nuclear nonproliferation

Candidate Donald Trump did the seeming impossible: get elected president while speaking truths that shocked establishment policymakers. Such as criticizing the defense dole for South Korea, one of Washington, D.C.'s, most sacred sacred cows.
Trump has asked, if we have nuclear weapons, why we would not use them, either ignoring or ignorant of the very serious threat to mankind's existence that stimulating a new global nuclear-arms race, much less use of nuclear weapons by the U.S., would bring.
The nuclear powers have not kept their part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty bargain. While the US and Russia have dismantled many of their nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War, they retain thousands of them, enough to destroy the world many times over.
Donald Trump and his reckless refusal to disavow using nuclear weapons is a threat to all life on earth. It's that simple. Ask yourself, would there be any more Memorial Days if no one is left to mourn? No.
"Amongst those nations like my own that own nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them," he said.
Nuclear weapons disarmament commitments and aspirations which, date back to the first resolution of the UN General Assembly
Too many countries have diverted their attention toward massive programs that modernize their nuclear weapons stockpiles, jumpstarting a potential arms race when the focus should be on reducing nuclear materials and ameliorating the threat of nuclear terrorism.
You can't always get what you want. (That's why it's called "negotiation"...)
News organizations love anniversary stories, and if for some reason you haven't heard, it's the 70th anniversary of when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Despite all this coverage, however, I didn't notice any stories that bothered to mention the fact that the Obama administration wants the U.S. government to spend as much as $1 trillion over the next three decades on a new generation of nuclear weapons.
A little over 70 years ago, Paul Olum stood with his colleagues in the desert near Alamogordo, NM. They had spent the last few years designing the first atomic bomb. Six days after the bombing of Nagasaki, World War II was over -- and Paul Olum became a lifelong advocate of nuclear arms control and disarmament.
Those who oppose deals like this often proclaim a binary world of simple good and evil, which we don't have -- and believing so is a dangerous illusion.
As before, disarmament is the most divisive issue also this year. While most non-nuclear-weapon states consider nuclear disarmament a matter of urgency, the nuclear-weapon states predictably regard it as a long-term goal, or mere "vision," at best.
Twenty-six years after the end of the Cold War, the world still has more than 15,000 nuclear weapons. Whatever other issues people care about -- poverty, the environment, inequality and so many others -- if we don't get this one right, and soon, nothing else will matter.
If and when a 'framework agreement" is concluded, here is my latest "Field Guide" to assess whatever may emerge tonight, tomorrow or whenever.
As one of the few speakers at the conference to defend the administration's approach to Iran, former top State Department
Dean Smith clearly touched many individual lives, but he also affected the world in which he lived. He was especially committed to fighting racial discrimination and wasn't afraid to speak out against the nuclear arms race, and he publicly opposed the death penalty -- all issues that didn't have great support in his environment.
We must remember the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the clearest illustration of the human costs of nuclear weapons.
Recently a group of disarmament scholars and policy experts met in New York to honor Peter Weiss, President Emeritus of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, for his lifelong commitment to a subject of permanent gravity that often remains in a political, legal and generational stalemate.
In a nuclear war involving as few as 100 weapons anywhere in the world, the global climate and agricultural production would be affected so severely that the lives of more than 2 billion people would be in jeopardy.