major additional reduction. According to David Krieger, head of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, "This news is not just noteworthy, it could be a game-changer."
The Times quoted an unnamed administration official as saying: "Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty."
"Imagine what a message these talks would send to other nuclear countries," Krieger said in an email to supporters. "Suddenly, U.S. leadership would be unequivocal, and there would be pressure on all nuclear nations to join in the process."
The world's nuclear stockpile stands at about 25,000 nuclear weapons, the vast majority of which are held by Russia and the United States.
This news falls in line with President Obama's promise during the campaign to seek a nuclear-free world:
"I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."There's at least some support for a nuclear-free future from the other side of the aisle. George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration, told me in a YES! interview that he believes the world can be safe from the global hazard of nuclear warfare, terrorism, or accident only by eliminating nuclear weapons.
- Posted in


4 Comments so far
Show AllWhat if the US were to invite the Russians over to develop a common anti-nuke defensive missle? A device that could take out incoming missles, but one never useful for offensive ops? Build 2000 of them, then give the Russians 1000 for their own deployment. Hell, build a million of the damn things, but give the Russians half, and let them select the exact units they take. Include a rigorous mutual inspections program so no one could claim any tampering or conversion to offensive use.
Were these missles effective (a question of course) there would be little incentive for either the US or Russia to have offensive weapons. Once this program was in place, invite the rest of the world to play along. Everyone gets anti-nuke defensive gear, Iran, N. Korea, China, India, Pakistan, all of them.
In short, take ALL the money and effort poured into offensive weapons, and share it globally for strictly defensive equipment used by every nation.
I would hope that eventually offensive nukes would disappear. Later, the defensive systems would be let go as there would be no offensive weapons to shoot down. Then....wait for it...we might have a little peace on this tiny planet.
The main problem with your scenario is that our "missile shield" IS an offensive weapon, designed specifically to enable us to survive and "win" a nuclear war.
Russia certainly understands this, and talks openly about this while strongly opposing the US plan to encircle Russia with "missile defense" weapons.
The Global Network has boatloads of excellent analysis of US strategy, weaponization of space, "full-spectrum dominance", and "winnable" nuclear war. www.space4peace.org
YES!
I never heard what Obama's position was on nukes, but I hope he is very sincere about reducing our nuclear arsenal. Though I voted for Ron Paul instead of Obama, I am still so glad Obama got in over McCain.