Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

'A Step-by-Step Agenda for the Elimination of Nuclear Arms'

by Jim Wallis 07-06-2009 | 7:30pm
Print
12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

The page one story in Sunday's New York Times is one that I have been waiting for for a long time. "The Long Arc of a Nuclear-Free Vision" is about the vision for a "nuclear free world" of the president of the United States, Barack Obama. It traces how President Obama's commitment to seek a world free of the terrible threat of nuclear weapons dates back to at least his college days, that it has stayed with him ever since, and is now leading to a concrete strategy to gradually reduce and ultimately eliminate the world's nuclear arsenals. It is an important story that should be widely read. The story says that:

In the interview, Mr. Obama noted that he was too young to "remember having to do drills under the desk." But as a student "interested broadly in foreign policy," he recalled, he focused on "a central question: how would the United States and the Soviet Union effectively manage these nuclear arsenals, and were there ways to dial down the dangers that humanity faced?"

I do not think he could have imagined as a college student writing papers and articles that the day would come when he would sit face to face with the president of Russia and negotiate around this question. Even more surprising: that he has been successful. This morning's breaking news is that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to cut their stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third

12 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: SisterMarie

07-07-2009 @ 9:53am

Unlike the president, I was one of those elementary school students who prepared for nuclear attacks by getting down under my desk, putting my head between my legs, and kissing my butt goodbye. It was scary then; it is even scarier now when the megatonnage and number of these weapons have greatly increased. I applaud the progress that has been made towards reducing the number and hope for the day when they no longer exist. No one who has ever witnessed the video of the atomic tests (when the destructive capacity was much less than today's weapons) or who has ever reviewed the graphs in which the effects of these blasts are plotted as a function of the distance from ground zero can ever envision a time when the use of these weapons could be justifiable.

We have no moral standing to urge smaller nations to refrain from acquiring these weapons as long as we continue to brandish them in our inventory.

by: xfree9

07-07-2009 @ 2:11pm

I'm very much in favor of taking whatever steps of action necessary to have a more peaceful world, with a lower threat of violence. I hope our leaders are successful in negotiating a mutual peace agreement for disarming. Our society is managed and controlled by those who have "the most arms," and this is no way to run a peaceful society.

But something scares me about this whole process, and that is specifically, "What if one leader doesn't agree?" What if one leader said they disarmed, and we all disarm... then what? It seems logically and pragmatically impossible to guarantee that every single nuclear weapon will absolutely be abolished, and the knowledge to make it destroyed.

More questions than answers.

by: genie

07-07-2009 @ 4:42pm

I understand the fear that Xfree9 expresses. Isn't that always what has held us back from making these decisions--the what if's? Yet, what if we don't? Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? Isn't that what should be our decision-making guide rather than be paralyzed into in-action because of our fears? I feel so blessed to have had a mentor who always cautioned: Just do the right thing. Leave the rest to God. It's seldom the easiest or the one that seems to make the most sense to the rest of the world who honors might and wealth and "success" and feeding your appetites, rather than doing the right thing.

by: lumens

07-07-2009 @ 10:53pm

"Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? "

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons have historically been used for defense purposes. Also, our leaders aren't all Christians, or even predominantly so. This isn't a theocracy, as I was needlessly reminded hundreds of times throughout the Bush administration.

Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary.

by: SisterMarie

07-07-2009 @ 9:53am

Unlike the president, I was one of those elementary school students who prepared for nuclear attacks by getting down under my desk, putting my head between my legs, and kissing my butt goodbye. It was scary then; it is even scarier now when the megatonnage and number of these weapons have greatly increased. I applaud the progress that has been made towards reducing the number and hope for the day when they no longer exist. No one who has ever witnessed the video of the atomic tests (when the destructive capacity was much less than today's weapons) or who has ever reviewed the graphs in which the effects of these blasts are plotted as a function of the distance from ground zero can ever envision a time when the use of these weapons could be justifiable.

We have no moral standing to urge smaller nations to refrain from acquiring these weapons as long as we continue to brandish them in our inventory.

by: xfree9

07-07-2009 @ 2:11pm

I'm very much in favor of taking whatever steps of action necessary to have a more peaceful world, with a lower threat of violence. I hope our leaders are successful in negotiating a mutual peace agreement for disarming. Our society is managed and controlled by those who have "the most arms," and this is no way to run a peaceful society.

But something scares me about this whole process, and that is specifically, "What if one leader doesn't agree?" What if one leader said they disarmed, and we all disarm... then what? It seems logically and pragmatically impossible to guarantee that every single nuclear weapon will absolutely be abolished, and the knowledge to make it destroyed.

More questions than answers.

by: genie

07-07-2009 @ 4:42pm

I understand the fear that Xfree9 expresses. Isn't that always what has held us back from making these decisions--the what if's? Yet, what if we don't? Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? Isn't that what should be our decision-making guide rather than be paralyzed into in-action because of our fears? I feel so blessed to have had a mentor who always cautioned: Just do the right thing. Leave the rest to God. It's seldom the easiest or the one that seems to make the most sense to the rest of the world who honors might and wealth and "success" and feeding your appetites, rather than doing the right thing.

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 7:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

by: lumens

07-07-2009 @ 10:53pm

"Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? "

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons have historically been used for defense purposes. Also, our leaders aren't all Christians, or even predominantly so. This isn't a theocracy, as I was needlessly reminded hundreds of times throughout the Bush administration.

Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary.

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 5:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 5:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 7:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: SisterMarie

07-07-2009 @ 9:53am

Unlike the president, I was one of those elementary school students who prepared for nuclear attacks by getting down under my desk, putting my head between my legs, and kissing my butt goodbye. It was scary then; it is even scarier now when the megatonnage and number of these weapons have greatly increased. I applaud the progress that has been made towards reducing the number and hope for the day when they no longer exist. No one who has ever witnessed the video of the atomic tests (when the destructive capacity was much less than today's weapons) or who has ever reviewed the graphs in which the effects of these blasts are plotted as a function of the distance from ground zero can ever envision a time when the use of these weapons could be justifiable.

We have no moral standing to urge smaller nations to refrain from acquiring these weapons as long as we continue to brandish them in our inventory.

by: SisterMarie

07-07-2009 @ 9:53am

Unlike the president, I was one of those elementary school students who prepared for nuclear attacks by getting down under my desk, putting my head between my legs, and kissing my butt goodbye. It was scary then; it is even scarier now when the megatonnage and number of these weapons have greatly increased. I applaud the progress that has been made towards reducing the number and hope for the day when they no longer exist. No one who has ever witnessed the video of the atomic tests (when the destructive capacity was much less than today's weapons) or who has ever reviewed the graphs in which the effects of these blasts are plotted as a function of the distance from ground zero can ever envision a time when the use of these weapons could be justifiable.

We have no moral standing to urge smaller nations to refrain from acquiring these weapons as long as we continue to brandish them in our inventory.

by: xfree9

07-07-2009 @ 2:11pm

I'm very much in favor of taking whatever steps of action necessary to have a more peaceful world, with a lower threat of violence. I hope our leaders are successful in negotiating a mutual peace agreement for disarming. Our society is managed and controlled by those who have "the most arms," and this is no way to run a peaceful society.

But something scares me about this whole process, and that is specifically, "What if one leader doesn't agree?" What if one leader said they disarmed, and we all disarm... then what? It seems logically and pragmatically impossible to guarantee that every single nuclear weapon will absolutely be abolished, and the knowledge to make it destroyed.

More questions than answers.

by: xfree9

07-07-2009 @ 2:11pm

I'm very much in favor of taking whatever steps of action necessary to have a more peaceful world, with a lower threat of violence. I hope our leaders are successful in negotiating a mutual peace agreement for disarming. Our society is managed and controlled by those who have "the most arms," and this is no way to run a peaceful society.

But something scares me about this whole process, and that is specifically, "What if one leader doesn't agree?" What if one leader said they disarmed, and we all disarm... then what? It seems logically and pragmatically impossible to guarantee that every single nuclear weapon will absolutely be abolished, and the knowledge to make it destroyed.

More questions than answers.

by: genie

07-07-2009 @ 4:42pm

I understand the fear that Xfree9 expresses. Isn't that always what has held us back from making these decisions--the what if's? Yet, what if we don't? Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? Isn't that what should be our decision-making guide rather than be paralyzed into in-action because of our fears? I feel so blessed to have had a mentor who always cautioned: Just do the right thing. Leave the rest to God. It's seldom the easiest or the one that seems to make the most sense to the rest of the world who honors might and wealth and "success" and feeding your appetites, rather than doing the right thing.

by: genie

07-07-2009 @ 4:42pm

I understand the fear that Xfree9 expresses. Isn't that always what has held us back from making these decisions--the what if's? Yet, what if we don't? Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? Isn't that what should be our decision-making guide rather than be paralyzed into in-action because of our fears? I feel so blessed to have had a mentor who always cautioned: Just do the right thing. Leave the rest to God. It's seldom the easiest or the one that seems to make the most sense to the rest of the world who honors might and wealth and "success" and feeding your appetites, rather than doing the right thing.

by: lumens

07-07-2009 @ 10:53pm

"Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? "

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons have historically been used for defense purposes. Also, our leaders aren't all Christians, or even predominantly so. This isn't a theocracy, as I was needlessly reminded hundreds of times throughout the Bush administration.

Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary.

by: lumens

07-07-2009 @ 10:53pm

"Wouldn't God be honored in our holding fast to the principles of non-violence--the Jesus' way? "

Not necessarily. Nuclear weapons have historically been used for defense purposes. Also, our leaders aren't all Christians, or even predominantly so. This isn't a theocracy, as I was needlessly reminded hundreds of times throughout the Bush administration.

Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary.

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 5:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 5:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 7:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?

by: secondhalfrider

07-10-2009 @ 7:01pm

"Nobody is proposing the destruction of all weapons in the U.S. arsenal, so targeting nuclear weapons for destruction seems arbitrary."

That's kind of like saying, "If we can't cure the common cold, there's no point trying to cure cancer." There are weapons in the U.S. arsenal that can justifiably used in self defense. Nuclear weapons are NOT among them. They are far too indiscriminate, and have such far-reaching and long-lasting effects--not just on today's population on centuries of our descendants--that there is no possible moral justification for their use--even if another country used them first. So if we can't ever be justified in using them--why should we have them?