For many progressives, the Obama presidency has become a battle of trying to figure out how to celebrate historic achievements while at the same time dealing with disappointment.
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.
Russian and American leaders say nuclear war between the Cold War rivals is now unthinkable. The exercises, held mostly on
WASHINGTON -- A blue ribbon commission headed by a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces Tuesday called for an end to "Cold
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.