Feb 08, 2009
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.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
This article was written for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Sarah Van Gelder
Sarah van Gelder writes "How We Rise" on Substack substack.com/@howwerise and is founding editor of YES! Magazine.
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.
Sarah Van Gelder
Sarah van Gelder writes "How We Rise" on Substack substack.com/@howwerise and is founding editor of YES! Magazine.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.